Hello, thank you for your question. My name is XXXXX XXXXX I can assist you with this.
It is a very different thing to have rights-of-way over somebody else's property, then it is to cause damage to that particular piece of property.
A rights-of-way does not give a right to cause damage. Therefore, anybody exercising a right of way, that causes damage along that right-of-way (to the true owners land) must rectify it or pay the costs of rectifying it.
The same principle applies to causing a mess on it, in that that may amount to a common law nuisance, which is in no way hindered by the fact that they have the right to cross the land.
You could, therefore, bring an action in respect of any damage, and secondly bring an action nuisance in relation to any mess that is caused.
I see you have rated bad service and as yet, you have not engaged with me. Can I ask why you think the service is bad please?
I thought there might have been a techincal problem, so thank you for clarifying that.
As to whether you can revoke the grant for this reason - no. You cannot. However, it might be that when properly construed by what the meaning/intention of the grant was, that it does not cover the types of machinery now being used. This might be a tenuous argument, but it comes down to what is actually written into the terms of the grant itslef.
The grant is generally benefitting the landowner, not any particular person, but needless to say, should only be used by those owning the land (or lawfully in possession of it). In your case, he will probably just say that he is doing this for him mother, who has requested him to do so - which is likely to be a good enough answer to this.
Your better route to resolving this is likely to be to treat the damage/nuisance separately and insist on them making good any damage and/or not causing mess.
Technically, no payment does not entitle you to remove access, you just have to sue for outstanding money due to you. You could just withdraw it anyway, and then you have a claim against them as they would again you - so you would claim against each other.
If you did this then you would hope that there would be a quick deal to be done as you would both be right in brining your claims.