NTC consider allotment rent increase enforcement Options

[Simon Kirby]

At Monday's Community Services Committee Newbury Town Council are to consider my complaint that this year's allotment rent increase is unenforceable. If you have a spare hour I would be very pleased if you could came along to see first-hand what passes for local democracy in action.

My argument has always been that the rent review term in the tenancy agreement is unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and if that's right it means the Council can't enforce any rent increase. I expect that deciding now that the term is indeed unfair is just going to be too embarrasing for the Council, but the alternative is that they have to take me to court to enforce my eviction, and then it's the judge who decides.

The idea of the Regulations is that they protect the consumer from being exploited by the strength of the supplier's position. Each term of a contract has to pass the Regulations' test of fairness, and if it fails it's as if the term wasn't there.

The problem with the rent review term is that it allows the Council to decide how much to increase the rent by each year and the tenant isn't given any notice of the increase so the tenant can't quit before the increase comes in because she is contracturally obliged to give 12 months notice to quit, and because she has crops in the ground and has already bought in seeds for the spring. It's about as unfair as terms come.

This is what the OFT say

We have serious concerns over terms allowing rent to be increased arbitrarily by the landlord without reference to clear and objective criteria or an independent valuer.

A fair rent term would also include provision for the landlord to give notice of the increase that was long enough to allow a tenant who did not wish to pay rent at the higher rate to leave before the increase took effect. However, such a provision would not necessarily render a rent variation term fair in itself.

Please come if you can. The Council have slipped this into the agenda quietly - I didn't even know until yesterday - so I don't expect any allotmenteers to have found out about it - and the Council have banned the Society from letting me post notices on the Society notice board. I'll be leaving after the item for a drink somewhere so I'd be pleased if you'd join me - no names, no pack drill.

[dannyboy]

There must be more to it than simply opting for self management = saving the council £100k.

If that were the case, the allotment management would have been farmed out years ago.

[Simon Kirby]

There must be more to it than simply opting for self management = saving the council £100k.

If that were the case, the allotment management would have been farmed out years ago.

Well you tell me? Even if there was a sniff of a chance of saving £100k, wouldn't you have expected a couple of councillors to have come and talked to me about it?

It's certainly strange that the Council would resolve not to recognise the Wash Common site association whilst self-management was an implicit aim. And that only just scratches the surface.

For me it's not so difficult to understand when you realise self-management is not saving the council £100k, it's saving the tax-payer £100k. For the Council there's no up-side. Allotments are a £125k turnover business, so why would the Council want to lose that business. Almost no one knows who the Town Council are and even less know that NTC levy whatever precept they want, so there's pretty much zero pressure to save money. The Councillors want to be important and allotments is a big chunk of what NTC does, and if you're an allotment site steward too and get your plot free there's even less incentive to lose your personal control. For the officers, those that don't lose their jobs end up working in a smaller council with less prestige and staff and they'll end up taking a pay cut, and if the rot isn't stopped who knows what other services people will start doing for themselves, and before long NTC will be just a parish council with a part time-clerk, very much like other parish councils.

[dannyboy]

Well you tell me? Even if there was a sniff of a chance of saving £100k, wouldn't you have expected a couple of councillors to have come and talked to me about it?

It's certainly strange that the Council would resolve not to recognise the Wash Common site association whilst self-management was an implicit aim. And that only just scratches the surface.

For me it's not so difficult to understand when you realise self-management is not saving the council £100k, it's saving the tax-payer £100k. For the Council there's no up-side. Allotments are a £125k turnover business, so why would the Council want to lose that business. Almost no one knows who the Town Council are and even less know that NTC levy whatever precept they want, so there's pretty much zero pressure to save money. The Councillors want to be important and allotments is a big chunk of what NTC does, and if you're an allotment site steward too and get your plot free there's even less incentive to lose your personal control. For the officers, those that don't lose their jobs end up working in a smaller council with less prestige and staff and they'll end up taking a pay cut, and if the rot isn't stopped who knows what other services people will start doing for themselves, and before long NTC will be just a parish council with a part time-clerk, very much like other parish councils.

There is your answer then. For NTC the allotments make money. Money that would have to be found elsewhere should the allotment revenue be lost. For me, as a none allotment holding tax payer it makes no odds.