New Lane Case 1

Legal Summary: Burns v Harmony Children's Services Ltd (Leeds County Court, 21 February 2025)

Case Details

• Court: County Court at Leeds
• Judge: Deputy District Judge Brien
• Claim Number: 580MC147
• Parties: Anthony Burns (Claimant, litigant in person with McKenzie Friend - G M Raisbeck) v Harmony Children’s Services Ltd (Defendant)
• Hearing Date: 21 February 2025

Background

The dispute concerned 11 plots on New Lane, Cleckheaton (Title Number WYK567561), is owned by Mr Burns.

The property forms part of a residential development on land originally owned by the vendor of No. 42 New Lane. This is a classic building scheme (scheme of development) under which restrictive covenants were imposed for the mutual benefit of all plots sold on the estate. These are imposed in large part to stop Business (Employees, Associates and visitors) damaging Amenity , causing nuisance and displacing parking and hence diminution of home values. The stigma alone is damaging and this area never used to see a Police car.

The Later Breached Restriction

The restrictive covenants were created in the 1938 Conveyance and the key no business protections in the 1995 Transfer. They require the land to be used as a private dwelling house only and prohibit any business or trade whatsoever. These building scheme restrictions were intended to preserve the residential character of the estate for the benefit of all owners, including Mr and Mrs Burns. The neighbours for decades have all respected the restrictions until now - some 30 years later when a Business targeted the property in full knowledge of restriction - Centuries old ancient common Law rights and equity were to be just brushed aside for profit. Civil Wars have been caused by such actions to violate ancient English property rights. But an elite and Corporate class does not heed the lessons from 1660 , 1670 or indeed 1689.

Timeline at New Lane

• 29 April 2024: Harmony Children’s Services (via a director) submitted an application for a Lawful Development Certificate at 40 Fleminghouse Lane, Huddersfield, falsely claiming ownership.
• 21 May 2024: The identical application at Fleminghouse Lane was withdrawn. On the same day, Harmony submitted the same application at  New Lane, Cleckheaton, again claiming ownership.
• By 4 June 2024: Obtained the deeds for x  New Lane.
• 18 July 2024: Obtained a Certificate of Lawful Use. Fear Period begins.
• 15 August 2024: Completed the purchase of x New Lane.
• 3 October 2024: Mr Burns issued court proceedings. 
• 12 December 2024: Opened the children’s home. ACTUAL BREACH period. Cause of Action 1.
• 23 April 2025: Post expansion to three children - Major incident involving torchlight police searches around midnight with canine units entering multiple neighbouring properties. Cause of Action 2.
• 5 February 2026: Further major incident requiring ambulance attendance, with 6-7 staff cars on site 24/7 for over 9 weeks. Cause of Action 3.
• 1 June 2026: The children’s home remains in operation, with approximately 20 police visits recorded to date.
• 2 June 2026: Upper Tribunal not approached (probably due to Supreme Court binding directives and resident RICS expert diminution reports that will be supplied to the Tribunal to show injury)

Mr Burns’ fears of a breach materialised through this fait accompli opening. The children’s home has now been operating in breach of the restrictive covenant for over 18 months, with each day constituting a fresh and continuing breach, resetting the clock on the 12-year limitation window for enforcement. Mr Burns still holds rights to enforce the Covenant breach now he knows how the Court classifies Cause of Action. He joins ten other people that have enforcement rights.

Pattern of Conduct

Harmony Children’s Services, through a director, employed a similar approach at 40 Fleminghouse Lane, Huddersfield. On 29 April 2024, an application for a Lawful Development Certificate for another 3-bed children’s home was submitted falsely claiming ownership of the property. This application was later cancelled on the same day as the New Lane application, reportedly due to proximity to another care home (Ofsted checks, like the planning certificates issued to break property Contract law, come before purchase).

The Claim

Mr Burns issued proceedings on 3 October 2024 seeking £4,500 in damages for distress and loss caused by fear of a future breach of the restrictive covenant. The pleadings also contained allegations of planning irregularities.

On 4 November 2024, District Judge Hill issued an unless order requiring compliant Particulars of Claim by 4pm on 18 November 2024. Mr Burns filed the amended statement of case on time but served it 10 minutes late.

The claim was struck out by Deputy District Judge Brien on 21 February 2025.

Neighbours’ Strategy

Local residents plan to always keep at least one enforcement action open to ensure the continuing breach does not become statute-barred under the 12-year limitation period.

The neighbours have offered a temporary licence to allow the children’s home to remain open for a further 5.5 years, but this has been rejected. The neighbours are the only party that has shown due care towards the placed children. This ensures the youngest child will reach 18 years of age before any enforcement displacement from enforcement. This is a responsible community dealing with irresponsible Authority , Corporations and Institutions incapable of understanding basic integrity. 

The main Leeds Sets (Direct Access Barristers) declined to assist on this wider case. All online Direct Access Barristers the same. So a perceived blacklist was operating for 12 months. This has now been broken with an offer to help through Barrister Connect. Our target Barrister will be instructed at the merits stage of the case. He has very special (unique case experience) knowledge of what the Law says you can and you cannot do - so he is indeed one of a kind and we greatly appreciate his coming forward when so many have been too weak to advocate for the basic rule of Law.

The Community exchange Christmas gifts with the placed children and the staff now park more respectfully. Dog walking help with neighbours and excellent baking. 

The Business and its Four Directors are the ones that need to be held to Account.

Systemic Concerns – Lawful Development Certificates

The issues in this case highlight deeper systemic problems. In certain local authorities (including Lichfield and its Upper Tribunal case), applications for Certificates of Lawful Use (COLU) for C2 residential institutions (such as children’s care homes) are not published on the planning portal by policy. This allows homes to open as a fait accompli before neighbours or the public are even aware of the proposal.

Our neighbours obtained the relevant documents by Freedom of Information request, which showed the lessee application was correctly filled in that instance. However, the nearest other home in Kirklees with full planning permission has a false ownership planning declaration.

The same permitted development process applies to C4 HMO certificates, another very dangerous Government policy. Additionally, a decades-old fault in the full planning application portal remains in place, and the Minister Mr Pennycook remains silent about that Ownership Certification legal error on the application form process.

This lack of transparency raises serious questions about the rule of law and the practical ability of residents to protect long-standing property rights.

Key Findings of the Court

• The claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action.
• There was non-compliance with the unless order (including the 10-minute late service) and the Civil Procedure Rules.
• The Judge found the claim was brought, at least in part, for a collateral purpose — to pressure the Defendant into making a section 84 application to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

Costs: Mr Burns was ordered to pay £3,000 in costs.

Analysis (1)

Disputes of this nature are normally best addressed through an application under section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 in the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), where beneficiaries have greater costs protection. However, only the burdened party can make such an application, and no court has the power to force them to use the proper forum.

This case highlights the procedural difficulty faced by beneficiaries of building scheme covenants when the party subject to the restriction chooses not to apply to the Upper Tribunal. Corporations appear to be aware that lower courts, such as the County Court, are less equipped to handle highly emotive arguments concerning vulnerable “placed children”, even though they have received binding guidance from the Supreme Court in Alexander Devine Cancer Trust v Housing Solutions Ltd [2020] UKSC 45 regarding fait accompli tactics and strategic breaches of covenant.

The County Court ultimately struck out the claim and characterised Mr Burns’ efforts to compel the Defendant to use the specialist jurisdiction as an “ulterior motive”.

By contrast, a very similar restrictive covenant was successfully modified by the Upper Tribunal to allow a children’s care home through due process, thereby maintaining public trust in the legal system.

This situation can be contrasted with the Upper Tribunal’s decision in Coven Care Homes Ltd v Hockney & Others [2024] UKUT 384 (LC).

Analysis (2) – Nature of Beneficiary Rights & Policy Context

The rights of beneficiaries under a building scheme restrictive covenant are proprietary interests in land. They cannot be extinguished by the County Court and run with the land. Under section 78 of the Law of Property Act 1925, such covenants are deemed to be made not only with the original covenantee but also with their successors in title.

In this building scheme, at least 10 other properties on the estate (plus all future successors in title) hold enforceable rights to uphold the covenants. These are long-established, ancient property rights designed to protect residential amenity. They can group together, they can come one by one. That is the Law.

Residents Note on Costs -

CPR 27.14 2 (g) is rarely used in small claims Court - In this case evidence of the unclean hands (inside the bundle - fraud undoes all) was not viewed before procedural strikeout. The Merit of the Case is indefensible. It consists of a Planning Certificate and a wild interpretation of the restriction from an alternate reality that flies in the face of the expert Tribunal KC determinations at the UT.

Hence any Defence has to be procedural. Every Property Barrister that touches this case should hang their heads in shame when attempting to advocate and cover for it. They all know what has occurred on New Lane and it should have happened next door to them but fate brought this corrupting issue to New Lane, its Councillors and its MP. 

There are growing concerns that current UK Government policy — a Labour Govt. which promotes the privatisation of children’s homes — combined with corporate practices, that is systematically undermining these traditional property protections. It has become yet another Public Trust erosion vector.

Related BBC Investigation: Why illegal children's homes are being paid up to £2m per child (May 2026)

Summary Significance This case demonstrates the strict approach of the County Court to pleading requirements and compliance with unless orders, even for litigants in person. It also illustrates the limitations of using the small claims track for complex fear based proactive restrictive covenant issues. Solicitors legal letter placing on Notice not enough (at a cost of over £1000). When LIP's then seek help , a strange unwelcoming force can be encountered outside the Court , the only way to break that hostile environment and restore weight of Arms of innocent resident versus Corporation is through a solicitor , then the taxi rank system should ensure you find representation (of unknown standard though). 

About the Judge Deputy District Judge Morgan Brien (now full-time District Judge), Trinity Chambers, Leeds.

Profile: Morgan Brien - Trinity Chambers

Lessons from History :