[2007] EWLands LRA_111_2005, 9 May 2007. [2007] 36 EG 202. The appellant (M) owned the freehold of a building, and the lease to flat 1. This included the front garden, and the other flats had right of way for access. The respondent (C) was nominee purchaser in a notice of collective enfranchisement. M served a counternotice requiring leaseback of flat 1. She submitted terms including the right to construct a parking space within the front garden. Parking in the garden had been prohibited by restrictive covenant within the original lease. M submitted that this was reasonable in conjunction with terms requiring payment for any loss of value to the other two flats. She argued that such a term would not depart from the conditions of the covenant as it provided grounds for indemnification against breaches; and that car parking had become more common since the original lease. "Held": M's proposals amounted to compensation of the other leaseholders, and not indemnification under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. The indemnity existed before the appropriate time and not as subsequently proposed to be amended. The construction of a car parking space would interfere with the rights of way of the other flats. The appeal was not heard to discharge a restrictive covenant. Appeal dismissed.