Breach of covenant re use of shared driveway

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Breach of covenant re use of shared driveway

    A settlement agreement was entered into with the previous neighbours after a dispute over the driveway that serves 2 properties. The long lease to which that agreement applies is now held by a company representing the flat owners (including me) in the main building. The "problem" neighbours sold the house - and new "problem" neighbours moved in and were in breach of the parking covenants from day 1.

    All efforts to get these new neighbours to abide by the details of the covenants have failed. This included a notice of breach from the company at a fairly early stage when matters had become serious. My solicitor's input did get them to stop trespassing, although this was accidental as he was outside his specific remit when he raised the issue of trespass with them. Equally "accidentally, in my pre-meeting with him before a "resolution" meeting with the neighbours he pointed out that the agreement does not give the neighbours permission to park a tenant's car on the driveway. That permission was granted to the previous owners and to their successors in title and the only implied permission relates to visitors (in the clause where the neighbours are required to ensure that neither they nor their visitors park anywhere other than in their permitted area).

    We are now at a sort of stalemate and the neighbours are continuing to park in breach of the detailed covenants but in such a way that there is not substantial interference so the company/I seem to have no scope to take this forward legally.

    Having been through all of this before and having "paid" dearly, in all ways, for an agreement which has been ignored and reinterpreted by the new owners to their advantage, I'm reluctant to spend a fortune on further legal advice to find that another provision simply doesn't mean what it says and can be ignored at will. However, I anticipate the property will change hands in the near future and I don't want to have to go through this again (I haven't mentioned the anti social behaviour, which fortunately now seems to have stopped) with either the property being rented to multiple tenants or changing hands and continuing as a mutltiple occupancy residence. The tenant's car is the main reason why the specific breaches have taken place as the owner/occupier rents 2 rooms out and wants to park his car and his tenant's car so that each car can move in and out without the other car having to be moved - not easy/possible if all of the covenants are complied with.

    Does anyone have a view as to whether the owners can simply transfer a right to park to a tenant (who is neither an owner nor a visitor) or whether this is a covenant that can be - perhaps - enforced at the First Tier Tribunal? Or somewhere else?

    The least I'm expecting the company - that should enforce all of the leases and all of the covenants - to do is to issue a new notice of breach so that any future prospective owner should be warned of the covenants - even if the company does nothing to enforce that breach notice. Yes, I'm part of that company but I only have 1 vote.

    I'd be grateful for any sensible advice.

    #2
    Originally posted by EmmaHewitt57 View Post
    Does anyone have a view as to whether the owners can simply transfer a right to park to a tenant (who is neither an owner nor a visitor) or whether this is a covenant that can be - perhaps - enforced at the First Tier Tribunal? Or somewhere else?
    This is really confusing but I am taking it that the above gets to the crux. the answer to that is clearly "yes they can". If a lessee has a right to do something then I cannot see why you think that this right should not also be held by a subtenant of that lessee (unless the lease specifically says that subtenants have different rights with regard to the demise).

    When you say parking "covenants" are you referring to something that is actually in the lease, or some sort of private settlement arrangement?

    Comment


      #3
      The settlement agreements defines the parties to it, it's not a lease and the parties who have been granted permission to use the driveway are not lessees. They are the owners of the subsidiary property (freehold), and as defined in the agreement their successors in title.

      When the agreement was drawn up the owners of the property were a married couple and there was no anticipation that the property would be owned by someone who let it out. There is nothing to prevent it from being let or rooms in it let - but the legal agreement is not a lease and the permissions were only granted to the owners of that property (and their successors in title) by the owner of the driveway which is part of land and buildings (the main house) held under a long lease.

      My solicitor's view was that this definition prevented the owners from allowing a tenant to park there. I'm asking the question as to whether this will be capable of being treated as a breach of covenant based on my recent experience of non-enforceable covenants in what is a very recent agreement.

      There are covenants in leases and not in leases - the covenants I'm referring to are in the new settlement agreement.

      I hope that helps.

      Comment

      Latest Activity

      Collapse

      • ownership of loft space
        katya000
        Hello,I own a long leasehold purpose built edwardian maisonette on the first floor of a 2 storey building.There is a similar flat below me.The attic is directly above my flat and only accesible from my flat.
        my lease includes the roof and i have to maintain the roof and can recover 50% of any...
        19-10-2018, 10:17 AM
      • Reply to ownership of loft space
        Lawcruncher
        If you read this thread: https://forums.landlordzone.co.uk/fo...-in-the-lease= you will see I refer to section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925. In many cases section 62(2)...
        19-10-2018, 11:23 AM
      • Management fees
        desamax
        Hi our lease states the FH can take 15% of total expenditure for management fees.
        They have set up a separate company and have charged ££3.5k on £16k expenditure.
        Is this allowed within the clause in our lease below.
        Thanks

        "To pay the cost of any managing agents...
        07-09-2018, 10:21 AM
      • Reply to Management fees
        eagle2
        Yes, it is better to separate the request for recognition from the request for information, If you expect to apply to the FTT, it is better to have clean correspondence without other issues complicating the matter.
        19-10-2018, 11:21 AM
      • Reply to Management fees
        desamax
        Will do that Eagle, if it helps move thing on.
        19-10-2018, 10:54 AM
      • Reply to Management fees
        desamax
        The request was made alongside the request for formal recognition of the newly formed RTA, that 83% of leaseholders have signed up to, 5 of the 6 flats, There are long running disputes mainly maintenance Issues and fees overcharging on the FH part, that they dismiss but its there in black and white....
        19-10-2018, 10:52 AM
      • Reply to Management fees
        eagle2
        If that is the case, it is a simple matter to send 2 separate emails, one asking for the RTA to be recognised and a second one from a leaseholder asking for the information
        19-10-2018, 10:47 AM
      • Reply to Management fees
        leaseholder64
        He wasn't making the request as a leaseholder, but as an RTA. I don't know why he didn't make a request as an individual leaseholder, but as an RTA, the RTA has to be be recognized by the freeholder, and the freeholder can withdraw that recognition at any time, except if an FTT has ruled that the TA...
        19-10-2018, 10:32 AM
      • Reply to Management fees
        eagle2
        Their response is absurd, as a leaseholder you are entitled to receive the information requested. A separate legal entity appears to manage the property and a reasonable management fee for the service provided may be recovered under the service charge provisions. The freeholder is not entitled to charge...
        19-10-2018, 10:08 AM
      • Reply to Management fees
        desamax
        Thanks Gordon999 we are aware the FH MA are one and the same, I made that point in my first post. What we cant understand is that they think they can do as they please, and to comment we are not fit to be involved in the RTA without is ludicrous....
        19-10-2018, 09:26 AM
      Working...
      X