Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 1 2011, 12:26 PM

I have been in dispute with Newbury Town Council for the last eighteen months over the enforceability of their allotment rent increase. Consumer protection legislation makes it unlawful for the Council to increase the rent without notice. The Council's position was that if a tenant pays then that makes it all right, but I felt strongly that the Council had a moral duty to operate within the legislation and was left with no option but to withhold payment of last year's increase and risk eviction.

The Council served notice and set a deadline for eviction of 17 May, and then extended the deadline to 13 December. It would now appear that the Council were bluffing as I set them a final deadline for the end of January to follow through with their threatened court action, yet still they prevaricate.

For me then the issue is resolved as there is no remaining doubt that the rent increase is indeed unenforceable so my rent stays the same. However, I made a stand against the Council in the interests of my fellow allotmenteers too because rents have almost tripled over the last 10 years and none of those year-on-year increases have been lawful. Not only is the Council obliged to reset rents to the rate at the start of our tenancies, but many tenants will have overpaid enough to give them their plot rent-free for the next five years.

This debacle wasn't just the usual Town Council ineptitude and heads must roll. There has been a deliberate and concerted attempt to evade the consumer protection legislation. I was threatened by the Council with the consequences of raising the issue, and since I have done so the Council have waged a campaign to smear, intimidate, and marginalise me. They have made spurious complaints against me for a number of imagined infractions of their site rules such as flying my flag too high, brushing my dogs on my plot and singing too loud at the summer social. I have already been served with an eviction notice because they say my allotment path is not the regulation width, and I have no doubt that this harassment will now be stepped up. To be honest I could do with a little support now.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 1 2011, 12:34 PM

Is there no arbitration or ombudsman you can use to get these tossers off your back (notwithstanding being a little less brusque with them!)?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 1 2011, 12:49 PM

It needs to go to court, and of course this is exactly why the Town Council will not follow through with their threatened action, because it would find them out. If the Council don't concede that the rent increase was unenforceable then I can use the Civil Procedure Rule to bring the matter to court, but there's no benefit to me in doing that because I'm not paying the increase and I'm not being evicted for it, so unless a whole bunch of disgruntled allotmenteers join me and stand up for themselves that part of the dispute ends here.

Ending the intimidation is not so easy because it has the councillors' willing endorsement, but unless it's actually a councillor doing the intimidation there is no one to complain to. In a free society you kind of assume councils won't behave like this, but hey. It would obviously help if my fellow allotmenteers spoke up, but that's not happened yet.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 1 2011, 12:57 PM

So our resident 'terrier' Benyon is not a plausible option?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 1 2011, 01:36 PM

We've spoken about it, but he'd been briefed by the town council who assured him that they were right. Not unreasonable that he should believe them.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 1 2011, 02:53 PM

I'm thinking about the way they seem to be 'harassing' you, perhaps there is human rights legislation that could be pursued?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 1 2011, 04:43 PM

It would be a very hard way of going about it. HRA is helpful to bring into a defence as you can use it in the lower courts, but you can only bring an action under the HRA in the High Court, and it's not so obviously a HRA issue.

It might be possible to sue for breach of the landlord's implied obligation to give me quiet enjoyment of my allotment, but it's not so easy. At some point someone on the Council has got to look at what's going on and speak up for me, surely. It's kind of ironic that it was to defen tenants from just this sort of harasment that I created the allotment society over three years ago, and it was becuse I stuck my head above the parapet that I've been singled out for the treatment. Disappointing that the allotment society won't speak up too.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 1 2011, 05:44 PM

Is there not a national allotment body for this sort of thing?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 1 2011, 06:18 PM

There's a Nationl Society of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners who, had I been a member, might have given me some technical advice, but to be honest I've probbly got as good a graps of the legislation as they have. There's a serious question to ask about how much help Trading Standards should have been because they obliged the Town Council to change the tenancy agreement but I feel that their duty is to have gone futher still and to have prevented the Town Council from relying on an unfair agreement. This wasn't just me you understand, there are over five hundred allotmenteers with plots from Newbury Town Council.

Like I say, this was a concerted effort to circumvent the legislation and heads must roll. The Council are having an emergency meeting to discuss their response so it's possible they'll hold their hand up and put things right, but it depends on them chosing to do the right thing so I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 1 2011, 07:45 PM

What with this story and the CCTV Fiasco there surely must be some way to bring a rogue council to heel?
You would not believe we are living in a market town in England more like some small dictatorship in some third world country. Give Watchdog a try they may be interested in something like this? Meridian news would maybe give it a run as well? Just splash it all over wherever you can?

Posted by: user23 Feb 1 2011, 07:56 PM

Sounds more like the council are bringing a "rogue" tenant to heel to me.

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 1 2011, 08:06 PM

A council that does not follow the law and acts illegally, makes charges to tenants that will now have to be reimbursed allegedly, then tries to find some petty things to get rid of the tenant that exposed this, that makes really good reading does it not? What with this and the CCTV Fiasco how much lower can they get?

Posted by: Iommi Feb 1 2011, 08:13 PM

Well they are seem to be taking their cowardly time about it.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Feb 1 2011, 08:20 PM

What about the Local government ombudsman - does his remit extend to parish/town councils?

Even if his scope does not extend that far, the refusal letter may point you in the right direction

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 1 2011, 08:24 PM

I may well be dense, but I see no exposure of a lie. At the moment there is only inactivity.
Have I missed a point?

Posted by: user23 Feb 1 2011, 08:29 PM

Firstly, Simon's wrong when he says they've acted illegally. In fact he's the only tenant making a fuss over his £70 a year rent because he wants to run things himself.

Secondly, what have they got to do with the "CCTV Fiasco"? I think you might be a bit confused here.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 1 2011, 08:32 PM

How do you know?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 1 2011, 08:57 PM

Show me where I've claimed that the Council have acted illegally.

The rent demand was unlawful because it couldn't be lawfully enforced. Unlawful does not mean illegal.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 1 2011, 09:15 PM

I think it does.

Posted by: blackdog Feb 1 2011, 09:30 PM

I suspect you are wrong.

Illegal activities are subject to criminal law, the 'unlawful' act discussed in this thread would only be considered by a civil court. Simon's view is (I think) that NTC will not take action against him for non-payment of the rent rise because they are uncertain that their imposition of the rise is lawful (or they are certain it isn't). It is safer (and considerably cheaper) for them to find another way to get Simon out of their hair - such as eviction for having his path too narrow.

Until a court rules on the lawfulness of the rent rise we will not know for sure if it is enforceable, or not.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 1 2011, 09:33 PM

And I hear that. Not that it matters much, as I've only, as far as I'm aware, ever said the rent increase is unlawful. The connotations are different. Illegal implies criminal, so for example you might be arrested for an illegal act, but an unlawful act means just that it isn't something sactioned or enforceable at law.

So just to be clear, when I describe the rent increase as unlawful I'm saying that it is not enforceable at law. That is, you couldn't successfully sue for the rent because the law wouldn't recognise it as a debt, and you wouldn't be awarded a possession order on the grounds of arrears because the law wouldn't recognise the rent as owing.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 1 2011, 09:51 PM

Thank you. Couldn't have put it better myself.

Like I say, there's little to be gained by bringing an action against the Council myself, not least because I'm not using a solicitor and I'm not totally sure about applying for a declaratory judgment under the Civil Procedure Rules. In any case it's going to be pretty obvious that the Council know they were wrong because I'm going to bang on as loudly as possible that not only did I not pay the rent increase last year but I'm not going to pay it this year either. Why the Council have allowed themselves to get in such an embarrassing position is totally beyound me because I have given them every opportunity to end it sensibly, but I think they just got a bit target-fixated.

However, if there are any solicitors out there who are willing to advise me pro bono then it would be good to get some definitive closure.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 1 2011, 10:05 PM

It's quite an effective slur userboy. I've explained at length why I want self-management, and also why I've risked eviction to take the Council to task over the rent increase. They're seperate issues, but I couldn't in all good conscience complain about a rent increase if I wasn't prepared to do the work myself. Still, like I say, it's quite an effective slur and it detracts from the unconscionable behaviour of the Town Council. So I'll give you my undertaking that I will not lift a finger to help with any self-management scheme, it's the Big State for me from now on. Now be a good chap will you and come and fix my allotment hedge.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 1 2011, 10:31 PM

Both words are synonyms, although I know what Simon means.

"Practically, there is no difference for punishment purposes. Both illegal and unlawful acts can invite punishment."

I wonder if there is not a case for the council obtaining money illegally (or unlawfully)?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 4 2011, 09:16 AM

An accident it would appear, but a quantity of rat poison was spilt on my allotment on Tuesday, I'd guestimate about 1.0 kg grain bait. For reasons I don't yet understand rather than scraping up the bait the contractor dug the poison into the soil, so I now have an area of around 10' x 4' of ground that appears to be quite heavily contaminated with rat poison. The Town Council have appologised, but I want the contaminated soil removed - I can't believe they'd accept the situation in their own gardens, or for example if it happened on the kiddies' plot on the site, so I don't see how it's OK when it's me, other than because they're trying to evict me. I've contacted Environmental Health to see if they can help.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 4 2011, 10:58 AM

can you not elicit help from Mr Benyon MP for your desire for self-management?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 4 2011, 11:48 AM

Well, I'd have hoped so, yes. That's actually what I went to see him about, Big Society being a conservative thing 'n all. I won't go into details, but I think the problem was that the Town Council had already briefed against me and he was under the impression that the Council had no objection to self-management in principle and that the problem was that I had not asked in the correct way.

It's a matter of public record that the Council resolved on March 1 to not recognise the Wash Common Allotment Society, and to not discuss self-management. I've hardly been reticent to discuss self-management, so if the Council had one iota of interest they would surely have invited me to discuss the idea.

Anyroad, as I said to userboy, I'm giving up on the Big Society, it's Big State for me from now on. I'm beaten. The Council won't give up their gravy train and I've failed to convince allotmenteers that the benefits are worth the fight. I think the Council should definitely now make allotments pay their way, so they need to put rents up to around £45 per pole.

Incidentally, I've heard back from Environmental Health - and very understanding they were too - they've spoken to the Council who are now happy to replace the contaminated top soil - so thank you Environmental Health, I very much appreciate that.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 4 2011, 12:23 PM

I've always found the Environmental Health dept to be the more capable of the council's departments. Better than Building Control that's for sure.

He might have a point there, but I would have asked for his help in asking in the 'right way'.

I have had dealings with the West Berkshire Council before, and they are the masters of (probably deliberate) obfuscation and procrastination, but I do find the EH get to the point sooner than others.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 4 2011, 01:09 PM

No, the right way to ask was not at all. It's a £100k turn-over business, why would they want to lose it. The Council were antagonistic right from the word go.

The very first thing I did when I formed the allotment society over three years ago was ask to be allowed to build a site hut. It's a really normal thing for an allotment site to have a communal hut, and as well as it being a focus for site society it was going to be a great way for us to work together while we built it.

At the inaugural meeting a town councillor told me that the council would only need to frustrate our effort to build the hut and the society would fail through attrition.

And sure enough that's how it panned out. It took one e-mail for the acting services manager to meet me on site and agree to us having a hut, and we shook hands on it.

Then the Council imposed a bunch of conditions without any discussion. So I agreed and complied.

The Council were obliged to consult the other tenants about the hut. Not that they have ever asked us about anything before or since, but that was a condition. They did nothing.

Then a councillor raised a whole bunch of reason why we shouldn't have a hut. Children wouldn't be safe in it, people didn't want it, you could bring a flask if you wanted a cup of tea, the society hadn't been going long enough, and more.

So I got a petition together to demonstrate support. 60 allotmenteers signed - that's over half the site, and I dodn't even get round to everyone. I was accused of bullying people into signing.

I asked to be allowed to build the hut in the corner of the site. The site steward said she'd already let the plot to a tenant - but three years later no tenant has ever turned up. Oddly enough the services manager said that the corner was a wildlife area, though no one appeared to know about that, not least the steward who had apparently let the plot.

We had official permission, but after more than a year we were further then ever from being allowed to build the hut. Eventually Cll Grose agreed to meet me with the Chief Executive. We agreed that the council would post a joint council-society notice inviting tenants to donate part of their plot for the hut. The Council didn't post the notice.

After four weeks the notice went up in very bad grace, and by then Cllr Stretton had called the matter in to the Community Services Committee for them to decide. I wasn't even invited to attend, though I went along anyway. The Committee rejected the hut because they said they couldn't spare the ground, allotments being so precious. But they had created a communal compost heap on a much bigger area without any problem, and without any consultation or anything. I'd also offered to use the front of my own plot for the hut, and I'd also got an offer from a couple of other tenant who would give up some of their plots.

The Council also said that we hand't demonstrated that there was a wash common allotment society, though I'd presented the 60-name petition to Ian Grose and the Chief Executive.

That was just one issue. The Council never wanted an independent site association, and they only tolerate the other site associations because they are obsequiously supine. Do you think the Council welcome the discovery that consumer protection legislation applies to them? I was threatened with the consequence of raising the regulations, and seperately threatened with the consequences of any form of criticism of the council.

The Council's Growing in the Community Working Group was entirely my suggestion. It's an allotments management best prctice guide produced by the Local Goverment Association and one of its key recommendations is for self-management. After three meetings the self-imposed chair Marth Vickers hadn't even red the guide and didn't appear to me to have the slightest idea what we were all meant to be talking about. Cllr's Stretton and Bairstow came along to the third meeting (why Cllr Bairstow I don't know, because he wasn't a member of the working group) and they made it clear to me that my involvement was not welcome, and so I resigned. This working group would have been an orderly way to move towards self-management, and it was deliberately wrecked by the Council.

This is alredy way too tiresome, and I haven't even told you about how the council lied and schemed and smeared to bring the society down.

So forgive me if I'm a little sore at the criticism of asking in the wrong way. The whole experience has been a miserable inditement of petit local government at it's worst.

Still, like I say, they've won. They can all go drown in their own crapulence for all it concerns me.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 4 2011, 01:57 PM

I can understand your point, but I don't like the idea that these council officials can get away with it. I just don't see how councillors can be allowed to behave like this, just because you might have hurt their feelings. To me it seems against all decency. It just seems utterly wrong.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 4 2011, 03:28 PM

I'm afraid it's as we've discussed before - you get the democracy you deserve. There's not enough people take an interest in what gets done in their name, and less still who are prepared to challenge it. I'm frustrated that the town council should behave so badly just because they can, but much more than that I can't help but feel sad and disappointed that my fellow allotmenteers just didn't want to know.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 4 2011, 03:52 PM

That sadly is the point. If they don't care, then why should you, so-to-speak. I think, however, there is a bigger issue than just what is in front of our faces. Like with the CCTV issue. This is more than just about the topic title, viz, CCTV and allotments.

"...if you tolerate this, then your children will be next".

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 4 2011, 04:50 PM

I couldn't agree more. I've been motivated by the idea that if you don't protest when you see tyrany that one day they'll come for you. I got involved because it looked to me as though a particular councillor was using her position to victimise a fellow allotmenteer - and crucially the council were condoning the victimisation. Rules on keeping chickens and children on allotments were brought in by this councillor and it appeared to me that they were designed specifically to harass this one tenant, and it was apparent that no one at the council was advocating for this tenant, and there was no organisation amoungst the tenants to take collective action to support her. I also wanted to provide a communal rotavator, but I started the society as much to give the tenants a collective voice as anything else.

Within a couple of months that tenant was given a summary eviction for poor cultivation after an inspection by this councillor, and that isn't lawful (see S.146 Law of Property 1925). I represented this tenant and the Council relented, but with very poor grace indeed, and I think they decided then that they would crush the society because they didn't want jumped-up little proles telling them who they could and couldn't push around.

But as far as I can tell I'm the only allotmenteer in Newbury who thinks this kind of thing important. When the Council told me to lower the cross of St. George that I fly on my allotment the society were angry with me that I should provoke the council by not doing as they wanted. I see it differently.

The damnedest thing is that as far as I can tell there are virtually no allotmenteers who even believe it right to defend themselves against the whim of the council. They seem so deferential, so inured to the tyrany, that they roll over and wiggle their legs in their air, and believe it the height of bad manners and impious anti-establishment herasy to question the will of the Council. I admit that I don't understand it.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 4 2011, 05:10 PM

I don't think one should keep children on an allotment either!

Seriously, I remember my Grandad used to keep chickens on his allotment and I used to, as a child, earn a bit of pocket money pulling cabbage stumps, picking runners, podding peas, fetching the water, etc.


As Churchill once said: an appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

Posted by: user23 Feb 4 2011, 05:11 PM

Aren't you being a tad melodramatic about a £70 quid a year plot of land you rent?

Posted by: Iommi Feb 4 2011, 05:20 PM

If you had any brain or comprehension, you'd realise that there is more to this than simply money - which is what the last few posts have been about...you pillock.

Posted by: user23 Feb 4 2011, 05:27 PM

Quoting Churchill, mentioning the cross of St. George and other such tubthumping like a bad BNP advert (aren't they all) seems a tad over the top when it's concerning a £70 quid strip of dirt, to me.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 4 2011, 05:29 PM

As thick as you demonstrably are, that is understandable.

Posted by: user23 Feb 4 2011, 05:34 PM

I feel sorry for you that using this type of language is the only way you can defend your views on this subject.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 4 2011, 05:38 PM

I feel sorry for you period. Notwithstanding your first post on this thread today was little more than unsolicited sarcasm.

Posted by: user23 Feb 4 2011, 05:42 PM

This statement

They seem so deferential, so inured to the tyrany, that they roll over and wiggle their legs in their air, and believe it the height of bad manners and impious anti-establishment herasy to question the will of the Council. I admit that I don't understand it.

where Simon insults all his fellow allotmenters is telling.

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 4 2011, 05:50 PM

But it is not just about a strip of dirt is it?

The council has not even complied with current legislation and is not acting morally either.
This is why it is important to keep local authorities under inspection. They are public servants meant to represent the taxpayer not be a small market town Dictatorship.

Again this is why legislation is made to protect the small people. It would seem they have not complied with legislation let alone the spirit of it?

Posted by: user23 Feb 4 2011, 05:55 PM

It sounds like they represent all allotment holders bar one pretty well.

Surely a dictatorship is applying one person's views over all others, which is what Simon seems to want.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 4 2011, 05:55 PM

I don't blame him, if what he says is true. No doubt there might be some that don't agree with SK either. It would be good if some of those puppies would come on here and comment....if they had the bottle!

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 4 2011, 07:08 PM

I get the impression that the other allotment holders say one thing to SK when thinking & doing something else.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 4 2011, 07:27 PM

Where do you see that? SK's views have no power if other allotment 'puddy-cats' don't want them.

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 4 2011, 07:38 PM

Simon was there or was there not any interest by your other allotmenteers in self management? If so what percentage was it?

Posted by: user23 Feb 4 2011, 07:50 PM

Why are you dismissing the other allotment holder's views in this manner?
In another post he says

Yes, I think if there had been enough people demanding self-management it would have been difficult for the Council to deny it for ever, but no one was bothered enough to demand it in the face of the Council's opposition.

So just him then.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 4 2011, 07:53 PM

That's a very good question. Best estimate is that 88% of society members wanted to get involved with self-management. The crucial distinction is that 0% wanted to get involved in a fight with the council over it, so all the Council had to do was be obstructive and support would fall away.

I included a questionnaire on the membership form for the society and it asked some self-management questions. After 38 members this was the result:

"Would you like to get involved in repairing the hedge, maybe by growing on a few hawthorn plants or joining a working party?"
88% said yes.

"Would you like to pay a higher rent to have the Council maintain the hedge?"
16% said yes.

"Would you join a ditch-clearing working party?"
74% said yes.

"Would you like to pay a higher rent to have the Council maintain the ditch?"
19% said yes.

"Would you happily pay £125 for a five pole plot?"
12% said yes.

"If the Society were to take responsibility for some of the maintenance and administration of the site would you get involved?"
84% said yes.

"Would you like a say in any changes to the site rules?"
91% said yes.

"Would you like to be told about changes happening on site?"
100% said yes.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 4 2011, 07:55 PM

I'm not, you might be confused. You claim that SK wants to establish a dictatorship, I'm saying that it wouldn't be possible if the other allotmentiers didn't want it.

Posted by: user23 Feb 4 2011, 07:57 PM

Why refer to them as 'puddy-cats'?

Lack of support doesn't stop SK wanting to establish a dictatorship, it would seem.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 4 2011, 07:58 PM

No. He said no-one would support him in his dispute with the council. Not the same as no-one wanted self management.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 4 2011, 08:00 PM

I would have thought even someone as thick as you would recognise the joke in that statement.


What dictatorship? They already have one in the form of the council (it is alleged in the previous posts).

Posted by: user23 Feb 4 2011, 08:02 PM

Whilst you're angry that yet another poster boy for rabble rousing that you love so much has been discredited, there's no need to be so rude. If there was a decent cause I'd support it, but a one man power grab is not.

No they don't. The council is elected by the people of Newbury.

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 4 2011, 08:05 PM

Seems like a high percentage were interested in self management then?

Unfortunately you find this a lot in society if it comes to having to fight a bit for what you want a lot of people walk away. They just want a quiet life keep their heads down and hope things just go along as usual. The same with anti social behavior etc no one stands up to be counted just don't want to know! Especially when it is with someone who they believe is in authority?

Posted by: Iommi Feb 4 2011, 08:20 PM

Saving tax, or money that could go to more urgent needs is not worth pursuing? If your objections were simply about the technical details, that would be fine. No, yours is about having a go at someone who is showing up the council. And your insistence that this is about a 'power grab' demonstrates that.


It is a dictatorship when one is powerless to hold them to account on single issues.

user23, lets suppose for the sake of argument that SK does want to power grab as you prefer to say it. Lets say that in doing so, tax payers money could be channelled to areas in greater need.

What is wrong with that? What have you got against that?

Posted by: user23 Feb 4 2011, 08:23 PM

That's not the definition of a dictatorship.

A dictatorship is when people are powerless to hold an organisation to account on any issue.

I believe there are elections this May.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 4 2011, 08:27 PM

Yes and allotmentiers are in a significant minority.

Anyway...lets suppose for the sake of argument that SK does want to power grab as you prefer to say it. Lets say that in doing so, tax payers money could be channelled to areas in greater need.

What is wrong with that? What have you got against that?

And if it is the allotmentiers you feel for, they could possibly pay less under self management as well. What is wrong with that?

Posted by: user23 Feb 4 2011, 08:32 PM

Everyone is in a significant minority of some kind.

If we're just talking about saving money why not sell them off to a property developer. Everyone benefits then, not just a significant minority. Sound good?

Posted by: Iommi Feb 4 2011, 08:36 PM

Yes, but in a modern democracy, one usually has the right to hold people to account. In this instance that doesn't seem possible.


Except that would require a change in the law. SK's solution doesn't and could be organised 'tomorrow'. So what have you against this tax saving idea?

Posted by: user23 Feb 4 2011, 08:40 PM

Sometimes laws need to be changed.

SK solution doesn't have any support and would no doubt end in the council having to step in and bail out the allotment holders at a greater cost overall.

Let's change the law and sell of the allotments. Simon can set his own up, be the king of the castle and everyone's happy.

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 4 2011, 08:41 PM

Exactly just like our local authorities around here! Look at how many issues have been raised on the two local forums regarding our two local authorities. The main complaints seem to be that they just will not be transparent and do not listen to individual complaints. Again there is a lot of apathy involved; people will not speak out unless it directly affects them personally.

Elections are a foregone conclusion in Newbury; people vote for the party rather than the individual so no real deterrent to not doing a good job. Just may change one funny hand shake member for another occasionally?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 4 2011, 08:43 PM

Just a point on the dictatorship thing:

We currently have a dictatorship. There is no appealing decisions of the Council, as while the Council have a process they don't follow it. There is no consultation over changes to the rules, and several rule changes have been brought in over the last couple of years apparently instigated by a single allotmenteering councillor. The site stewards are appointed by the Council and not elected by the tenants. There is no consultation over facilities, but then there is no possibility of the council improving the facilities.

Yes, I think the Town Council should offer the allotmenteers the opportunity to go self-managed, and yes, I am the only allotmenteer asking for this. I don't believe that constitutes a dictatorship as self-management would be through democratic site associations and a board of trustees.

I established the Wash Common Allotment Society to be fervently democratic, and that's why I incorporated a questionnaire into the membership form so that the committee had a democratic mandate. I chaired the society for it's first couple of years, and at my insistence the chair didn't have a casting vote on the committee. I've never believed that I was a good chair and it was always my intention to build a strong committee and take a back seat, whch I did last year. The heart of the recogniition agreement that the Council rejected in March was that the members of the Society be consulted equally and democratically. That was all pretty daft if I wanted to dictate anything.

Nice slur though. It's this nasty subversive nihilism that I'm going to miss least now that I've admitted defeat.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 4 2011, 08:47 PM

This is the point. dannyboy and user23 are simply dishonest if they claim to be impartial on this matter. It doesn't matter what you say, user23 is on a mission to simply deride you ('simple' being the operative here ). dannyboy is a little more rational in this matter, but only just.

Posted by: user23 Feb 4 2011, 08:47 PM

There's an election in May.

Why don't you stand?

Posted by: Iommi Feb 4 2011, 08:50 PM

And what difference would that make to self management of the allotments? Notwithstanding perhaps he doesn't fancy himself as a humpty-back councillor? 'Mavericks' tend not to last too long as a councillor. One must be 'tame' to make progress there.

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 4 2011, 08:52 PM

He isn't part of the ruling clique and doesn't know the proper handshake and doesn't possess the right apron!

Posted by: Iommi Feb 4 2011, 08:54 PM

Undoubtedly. Perhaps you should stand for election as MP and change some?


It's not SK's solution. It is our governments, and where did you get the idea self management has no support?

As a tax payer I insist they do!


Like I said, see you on the ballot paper come the next general election?

Meanwhile; until that day, what have you got against tax saving initiatives?

Posted by: user23 Feb 4 2011, 08:55 PM

He might be elected to the "dictatorship" then.

Maverick? He's a bloke who can't seem to discuss anything else other than allotments.

If he's a maverick he's the dullest one I've ever encountered.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 4 2011, 08:55 PM

You're confusng me for someone else. I'm passionate about the allotment movement, I despise local government.

Posted by: user23 Feb 4 2011, 08:59 PM

You wanted to govern the local allotments though so you don't despise it that much.

That's the real reason for your failed power grab though, isn't it, you "despise local government" .

Glad you've been honest with us all, for once. That was your real agenda all along.

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 4 2011, 08:59 PM

So says WBC - NTC Lord Haw Haw!

Posted by: Iommi Feb 4 2011, 09:00 PM

Exactly, but as he has no ambition in that regard, rather pointless.


Says someone who posts nothing except to contradict and ridicule SK.


He does enough to keep a young man like you in on a Friday night posting. Saying that. if it is so dull, why don't you push of and do something more in keeping with your 'intellect' and leave us in peace?


That was visible right from the start. A bit slow on the up take, eh? But why should that matter.

Meanwhile; what have you got against tax saving initiatives like self management?

Posted by: user23 Feb 4 2011, 09:03 PM

Ah yes, the you work for the Police, WBC, NTC (I've been accused of all three) therefore your views don't count gambit.

Point is, if this had support it would have worked. As it's just one bloke doing it because he "despises local government" it's failed.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 4 2011, 09:07 PM

I insist as a tax payer, that things like allotments should be self managed, provided it saves tax money that could be spent else where.

The big society was designed to save tax money, so why are you against the idea of self managed allotments user23?

Posted by: user23 Feb 4 2011, 09:11 PM

If you want to save tax money, if that's the top priority, why don't we sell them off?

No doubt the Town Council would have to bail out the self management committee as their dear leader frittered away all their money on installing flag poles and chicken coups for every allotment. It would cost us all more in the long run.

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 4 2011, 09:13 PM

It failed because NTC did not want it to succeed end of story User Haw Haw! Why did the council not ballot the membership then? Don't come out with the "Because of costs" excuse either as it would have been minimal with the numbers involved. Again it would be very easy to do and it would settle the issue once and for all surely? Of course unless the council put the usual spin on so that they could only answer one way!

Posted by: user23 Feb 4 2011, 09:16 PM

The only spin I've seen regarding this are the leading questions in Simon's questionnaire.

As I understand it, parish councils don't generally offer referenda on individual decisions affecting small numbers of citizens.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 4 2011, 09:21 PM

Like I said already, that would require a change in the law.


No doubt a management committee would be bound to rules that would prevent public money being used as you churlishly describe, but how can you be sure it would cost us in the long run?

Lets have a sensible argument from you for a change. Why would it cost more money to self manage?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 4 2011, 09:21 PM

They could ballot the tenanry with no cost whatsoever.

Bills go out next week (and appologies for gong on-thread for a mnute, but the Council will again be demanding the unenforceale increases compounded over the last ten years - shameful!). So add this to the bottom of the bill:

Would you like a meeting to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of self-management. Yes or No.

Who thinks that's a good idea?

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 4 2011, 09:23 PM

Oh what a surprise? I should have known better. So tell me how does Simon or any other allotment holder arrange a ballot on self management then? Just asking a council expert for his opinion?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 4 2011, 09:23 PM

We're not citizens, were customers. Consulting customers is not that unusual.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 4 2011, 09:23 PM

Where's that then?


Nothing stopping them, like they have in the past, issuing their own questionnaire. In fact, I've received one this very day from our council about a separate matter.

Posted by: user23 Feb 4 2011, 09:24 PM

And as I already said, laws can be changed.

So if the law was changed, would you be in favour of the allotments being sold off?

Sounds like a maverick move to me.

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 4 2011, 09:27 PM

Yes but this involves the allotments that the council seem dead against going self management. So no questionnaire then?

Surely it would decide the issue if they issued a sensible questionnaire?

Posted by: Iommi Feb 4 2011, 09:28 PM

If that is your solution, when? Are you going to stand for MP? Meanwhile, what about this option that we can exploit now?


No, but that is for a separate reason. I think we need to protect green space. However, if a law was change to that effect I'm bound by that decision, but meanwhile: what have you got against tax saving initiatives like self management?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 4 2011, 09:29 PM

S.127 Local Government Act 1972 (I think, from memory) allows the parish councl to sell its allotment sites, but ecause of the statuutory protection afforded allotment sites under the Allotments Act 1926 you can't do anythng with them other than use them as allotments, so they're worth about the same as agrcultural land - maybe £3-4k/acre.

But essentially what you're describing is self-management. The Council could do a community asset transfer and the sites could be held in trust and managed by the site associations and a board of trustees. Happends all the time.

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 4 2011, 09:32 PM

Not in Newbury Simon. You just don't get it do you? Listen to User Haw Haw will you?

Posted by: Iommi Feb 4 2011, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by Simon Kirby...

No, the right way to ask was not at all. It's a £100k turn-over business, why would they want to lose it. The Council were antagonistic right from the word go.

The very first thing I did when I formed the allotment society over three years ago was ask to be allowed to build a site hut. It's a really normal thing for an allotment site to have a communal hut, and as well as it being a focus for site society it was going to be a great way for us to work together while we built it.

At the inaugural meeting a town councillor told me that the council would only need to frustrate our effort to build the hut and the society would fail through attrition.

And sure enough that's how it panned out. It took one e-mail for the acting services manager to meet me on site and agree to us having a hut, and we shook hands on it.

Then the Council imposed a bunch of conditions without any discussion. So I agreed and complied.

The Council were obliged to consult the other tenants about the hut. Not that they have ever asked us about anything before or since, but that was a condition. They did nothing.

Then a councillor raised a whole bunch of reason why we shouldn't have a hut. Children wouldn't be safe in it, people didn't want it, you could bring a flask if you wanted a cup of tea, the society hadn't been going long enough, and more.

So I got a petition together to demonstrate support. 60 allotmenteers signed - that's over half the site, and I dodn't even get round to everyone. I was accused of bullying people into signing.

I asked to be allowed to build the hut in the corner of the site. The site steward said she'd already let the plot to a tenant - but three years later no tenant has ever turned up. Oddly enough the services manager said that the corner was a wildlife area, though no one appeared to know about that, not least the steward who had apparently let the plot.

We had official permission, but after more than a year we were further then ever from being allowed to build the hut. Eventually Cll Grose agreed to meet me with the Chief Executive. We agreed that the council would post a joint council-society notice inviting tenants to donate part of their plot for the hut. The Council didn't post the notice.

After four weeks the notice went up in very bad grace, and by then Cllr Stretton had called the matter in to the Community Services Committee for them to decide. I wasn't even invited to attend, though I went along anyway. The Committee rejected the hut because they said they couldn't spare the ground, allotments being so precious. But they had created a communal compost heap on a much bigger area without any problem, and without any consultation or anything. I'd also offered to use the front of my own plot for the hut, and I'd also got an offer from a couple of other tenant who would give up some of their plots.

The Council also said that we hand't demonstrated that there was a wash common allotment society, though I'd presented the 60-name petition to Ian Grose and the Chief Executive.

That was just one issue. The Council never wanted an independent site association, and they only tolerate the other site associations because they are obsequiously supine. Do you think the Council welcome the discovery that consumer protection legislation applies to them? I was threatened with the consequence of raising the regulations, and seperately threatened with the consequences of any form of criticism of the council.

The Council's Growing in the Community Working Group was entirely my suggestion. It's an allotments management best prctice guide produced by the Local Goverment Association and one of its key recommendations is for self-management. After three meetings the self-imposed chair Marth Vickers hadn't even red the guide and didn't appear to me to have the slightest idea what we were all meant to be talking about. Cllr's Stretton and Bairstow came along to the third meeting (why Cllr Bairstow I don't know, because he wasn't a member of the working group) and they made it clear to me that my involvement was not welcome, and so I resigned. This working group would have been an orderly way to move towards self-management, and it was deliberately wrecked by the Council.

This is alredy way too tiresome, and I haven't even told you about how the council lied and schemed and smeared to bring the society down.

So forgive me if I'm a little sore at the criticism of asking in the wrong way. The whole experience has been a miserable inditement of petit local government at it's worst.

Still, like I say, they've won. They can all go drown in their own crapulence for all it concerns me.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 4 2011, 09:36 PM

Originally posted Simon Kirkby...

I couldn't agree more. I've been motivated by the idea that if you don't protest when you see tyrany that one day they'll come for you. I got involved because it looked to me as though a particular councillor was using her position to victimise a fellow allotmenteer - and crucially the council were condoning the victimisation. Rules on keeping chickens and children on allotments were brought in by this councillor and it appeared to me that they were designed specifically to harass this one tenant, and it was apparent that no one at the council was advocating for this tenant, and there was no organisation amoungst the tenants to take collective action to support her. I also wanted to provide a communal rotavator, but I started the society as much to give the tenants a collective voice as anything else.

Within a couple of months that tenant was given a summary eviction for poor cultivation after an inspection by this councillor, and that isn't lawful (see S.146 Law of Property 1925). I represented this tenant and the Council relented, but with very poor grace indeed, and I think they decided then that they would crush the society because they didn't want jumped-up little proles telling them who they could and couldn't push around.

But as far as I can tell I'm the only allotmenteer in Newbury who thinks this kind of thing important. When the Council told me to lower the cross of St. George that I fly on my allotment the society were angry with me that I should provoke the council by not doing as they wanted. I see it differently.

The damnedest thing is that as far as I can tell there are virtually no allotmenteers who even believe it right to defend themselves against the whim of the council. They seem so deferential, so inured to the tyrany, that they roll over and wiggle their legs in their air, and believe it the height of bad manners and impious anti-establishment herasy to question the will of the Council. I admit that I don't understand it.

Posted by: user23 Feb 4 2011, 09:43 PM

We're just going round in circles here, so it's the end of the thread for me.

Have fun discussing how horrid the Town Council are for not letting our muckraking maverick run everything with zero support from everyone else.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 4 2011, 09:45 PM

Is that a promise? Don't answer that if it is.

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 4 2011, 09:51 PM

Oh User Haw Haw has RG posted another more critical post on WBC - NTC then?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 5 2011, 01:33 PM

Anywho...

The Unfair Terms regulations have been about since 1999 and so a consequence of the tenancy agreement's rent review term being unfair is that none of the rent increases since then have been lawful. This means tenants' rents go back to their original rate, and that the council have to pay back what's been overcharged. For tenants first taking their plots in various years this is the rate they'll now be paying at, and the number of years rent they get back.

Taking into account the various number of years allotmenteers have had their plots the likely cost to the tax-payer in lost revenues is a minimum of £39.8k.

The earliest the Council can legitimately replace the tenancy agreement is April 2012, but that depends on them serving notice by April 1 and nothing takes the council less than nine months to decide so in practical terms it'll be 2013 before this snafu is finally sorted.

However, it's entirely possible that the Council will continue to ignore the regulations so it'll be interesting to see if Trading Standards rouse themselves from their slumber and do their duty or whether private court action will be necessary to force the Council to do the right thing.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 5 2011, 01:44 PM

Has this been reported to the Trading Standards?

Posted by: blackdog Feb 5 2011, 02:21 PM

Simon - any chance of you standing for election to the NTC in May?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 5 2011, 02:37 PM

Yes. Essentially they upheld my complaint and obliged the Town Council to issus a new tenancy agreement, but they didn't oblige the Council to refrain from relying on unfair terms in the current agreement, and they have a duty to do that. It's an open question why they allowed the Council to persue an eviction against me.

I considered a formal complaint but there seemed to be nothing to be gained as defending the Town Council's possession action was a very much simpler and more reliable route to justice.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 5 2011, 02:52 PM

I've thought about it and I may very well stand, but in Wash Common there's little chance of getting elected as an independent and I'd be as welcome as a dose of the clap if I joined the conservatives and tried to get in on a tory ticket. I'd also have to do all the canvassing for myself and that's no easy task. But if I got elected it would utterly miserable and I'd achieve nothing.

Thing is I don't have any interest in local politics, not as a hobby. I'm passionate about the causes I've taken up, but I'm not passionate about taking up causes if you understand me.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 5 2011, 02:58 PM

[Sorry, wrong button.]

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 5 2011, 05:04 PM

Have you sent a copy to the Young Pretender? What does he think of all this?
Has the NWN printed any of this?

Get back on to Trading Standards and ask if there is any more they can do?

Local Authority Ombudsman?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 6 2011, 01:13 PM

There's not much more Trading Standards could do really. I've shown that the Town Council can't enforce the rent increase so they can't very well threatened anyone else now, and apparently it's not within Trading Standards' remit to force the Council to pay the money back.

Parish Councils are a law unto themselves and don't come within the remit of the Ombudsman.

I fear that without an admission from the Town Council or some definitive court action there isn't enough of a story for the NWN to expose what happened, so if the Council just keep schtum and bill everyone as normal they'll have got away with it. And then they'll just keep going for me.

It's now eight weeks since their latest deadline for eviction past, and they still haven't had the decency either to commence their action or admit their error. I'm told it will take a resolution of the council, but that's rubbish - it didn't take a resolution of the council to serve me with an eviction notice in April, so it certainly doesn't take a resolution to appologise.

I've written again today to the parish councillors asking them to talk to me about putting this right. If anyone wanted to write likewise encouraging them to engage with me that would help and I would appreciate it.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 6 2011, 03:11 PM

Post your letter here?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 6 2011, 03:22 PM

Thanks Iommi, yes.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 6 2011, 03:40 PM

As modest as I expected it to be.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 6 2011, 04:00 PM

Modest? Should I have been more deferential?

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 6 2011, 06:52 PM

[quote name='Simon Kirby' date='Feb 6 2011, 04:00 PM' post='33755']
Modest? Should I have been more deferential?

You should have ended it with pretty please surely?

Could you not ask them to bring the matter up at the next council meeting as it affects quite a number of allotmenteers and will be quite expensive for the council if you are correct?

Something as serious as this must be made public and a solution found?

At the moment it just makes the council look as if they are trying to penalise you for pointing out they have not followed the letter of the law?

Again we are met with a wall of silence from a local authority? It must be highly contagious?

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 6 2011, 09:27 PM

Dishonest am I ? You have proof?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 8 2011, 10:05 AM

I've got back to Trading Standards as Coqnosco suggested. They have a duty to prevent the Council from relying on unfair contract terms, though I'm having some trouble convincing them of that. They've said

However my allotment is let under the old agreement. Again this raises the question why NTC are attempting to enforce a contract term that they agreed last June to be unenforceable.

I've asked the Council for the Counsel's Opinion they have obtained. If my UTCCR argument is not in fact sound I want to know because I have absolutely no objection to paying a legitimate rent increase, the sole basis of my protest is that the increase is unlawful - and that the Council knew it to be unlawful - and as a matter of principle I will not stand by and let the state behave unlawfully. Having threatened legal action the Council have a duty to show me the strength of their case so that we can avoid litigation so they'll have no objection unless they're bluffing.

I have now taken legal advise about how to bring court action myself if the Council will neither issue proceedings nor admit their error. It is looking increasingly likely that the Council now plan to do nothing in the hope it will blow over, and they especially don't want to admit their deceit until this year's bills have gone out in the next week. Unfortunately it will be a couple of months until I can get a hearing so that'll be another £10k the Council take that they're not entitled to unless perhaps the NWN pick up the story and let the allotmenteers know what's happening.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 8 2011, 10:12 AM

Many of your posts on here have proved it to me that you are not impartial on the topic of self management of the allotments.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 8 2011, 01:22 PM

In fairness, you used the 'D' word. Partiality is not the same as dishonesty.. Having an opinion does not make someone partial.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 8 2011, 01:25 PM

There is nothing to stop you applying for an injunction to stay the increase pending full hearing. The County Court office can advise you, or a solicitor acting pro bono may assist you.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 8 2011, 01:34 PM

Thanks NWNREADER. Yes, that hadn't occured to me. It's an option.

I understand that the Council have cleared their schedule and cancelled a few meetings to fit in a crisis meeting of the Full Council on Thursday so I think this might be over by the end of the week in any case.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 8 2011, 01:47 PM

I have no idea if you have a case or not, but (unless the Council meeting agrees with your views) it need not be over as you imply.
If the Council have acted within the law then you were always onto a loser, and 'over' in the sense they evidence you have no case would be correct.
If you are not satisfied with a decision they may make to continue in the way you feel is unlawful then they merely stack up more to unravel at some stage.

You really need independent legal advice - not a fellow allotment user, not a friend of a councillor, simply an expert in land/local authority law.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 8 2011, 03:00 PM

I believe he is dishonest about being impartial on this matter. More-so user23 than dannyboy.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 8 2011, 03:21 PM

Do people have to be impartial? What is wrong with having a perspective? Do people have to declare their personal stance? Do they have to declare any specialist knowledge? Employment? After all, that would mean for sure that someone employed by (for instance) WBC, NWN etc would be in real difficulty if they did not follow the party line.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 8 2011, 03:28 PM

Definitely, one way or the other there needs to be a definite conclusion.



As I see it they can make one of only three decisions, and all lead to closure. They can 1. agree with me, 2. agree that they are right, or 3. not decide.

If they agree with me then they'd be best to negotiate a compromise agreement with me to put this all to bed once and for all or else I'll just keep on banging on about their tyranny, which will now be plain to everyone, and that really wouldn't do.

If they agree they're right then before they can do anything else they'll be obliged to tell me why they believe my UTCCR defence will fail, and if they have a point I'll just pay the arrears. Of course if we don't agree then they will have to bring court action so there's little point them chosing this option if they don't have a good case.

Not deciding isn't really an option because I've challenged the Council's authority and they can't sit back and do nothing, but they may choose this option if the reality of option 1. is too horrendous for them, but then I'll still be here banging on about their tyranny, and again that really won't do. I'll probably also start legal action of my own to bring closure so it still all ends in tears.


Indeed, it would have been nice to have just a fraction of the resource the Council have spent on this.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 8 2011, 03:52 PM

No, unless they claim to be.

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 8 2011, 06:04 PM

Well, you'd be wrong.

I don't have an allotment, want an allotment, work for the council, subcontract for the council, sit on the council or vote for the council.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 8 2011, 06:48 PM

That doesn't change my mind about this issue (in particular). You seem more interested in knocking SK's efforts than debating the merits of the case. Just some posts picked at random.






I believe the council should be looking into off-loading this apparent cost to the tax payer. Whether SK has altruistic motives or not, to me, makes no difference. Even if he has garnered little apparent support from other allotmenteers. So what?

A fail to see how a person who is not biased in the debate cannot agree that it would be worth investigating the initiative, if it is possible that it might save tax.

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 8 2011, 07:14 PM

a lot of ifs & buts in that last sentence. I'd say that the council should just up the rent so that the allotments break even.

then again, maybe Newbury should do what Manchester is proposing? After all, it it saves money.....

Posted by: user23 Feb 8 2011, 07:21 PM

If you're going to claim I'm dishonest at least claim it about things I've said.

Don't fabricate something then claim I'm dishonest to have said it, when I haven't.

No one is impartial, we're all expressing our views based on our prejudices and experiences.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 8 2011, 08:02 PM

Some times, it is not about what you say, but what you don't say.

Posted by: user23 Feb 8 2011, 08:34 PM

You claimed I said was impartial and that I was dishonest for doing so.

I said nothing of the sort; you made it up.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 8 2011, 08:41 PM

Are you impartial or not?

Posted by: user23 Feb 8 2011, 08:43 PM

Posted by: Iommi Feb 8 2011, 08:47 PM

I take that as a no then?

On my OP I said: "dannyboy and user23 are simply dishonest if they claim to be impartial on this matter".

A badly worded subsequent post suggested you had said you were impartial, but that is an error and what I meant to say was that I believe you to be more partial than dannyboy.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 8 2011, 09:03 PM

Does it matter, in a free debate, if someone has an opinion? It would matter if the party had some interest in the outcome, was influencing for personal benefit etc.
At worse, some contributors doubt SK has a case. Simon does raise the topic and his low opinion of NTC more than infrequently. User does point out what he feels are weaknesses in the case.

In the event the Council are found to be legally correct (forget the moral side), then Simon will have to eat a certain amount of humble pie. I trust he will put his hand up and move on.
In the event the Council is found at fault then those that felt he was being a pain will likewise have to do some apologising.

My feeling is that Simon has clearly done some research and seems to have an in-depth knowledge of the situation. He clearly is passionate about the cause. That does not mean he is right. I think he does go on a bit, and has clearly (like RG) fired from the hip and used the sort of language that, even when frustrated, does not help him achieve results.

I do not care how the allotments are run. I do care if there has been maladministration. Using the case for one to explore the case for the other is valid, but is a narrow attack that is easily extinguished.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 8 2011, 09:23 PM

We have several issues wrapped up in one here. The first is that the rent increase is allegedly unlawful and the council are reluctant to engage in dialogue about self management.

From what I have seen, SK has rubbed a load of people up the wrong way, and in my view SK does have a blunt way (rude even) of putting his point across to the council, but that shouldn't mean the the council should pull up the draw bridge.

Like I said, if the allotments are costing what I have read in good faith, and if the allotments could be run just as well without the tax subsidy, then I think the council should take that option seriously.

The thing I would most like to hear or see, is the reasons why the council seem reluctant to engage in the issue. It would be very unlikely that SK's side of the story is 100% accurate and complete.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 8 2011, 10:36 PM

That's pretty fair. In my defence I think I've done as well as I could, but I'll concede that it wasn't very well because I failed to bring anyone along with me. Actually I'd prefer if I wasn't so blunt because it does alienate people and it's not necessary, but I am blunt.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 10 2011, 01:16 PM

In just the last few months there have been stories of substantial increases in allotment rents, http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/8845252.GREENWICH__Allotment_rent_increases_may_be_illegal/ could see a full (10 pole) plot go from £67 to £200, and £400 for residents from outside the borough. The increase doesn't affect the borough's self-managed sites, but the Council has looked at the cost of administering its directly-managed sites and feels obliged to have them pay their way.

The allotmenteers' challenge to Greenwich Council is interesting because it would impose parity on the subsidy of all the council's leisure services and thus limit any increase in allotment rents. Dennis Harwood, an allotmenteer with the Borough of Banstead and Reigate http://www.baf.me.uk/harwood.pdf when they wanted to increase his allotment rent unreasonably, and he won his case in the High Court which set the legal precedent that councils must subsidise all of their leisure services to the same degree and not discriminate one against the other.

Mostly councils have respected this judgement, and when they haven't the increases have not been large enough to provoke a challenge, but since rents started creeping up with the increased popularity of allotmenteering, and especially in the last year as the funding crisis has started to bite, allotmenteers have become increasingly militant.

Newbury Town Council's 47% increase was challenged under consumer protection legislation because the increase was imposed unfairly, but not because the increase itself was unfair. If existing tenants could be persuaded to sign a fair tenancy agreement then the Town Council could again be free to impose a substantial increase in 2013. This new challenge would oblige the Council to subsidise allotments as it does its other leisure services and that would again limit any potential increase. The Council do not publish the full costs of their leisure services so it is difficult to say what effect this judgement would have the allotment service, or for that matter on football, bowls, boating, and playgrounds.

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 10 2011, 05:45 PM

Down to lack of transparency again then?