Esther Taylor (ET) purchased Vine House (a registered property) from Joel Morgan (JM) whose family had lived in the property for decades. Vine House was bought by ET with the intention of living in the property and for her start – up childcare business. ET bought equipment and spent money on advertisement in preparation for the childcare business. ET has now been informed by JM that the conveyance contained a covenant that Vine House should strictly be used for residential purposes only.
According to JM, the covenant had existed since her great great grandfather first obtained the property in 1902. ET is not happy because the firm of solicitors who acted on her behalf did not tell her that such covenant existed.
ET bought the property because of a large storage unit (see plan – ANNEX B) located within the boundary of the Vine House where she intends keeping the childcare equipment. ET initially planned to use two garages, Garage A and Garage B (see plan – ANNEX B) close to Vine House to keep her childcare equipment. Garage A is currently occupied by a local known as Henry Edward (HE) who uses it as a workshop. There is no paperwork, but HE pays £550 per quarter for the use of Garage A. ET would like to terminate this arrangement. ET’s plan for the future is to develop a purpose-built unit on the grass land near the large storage unit. The purpose-built unit will be used by ET’s childcare business. ET chose the location of the purpose-built unit because it will permit vehicular access to the purpose-built unit without having to use the driveway of the house.
The major issue is that the grass land in which the purpose-built unit is situated is used by David Evans (DE) to graze his pig and another neighbour, Helen Craig (HC) to graze her rabbit. When ET is ready to commence development of the purpose-built unit, she wants to discontinue the grazing animals on the grassland. JM told ET that DE’s grandfather had an informal oral arrangement which started around 75-years ago to graze animals on the land. DE had since been grazing on the grassland.
As regards HC, she asked JM if she could graze and keep her rabbit on the land and JM agreed. HC currently pays £60 monthly. Another problem is that HC erected a barrier and padlocked the area connecting her house with the grassland. ET is not happy with this although she has yet to obtain planning permission, this is the area along the path where ET intends to run the access route. HC did not ask JM whether she could erect a barrier. The barrier was erected soon after the agreement in respect of using the grassland to graze her rabbit.
You are a trainee in the firm Arden LLP. Julie William, your supervising partner, has passed you Official Copy of Register of Title of Grange House (ANNEX A) and a hand drawn plan of the property (ANNEX B).
With reference to relevant case law and statutory provisions, advise ET on the following:
- Whether ET will be bound by any covenant and if so, whether the covenant can be removed.
- By considering the status of HE, whether a vacant possession of Garage A can be obtained.
- By considering the status of DE and HC, whether a vacant possession of the grassland can be obtained.
- As regards the area of the land HC erected a barrier and padlocked, does she have a claim to the land? If so, can the land be recovered by ET?