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.

[Missus]

Is SK's money saving suggestion that Newbury should dispense with the up-keep of the Town Hall, the Mayor, the Committees, the provision of a voice for the the youth of Newbury and Grants to local organisations in order to keep allotment costs down? If NTC are doing these things "just because they can", doesn't providing allotments fall into this category too?

[Simon Kirby]

Is SK's money saving suggestion that Newbury should dispense with the up-keep of the Town Hall, the Mayor, the Committees, the provision of a voice for the the youth of Newbury and Grants to local organisations in order to keep allotment costs down?

I want allotment self-management because of the social benefit to the allotmenteers of us managing the service for ourselves, because we get to choose for ourselves how to develop our service, because it generates money for capital investment, and because it keeps our rents managable.

Personally I wouldn't mind too much if self-management cost the tax-payer more because I think the extra social benefit, both on site and in the wider community, would be worth the extra money. As it happens self-management actually saves the tax-payer money and that's handy for me because generally it's difficult to articulate the social-benefit argument, but everyone understands the bottom line. Self-management saves £100k.

That £100k saving is just a consequence of devolving the allotment service. The allotment service is about 16% of what the Council does, so if it's to provide 16% less services then it's not unreasonable to expect to see all of the non-service stuff it spends our money on contract similarly. Rather than wave my hands vaguely I've given some specific examples of where those savings would come from.

Dispense with the up-keep of the Town Hall: the town hall isn't a service, essentially it's office accomodation, and with 16% less to do I expect to see a 16% saving in that accomodation. I wouldn't be unhappy to see the building sold off and the town council relocated to an office on New Greenham Park.

The Mayor: Shave 16% off the £60-odd grand we spend on the civic budget and we'd still have a perfectly servicable mayor, though I'd be very happy to save all of that and become a parish council.

The Committees: You have to delve into the accounts to see exactly what comes under this head, but yes, without the allotments to worry about it's not unreasonable to amalgamate the arts and leisure committee into the community services committee and save 16% of the head.

The provision of a voice for the the youth of Newbury: Oh p-lease. The Youth Council has nothing to do with empowering our youth, it gives a few individuals the aspirations to control their peers just like their senior cousins, and that's altogether unhealthy. Scrap it, and give us all - youths and otherwise - responsibility for ourselves.

Grants to local organisations: I'm not entirely sure how it is the Town Council think they know better than me where I want to make charitable donations of my own money so I'd seriously think about scrapping this altogether, but as it is I've suggested a few of the most inappropriate items to trim the budget.

If NTC are doing these things "just because they can", doesn't providing allotments fall into this category too?

Funily enough allotments are the only thing parish councils are under a positive duty to provide (Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908), absolutely everything else is optional.

[Missus]

Perhaps NTC should cut all other services and just concentrate on allotments as SK wants. No cemeteries would be needed as burials could take place on allotments, children could play between the rows of cabbages instead of in playgrounds and the Mayor could share SK's shed. The Town Hall could be sold off and turned into bedsits for more "affordable housing". Just out of interest, may I ask how much it is you pay for your allotment, to justify such contempt for the council ?

[Simon Kirby]

Perhaps NTC should cut all other services and just concentrate on allotments as SK wants. No cemeteries would be needed as burials could take place on allotments, children could play between the rows of cabbages instead of in playgrounds ...

I gave you a very full answer and nowhere do I suggest any service cuts whatsoever. I suggest that self-management will improve the allotment service whilst saving £100k. No other services are affected by this. My primary interest is the quality of the allotment service and I propose self-management because it improves the service. That it saves £100k of tax-payer's money is an added bonus and helps me make the case for self-management where people are not so familiar with the allotment movement.

In this thread I make specific money-saving suggestions because public money is tight. It's insightful to see how NTC could save 33% on the precept, but doubly so because again none of the Council services are cut, they're just delivered in partnership with the community.

... and the Mayor could share SK's shed. The Town Hall could be sold off and turned into bedsits for more "affordable housing".

But now you're confusing services with overheads. All of the Council services could be operated from an office on New Greenham Park without any need for a mayor. Actually there's a case to be made that the cultural authority engendered by the mayor and town hall are part of the Council's problem and that were they to see themselves more as services providers rather than feudal overlords they might serve the town better. But whatever, if money's tight and it's a choice between all that pomp and say a day care centre I know what I'd want my money spent on.

Just out of interest, may I ask how much it is you pay for your allotment, to justify such contempt for the council ?

You miss the point. My contempt for the Council doesn't stem from the cost of my allotment, but from their arrogance. This thread specifically is about the unenforceability of the rent increase. In short because of some consumer protection legislation the Council have to give 12 months notice of any rent increase. The Council's position is that people should just shut up and do as they're told. I think that attitude stinks and I feel strongly enough about it to risk my allotment calling the Council's bluff.

I am also contemptuous of how the Council have suppressed discussion of self-management to protect their self-interest. The Council have accused me of spreading misinformation about allotment rents, but in this thread I've shown how Cllr Arthur Johnson and the Services Manager have apparently mislead the West Mills tenants' meeting and Newbury allotmenteers generally. Cllr Johnson said in effect that Newbury's allotment rent is only average whereas it is in fact about twice the going rate, and the Services Manager wrongly implied that self-management produced rents of well over ten times the current rate and that's utter nonsense.

I'm also contemptuous of how the Council has victimised me for starting a site association and attempting to empower allotmenteers. In this thread I have given as an example how Cllr Marion Fenn made what I believe to be false and malicious accusations against me at a meeting of the full council. The Council later took up Cllr Fenn's proposal to label me as a vexatious complainant to stop me raising the question of self-management and the rent increase at council meetings, and they have also suspended my right to free expression by preventing me raising awareness of these issues on the society notice board. Incidentally, I mailed Cllr Fenn to give her the opportunity to post here those "crude and offensive" emails she supposes me to have sent, but she appears to have been unable to do that. Just to be fair, I have a copy of every e-mail I've sent over the last three years so if anyone want to trawl through them and expose any that are "crude and offensive" then I'd welcome it.

Anywho, you think this is about the money? My rent is £47.10, and the Council put it up to £69.40, and I withheld £22.30. I wouldn't want to deprive the allotment service or over-burden the tax-payer just because of the Council's arrogance, so here's an idea: If the Council make a genuine commitment to self-management within the next 12 months I'll make a £250 donation to improve site facilities - and if Cllr Fenn can't substantiate her personal accusation against me then I'll accept a similar contribution towards site facilities from her by way of apology.

[user23]

My rent is £47.10, and the Council put it up to £69.40, and I withheld £22.30.

Hang on, that's £70 to rent a bit of land in Newbury for a whole year? £70?

That's dirt cheap, if you pardon the pun.

[Iommi]

Hang on, that's £70 to rent a bit of land in Newbury for a whole year? £70?That's dirt cheap, if you pardon the pun.

It is, but that ain't his issue.

[user23]

It is, but that ain't his issue.

But that's the real issue here. It's £70 to rent a bit of land in Newbury for a whole year.