Land Registry - courtyard development issues.

[AmalaJae]

We are a group of seven house centred around a shared drive and central courtyard. Built 2000.

All house deeds state in the covenants that there is agreed full and free access at all times across the shared drive way and central courtyard area.

Except one property has a ‘red outline’ on the plan, in the centre of the courtyard which the owners have taken to mean that this is owned by them and means they can park two cars, across the centre of the courtyard.

This blocks access, prevents other residents turning and prevents access by other vehicles including emergency services. ( ambulance prevented from accessing a child)

Land registry have suggested I seek legal advice around the inaccuracy in the deeds for the other house and the inconsistency between the houses in the development.

Is that correct?
Surely, I can't legally change someone else’s deeds?

I'm confused, should I be expecting more from Land Registry?

Thanks.

The problem with that is the staff change quite quickly as they move on from the hotel and are replaced.

I am going to seek legal advice. This is something I can mention.

I'm assuming that it is the house owner who is at fault ( if the deeds are enforced) as she is the one choosing to let the property as a staff house, knowing that they have more cars than parking spaces. She is possibly also breaching the covenant about ‘one family’ She has been challenged by other house owners and just denies everything and carries on.

"Not to use or suffer to be used the property hereby transferred or any part thereof ar any buildings thereon ...for the purpose of any trade profession business or manufacture or as a place of public entertainment or recreation or for holding a public or political except for a sale or letting sign meeting or for the purpose of the exhibition or display of advertisements by any method whatsoever oe for any other purpose than as a private residence for the use of one and not more than one family."

This to me reads that it should not be let for business purposes.
I wonder if the owner is paying business rates? You could check with the council.

That hatching is inconsistent so try and look at the other neighbours' deeds if you can.

Would a business include that the property is let or is that not the case?.

If not then the house can have individuals living in it. It is under the HMO number of occupants locally.

No.
It refers to a business being carried out at the property. Letting the property itself does not count as a business being carried out at it.

.This is to prevent, noise, noxious fumes etc.

The owner is breaking the “one family only” bit.

It may be the case that the landlord WILL have to pay business rates. As I mentioned check with your Local Council.

thebla.co.uk/running-business-from-a-residential-rental-property/

I feel I'm getting deeper and deeper into this!

My aim is to be able to access my drive and have residents follow the agreed covenants for the shared area (ie only park where you should).

I've not really challenged the tenancy, mentioned it once to the hotel, to have it dismissed.
My own children rent elsewhere to be able to work in a city.

I realise that in this case, this could be a means to an end, however if the hotel pull out of the agreement, the landlord could choose to rent to a family with three cars parked, so the issue would continue.

Next steps, house insurance company today. I am also going to get the deeds for the other houses from LR.

It must be so annoying for you. I guess if a family did move in long term, and you pointed out the covenant, that they would choose not to park in the hatched area to save a neighbour dispute.
It would be good to see the other deeds.

If you have legal cover on your house insurance, speak to them, if an ambulance has issues, would a fire engine? Because that would very much concern your insurance company!