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]

£70.00 a year is cheap. try renting a comparable town centre plot.

There is no saving of taxpayers money. NTC have to put something in the accounts under the heading 'Allotments' because if they didn't they'd lose that funding.

For all we know the other allotmenteers could have asked NTC to get rid of SK!

[Simon Kirby]

£70.00 a year is cheap. try renting a comparable town centre plot.

Agreed. An allotment is cheaper to rent than a retail unit in Parkway.

There is no saving of taxpayers money. NTC have to put something in the accounts under the heading 'Allotments' because if they didn't they'd lose that funding.

Erm, OK. Are you accusing NTC of illegal accounting? That's a serious allegation, I hope you can substantiate it.

For all we know the other allotmenteers could have asked NTC to get rid of SK!

From what I understand there has been something of a campaign against me. I can't answer for the motivation of the organiser.

[dannyboy]

Agreed. An allotment is cheaper to rent than a retail unit in Parkway.


Erm, OK. Are you accusing NTC of illegal accounting? That's a serious allegation, I hope you can substantiate it.


From what I understand there has been something of a campaign against me. I can't answer for the motivation of the organiser.

Illegal accounting? Not at all. I'm merely suggesting that there are no savings.

Comparring a retail unit to an allotment is supurious. You'd be unable to rent a comparable plot of land in Newbury twon centre for £70.00pa.

[Simon Kirby]

Illegal accounting? Not at all. I'm merely suggesting that there are no savings.

Well yes, that's exactly what you are suggesting. I pointed you at the council's accounts and I showed you how much the allotment service costs the tax payer according to those accounts, and then you said that actually allotments cost the tax payer nothing and the council only put something in the accounts under the heading 'Allotments' because if they didn't they'd lose that funding.

I've given you a detailed breakdown that shows how much the allotments cost, if you want to refute that then show me the money.

Comparring a retail unit to an allotment is supurious. You'd be unable to rent a comparable plot of land in Newbury twon centre for £70.00pa.

Help me out here: It was your comparison.

[dannyboy]

Well yes, that's exactly what you are suggesting. I pointed you at the council's accounts and I showed you how much the allotment service costs the tax payer according to those accounts, and then you said that actually allotments cost the tax payer nothing and the council only put something in the accounts under the heading 'Allotments' because if they didn't they'd lose that funding.

I've given you a detailed breakdown that shows how much the allotments cost, if you want to refute that then show me the money.


Help me out here: It was your comparison.

I'd like to know where you can rent a plot of land, in the centre of town, other than an at a council allotment for £70 a year. It is cheap.

I didn't say that the allotments cost ther taxpayer nothing. They cost the tax payer exactly what is in NTC's accounts. What I am saying is that the actual, cost of the running the allotments is most likely less & that the allotments generate a surplus.

[Simon Kirby]

I'd like to know where you can rent a plot of land, in the centre of town, other than an at a council allotment for £70 a year. It is cheap.

Yes, and I agree with you, if you want to rent an allotment in the town centre where there isn't an allotment site then it will cost you more than £70. That it costs less to rent an allotment at an allotment site than it does in the town centre is not a compelling argument for the allotment rent being cheap, it just illustrates the ecconomics of land use. I might just as well argue that £70 is expensive for an allotment because I could rent a croft on Shetland for less.

If you're saying that £70 for an allotment is cheap because the site could be developed for retail which commands a much higher rent then that doesn't work either. Allotments have statutory protection from development, NTC is under a legal duty to provide allotments, and PPG17 protects sites from development. When you see an allotment site in the middle of a development the site doesn't have any value other than as an allotment site.

I didn't say that the allotments cost ther taxpayer nothing. They cost the tax payer exactly what is in NTC's accounts. What I am saying is that the actual, cost of the running the allotments is most likely less & that the allotments generate a surplus.

Then what you are saying is that NTC are illegally accounting for costs under the allotments head when they should properly be accounted for under another head. You need to bring this to the attention of the auditors because it is illegal. Dannyboy - do you have some inside knowledge to justify this accusation, or are you just fabricating this story?

[dannyboy]

Yes, and I agree with you, if you want to rent an allotment in the town centre where there isn't an allotment site then it will cost you more than £70. That it costs less to rent an allotment at an allotment site than it does in the town centre is not a compelling argument for the allotment rent being cheap, it just illustrates the ecconomics of land use. I might just as well argue that £70 is expensive for an allotment because I could rent a croft on Shetland for less.

If you're saying that £70 for an allotment is cheap because the site could be developed for retail which commands a much higher rent then that doesn't work either. Allotments have statutory protection from development, NTC is under a legal duty to provide allotments, and PPG17 protects sites from development. When you see an allotment site in the middle of a development the site doesn't have any value other than as an allotment site.


Then what you are saying is that NTC are illegally accounting for costs under the allotments head when they should properly be accounted for under another head. You need to bring this to the attention of the auditors because it is illegal. Dannyboy - do you have some inside knowledge to justify this accusation, or are you just fabricating this story?

No I have no knowledge, other that having worked in large businesses where an absolute to the penny costing is impossible.

I'm saying that to be able to rent a plat of land in Newbury for £70.00pa is cheap. I' am talking about a directly comparable bit of land, for the exact same use. Do you think you would be able to rent some one's back garden to grow veg in, for £70.00pa ?

[Simon Kirby]

No I have no knowledge, other that having worked in large businesses where an absolute to the penny costing is impossible.

Sorry, but you can't just refute my analysis just because it isn't convenient. At the very least you could say which heads you suppose to have been falsely inflated and which reduced. Why do you suppose any sloppyness in the Council's acounts would necessarily falsely inflate the allotment services costs as against any other service? I've made a longitudinal study of the Council's costs over the last seven years and I can't see any pattern of differential movement in costs, so if it is deliberate false accounting it has survived a complete regeime change at the Council and that seems unlikely. I'm sorry, but I've gone to some effort to make my argument rigorous, and in fairness I don't see any merit in your intuition.

I'm saying that to be able to rent a plat of land in Newbury for £70.00pa is cheap. I' am talking about a directly comparable bit of land, for the exact same use. Do you think you would be able to rent some one's back garden to grow veg in, for £70.00pa ?

Only an allotment plot is directly comparable to an allotment plot. Your argument that allotments are cheap because allotments are cheap is circular.

[dannyboy]

Sorry, but you can't just refute my analysis just because it isn't convenient. At the very least you could say which heads you suppose to have been falsely inflated and which reduced. Why do you suppose any sloppyness in the Council's acounts would necessarily falsely inflate the allotment services costs as against any other service? I've made a longitudinal study of the Council's costs over the last seven years and I can't see any pattern of differential movement in costs, so if it is deliberate false accounting it has survived a complete regeime change at the Council and that seems unlikely. I'm sorry, but I've gone to some effort to make my argument rigorous, and in fairness I don't see any merit in your intuition.


Only an allotment plot is directly comparable to an allotment plot. Your argument that allotments are cheap because allotments are cheap is circular.

Now you are using spin.

I have never said that the costs are 'inflated'.