• The post you are reporting:
   
  Paul, to answer you question again, yes we are the beneficiaries of the covenants we seek legal redress from.
  
  Just in case you don't know the act, the relevant section is below at the bottom of this post.
  
  To be quite honest your seeming obsession with our and the car wash site's restrictive land covenants and how we choose to exercise them, I find somewhat strange, unless you have now become the legal advisor to Mr D. Funnell and Mr P. Karim, and you will be handling the defence against our legal actions; if that is so, all will be made clear to you in the court papers.
  
  But if you don't mind, I will say it again, why still not a word from you on the abominable behaviour of DDC re this matter or the danger to the environment this site poses?
  
  Prior to 1926 a restrictive covenant had to be expressly binding on successors in title for the burden to bind the land on transfer. Post 1 January 1926 the presumption is that any covenant relating to any land of the covenantor is capable of being bound by him and is made by the covenantor on behalf of himself and his successors in title and thus binds the land (Section 79 – Law of Property Act 1925).

Report Post

Your Name

Reason