Which remedy would address a title issue arising from a restrictive covenant breach by the seller?

• A. Retrospective consent/release from the landowner with the benefit of the covenant
• B. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) discharge
• C. Remove the shed
• D. Restrictive covenant indemnity policy

Answer: (B)

Directly removing the burden on the title through a formal discharge order from the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) is the remedy that addresses a title issue caused by a restrictive covenant breach. Under the Law of Property Act 1925, you can apply to the Lands Chamber to discharge or modify a restrictive covenant. This produces a statutory change to the register, freeing the land from the restriction and restoring marketability. While obtaining retrospective consent from the landowner or releasing the covenant could resolve the issue in private terms, they depend on the beneficiary's agreement and do not provide the court-backed cure to the title. Removing the shed or taking out an indemnity policy does not directly cure the land title burden—the shed removal tackles the physical breach, and an indemnity policy only hedges risk, not erase the restrictive covenant from the title. Hence, the formal discharge by the Upper Tribunal is the most appropriate remedy for a title issue arising from a covenant breach.