"Uninterrupted access" meaning in a Restrictive Covenant

[edgriff434]

I have a restrictive covenant in place granting me "unrestricted access" to my property, which is residential and not business, which involves me going through a private housing estate. My family sold the land to allow the housing estate to be built, and that is why we have the covenant in place, so that we would always be able to enjoy access to our land. The residents of the estate now close a gate at one end of the estate with unbelievable regularity, ie. if I nip down for ten minutes, I will return to it shut. Can they continue to do this, or could I seek an injunction to get the gate removed, as my understanding of "uninterupted access" would suggest no interference with my right of way? They claim they do it to maintain their privacy, but there is a gate at the other end of the estate which they all use, so is left open all hours of the day - which I believe undermines their argument as to wanting privacy. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks.

[edgriff434]

bednobs - I am dealing with the head of their "residents assosciation". Which is a collection if narrow minded insular old people. I think that the problem is that the law is woolly. On reading "uninterrupted access" one would assume that means "access without anything interrupting it" - a gate interrupts it. I don't mind a gate, but a locked one would be ridiculous. And to return to a point made by whiskeyron - it is for my convenience yes, but it does not inconvenience them. It is more of an inconveniene for them to curtain twitch and rush out and shut the gate with alarming regularity. The whole issue is a mountain out of a molehill, but that is the problem with the residents there.

[whiskeryron]

In these days of increasing crime & housebreaking it is reasonable to have lockable gates to safeguard ones premises,we have a scheme like this which all residents were happy to subscribe to & everyone was issued with a key, every time we leave the area we unlock/lock the gates & every time we return we unlock/lock the gates, ok this means you have to get out of the car to do it rain or not but I think that is a small inconvenience in order to have reasonably safe security, the fact that you ''won't be long'' is neither here nor there.
Ron.

[bednobs]

if you are only dealing with 1 person, can you be sure they are not just advancing their own agenda? how many people live there? You'll probably find that the vast majority don't actually care

[edgriff434]

Ron - Well if they are that concerned they would at least shut the gate which has access to a main road then. Any claims that they are worried about security are undermined by that.

[edgriff434]

bednobs I have no doubt there are probably only 1 or 2 involved, but it really is much ado about nothing. Standard way of things going though and it only takes a small number of people to really wind you up.

[bednobs]

sorry i don't have any solution. How about writing to all the residents (saying what i don't know though!)

[whiskeryron]

//Question Author
Ron - Well if they are that concerned they would at least shut the gate which has access to a main road then. Any claims that they are worried about security are undermined by that.//
Call a meeting where you can discuss this with the residents,I'm sure you could arrive at some sort of agreement.
Ron.

[twix123]

If this gate is mainly seen as security for the estate residents why don't you replace it with an electric one, with you having the remote controls, and/or control from your house, allowing you to open and close it when you wish? If it means that the residents miss out on their enjoyment of a pleasant walk by the riverside, that is their loss, but it would allay their fears of people gaining access to their estate from the river!

[themas]

twix's solution might work, but only if there is nothing in the title deeds of the houseowners giving them the right to use the path/road. As it appears the path/road is on land which is part of the estate (i.e. not owned by you) that is unlikely.

I'm not clear whether your legal advice comes from the solicitor (or firm) who originally drafted the covenant. If it didn't, then you should consult that firm because it does seem that the wording may be unclear &/or incomplete. To be really clear it should ideally state that the benefit is for anyone coming to/from your house, although I suspect that that is something which can be implied into the wording in any case.

I'm inclined to the view that whoever gave you the legal advice either was not knowledgeable about such covenants or just couldn't be bothered to look into the situation properly. If the advice you quote was all they said, then it seems to me to be pretty useless.