Q&As

Can a covenant made under section 33 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 or (any other statutory power) restricting the use of land for a certain purpose be treated as a restrictive covenant which could be challenged at the Lands Tribunal?

read titleRead full title
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
Published by a LexisNexis Property expert
Published on: 17 November 2017
imgtext

A number of statutory provisions (including section 33 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) ACT 1982 (LG(MP)A 1982)) except public bodies from the general principles governing the enforceability of restrictive Covenants and so enable them to enforce covenants despite not owning adjacent land.

Under section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925), a person with an interest in freehold and certain leasehold land can apply to the Lands Chamber of the Upper Tribunal (previously the Lands Tribunal) for the modification or discharge of a restrictive covenant.

LPA 1925, s 84(1) provides:

‘The Upper Tribunal shall (without prejudice to any concurrent jurisdiction

Powered by Lexis+®
Jurisdiction(s):
United Kingdom
Related legal acts:
Key definition:
Covenant definition
What does Covenant mean?

(1) legal safeguard put in place to protect bondholder's interests

(2) underlying promise of the employer to pay contributions to a pension scheme

Read more readmore

Popular documents

Will an application to HM Land Registry to note a lease for a term of more than three years but less than

Will an application to HM Land Registry to note a lease for a term of more than three years but less than seven years, or to register the easements granted by a lease for a term of less than three years, which has been executed using an electronic signature, require a PG82 certificate to be

Easements—obligations to repair and maintain

Easements—obligations to repair and maintainThis Practice Note looks at where the responsibility lies for repairing and maintaining land which is subject to easements and at who is responsible for the cost of its upkeep particularly where there is no express agreement allocating responsibility for

A septic tank serves property X. The neighbouring property Y also drains into the septic tank and has

A septic tank serves property X. The neighbouring property Y also drains into the septic tank and has done for years, although there is no written agreement governing this. The owner of property X accepts that property Y has a prescriptive right to use the septic tank. The owner of Y has never paid

Implied easements—common law

Implied easements—common lawThere are three different ways by which an easement can be implied at common law:•necessity•intended use•the rule in Wheeldon v BurrowsEasements may also be implied by statute under section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925), see Practice Note: Easements—LPA