How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask JGM Your Own Question
JGM, Solicitor
Category: Property Law
Satisfied Customers: 12192
Experience:  30 years experience in property law.
Type Your Property Law Question Here...
JGM is online now

Following on my previous questions could you please look at

This answer was rated:

Following on my previous questions could you please look at a previous case for me and tell me in terms I can understand, in the common man's terms, the result of the case and who won and how were the costs dealt with. I believe the case went to appeal, but on who's behalf? The main thing I am interested in is the Parking aspect related to the restrictions in the covenant. Was the parking for the defendant and visitors allowed to continue to park and where did the rights of way come into it. Did the claimant have to pay most of the costs?
Sorry if all this is muddled , but I am confused because this case is very similar to our own .
In our case there is a restrictive covenant, but it does not state whether we can park , or we can not park. ?
Many thanks again Tom from Trevor
That case said that a restriction on parking was not an absolute restriction but was a prohibition on parking which could impede a right of way.
Costs would follow success although the judgment doesn't really deal with that issue.
The important point is that the wording of the restriction has to be looked at. The court decided there was no absolute restriction on parking because the wording was such that the prohibition was against parking which would impede the existing right of way.
In other words you can't park over the access road.
JGM and 3 other Property Law Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 3 years ago.

Thank you for that answer.

Another question is whether the following is true that somebody told me in relation to a restrictive covenant ( Transfer documents with schedules ) for 4 private houses in a privately owned lane. All detached houses, one owned by myself. :-

If certain clauses in the restrictive covenant have been purposely ignored for well over 20 years , especially in relation to parking until now when we have a new lane owner, somebody said that the covenant could be declared null and void or not applicable anymore?

Could you please confirm if there is any truth in this or any possibility of having a case to do with the covenant as not all residents have lived in their properties for the 20 year rule to apply as to parking on an individual property. Many thanks *****

A covenant runs with the land, not with the person, so it's unlikely that there has been absolutely no use for a continuous period of 20 years. You would have to give me more information as to the specific issues in question.
Customer: replied 3 years ago.

Relist: Answer quality. I do not understand your answer?A restrictive covenant applies to the transferee surelyand myself as living in the property?

Customer: replied 3 years ago.

Sorry I do not understand your answer? A restrictive covenant applies to me as a transferee as owning and living in the property. The owner of the private Lane on which I have a right of way and an access to my property, which is not used by anybody else, is trying to say that I have no right to park. He has recently purchased the lane without informing us.

I bought my property in 2006 and there was no problem then?

As already requested could you explain your situation a little more?Specifically what is the exact wording of the covenant?
Customer: replied 3 years ago.

Under the third schedule -Restrictions & Stipulations :-

11." Not to park or suffer to be parked any motor vehicle owned by or under the control of the Transferee or to permit any visitor's vehicle to be parked in such a way as to obstruct the passage of other vehicles along the roadway shaded brown on the plan or in such a position within the development which obstructs the access of other vehicles to other properties within the development."

The new owner is now saying we have no right to park where we do now which is the only access way to our back garden and then into our house back door. It is between our house, some of our garden and garage . We also cross this way into the side door of the garage and we have a right of way. Unfortunately this access is also shaded brown as well as the main access road. The new owner says this area belongs to him and we should not park there even though we are not obstructing or blocking any other resident in the lane nor have we ever done since we have lived there and can prove it, so we have never broken the restriction. The main access road is kept clear at all times,

and none of the properties are ever blocked from getting to their own access ways, although each access is shown shaded on the plan. We know the new owner does not like us and is being bloody minded . It makes it even worse because he is friends with the residents of one of the properties and he has given them permission to park! Is he allowed to do this? It does not seem right or just.

There's nothing to stop parking as long as there is no obstruction. In fact the wording implies that parking is permitted because of the prohibition on obstruction. You don't need permission to park.