NationStates Jolt Archive

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/6329335.stm:

Couple must pay £200k church bill

A couple have been ordered to pay more than £200,000 for repairs to a church, which falls within land they inherited after the death of an elderly relative.
A High Court judge said sheep farmers Andrew and Gail Wallbank, of Carno, Powys, must pay £186,969, plus VAT.
[snip]
Mr and Mrs Wallbank, aged 66 and 59, are liable for the costs under the 1932 Chancel Repairs Act.

The Wallbanks own Glebe Farm, Aston Cantlow near Stratford-upon-Avon, which includes a field called Clanacre.

This is classified as rectoral property and makes the couple "lay rectors" of the parish.

So, because they happen to own a farm that the church encroaches on, they're liable for the repair costs. That makes perfect sense, I think; the Church of England is such an impoverished organisation that it can't be expected to repair all of its own buildings and maintain its vast tracts of land. That would just be unfair, clearly.
Anyway, the maintenance of the Church of England is so obviously in the public interest that the people next-door won't mind one bit being forced to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds to fix it. Everyone has that much money just laying around. It might as well be put to a decent use.

At least the uncaring vandals haven't resorted to the far cheaper option of renting a bulldozer for the afternoon and moving the church...

At least the uncaring vandals haven't resorted to the far cheaper option of renting a bulldozer for the afternoon and moving the church...And boy do they ever regret it..

What the article doesn't say (and what started the huge fees), was that when the original bill came through for £6,000 back in 1990 Mr Wallbank said he would pay as long as there was no legal 'right' to pay. Mr Wallbank argued (last night on the PM programme on BBC Radio 4), that if there had been no legal prescent he would have more than happily have paid up but the answer came back that he was legally responsible to pay, and the church sent thim a bill for £95,000. Since then legal fees have escalated the cost significantly.

I do not agree with the position the church has taken, but it make you think that perhaps when a bill comes through, you should just pay it and be quite.

I do not agree with the position the church has taken, but it make you think that perhaps when a bill comes through, you should just pay it and be quite.

Heaven forbid you should query it if you think you're not - or shouldn't be - responsible!

And I can quite see his point; paying something once to be nice is fine, if you want to. But not querying it if you are legally responsible could mean that, later on, they could dump whatever bills they like on you and there's bugger all you can do about it, because you've already agreed to pay.

Edit: Oh, and welcome to the forum! Your first post was missing animated emoticons, though ;)

What the article doesn't say (and what started the huge fees), was that when the original bill came through for £6,000 back in 1990 Mr Wallbank said he would pay as long as there was no legal 'right' to pay. Mr Wallbank argued (last night on the PM programme on BBC Radio 4), that if there had been no legal prescent he would have more than happily have paid up but the answer came back that he was legally responsible to pay, and the church sent thim a bill for £95,000. Since then legal fees have escalated the cost significantly.

I do not agree with the position the church has taken, but it make you think that perhaps when a bill comes through, you should just pay it and be quite.

Why?! It's a bloody church, for pete's sake. It doesn't belong to them, whether it's on their land or not. If anything, the church should pay THEM for the use of their land! Why would the church have the power to ask them to pay their bloody repair bill? Crazy Brits...

Why?! It's a bloody church, for pete's sake. It doesn't belong to them, whether it's on their land or not. If anything, the church should pay THEM for the use of their land! Why would the church have the power to ask them to pay their bloody repair bill? Crazy Brits...

Nothing that can't be solved with a couple gallons of gasoline and a judiciously placed match.

So, because they happen to own a farm that the church encroaches on, they're liable for the repair costs.
I wouldn't say "encroaches", as the church has apparently been in that field for years before it was there property.
On the other hand, since the Church is making use of land that is legally theirs, couldn't the couple start billing the Church of England for a monthly rent? It is only reasonable, since they've apparently been drafted as landlords, just as it would only be reasonable for them to charge the Church for all the backrent going back to the day they were first sent the repair bill.

Well now, since it's apparantly their church, the thing for them to do is to either start their own religion, or sell it to somebody else who wants to. Are there any British Jedis willing to pick up the bill in exchange for legal recognition as a religion? :D

I wouldn't say "encroaches", as the church has apparently been in that field for years before it was there property.
On the other hand, since the Church is making use of land that is legally theirs, couldn't the couple start billing the Church of England for a monthly rent? It is only reasonable, since they've apparently been drafted as landlords, just as it would only be reasonable for them to charge the Church for all the backrent going back to the day they were first sent the repair bill.

Damn right I'd charge them about £65000 back rent right away!

Damn right I'd charge them about £65000 back rent right away!

I reckon that £12,000 per year, backdated to 1990, would be perfectly reasonable.

I wouldn't say "encroaches", as the church has apparently been in that field for years before it was there property.
On the other hand, since the Church is making use of land that is legally theirs, couldn't the couple start billing the Church of England for a monthly rent? It is only reasonable, since they've apparently been drafted as landlords, just as it would only be reasonable for them to charge the Church for all the backrent going back to the day they were first sent the repair bill.
Or they could sell it to the Scientologists. There's a 'religion' that's not short on cash.

Although the Church of England's property portfolio is worth in excess of £1.5 billion.

Yep. Billion.

Or they could sell it to the Scientologists. There's a 'religion' that's not short on cash.

Although the Church of England's property portfolio is worth in excess of £1.5 billion.

Yep. Billion.

There it is, the money! Second to the Queen, the Church is the largest landlord in the country, and its always about the money! The point about the Glebe's were that they are used in some small part to collect rent to pay for these things (for the church). Now, if this had been pointed out to the couple when the originally bought the land (and here they may have legal recourse to their solicitor for not seeing that the liabilty exists on the land - as i'm sure it is on the deeds/searches somewhere) they could either have not bought the land, or been able to make sufficient preperations to compensate for the additional drain on their resources.

Why?! It's a bloody church, for pete's sake. It doesn't belong to them, whether it's on their land or not. If anything, the church should pay THEM for the use of their land! Why would the church have the power to ask them to pay their bloody repair bill? Crazy Brits...

See above, but basicially, the land has a tithe attached to it. You work the land and earn money, you pay the church. just like feudal times, what is needed here (possibly?) is an abolition of all religions with dieties and replaced with a religion of humanity - a universal faith in human nature and a redistribution of land to suit the wider society at large - not just one individual farmer.