Allotments, this is what you get for your money! Options

[dannyboy]

Rather than than post crap!

Wheras that post was eleoquence on a sublime level.

[Andy Capp]

Wheras that post was eleoquence on a sublime level.

Don't let him get to you DB!

[dannyboy]

Don't let him get to you DB!

I was going to seek his advice on getting banned actually.

[motormad]

Post your honest opinion.

[dannyboy]

Post your honest opinion.

of what?

[Cognosco]

...or post what you actually think!

Hey just a minute what about his orders from the Supreme Leader? If he posts what he actually thinks he will probably be signing on tomorrow!

[dannyboy]

Hey just a minute what about his orders from the Supreme Leader? If he posts what he actually thinks he will probably be signing on tomorrow!

Ooo, that is a good one, did you think of that all by yourself?

[Cognosco]

Ooo, that is a good one, did you think of that all by yourself?

Afraid so I don't have anyone to shout commands in my lughole so you will have to make allowances for us plebs! (touches forelock of course)

[dannyboy]

Afraid so I don't have anyone to shout commands in my lughole so you will have to make allowances for us plebs! (touches forelock of course)

what a strange kind of pleb.

[Cognosco]

what a strange kind of pleb.

Well from your point of view anyone who crticises or does not agree with our two local authorities whether a pleb or not would be deemed as strange!

[dannyboy]

Well from your point of view anyone who crticises or does not agree with our two local authorities whether a pleb or not would be deemed as strange!

We are yet to see any of that.

What we do have is minor nitpicking over trivial technicalities. Lets have something, anything, worthy of 'Rotton Boroughs'.....

[motormad]

It's okay, trivial technicalities as you so call it it ... remember that when they over charge your council tax by 80 quid per year because it's actually gone up 3.3% rather than 2.7.

[dannyboy]

It's okay, trivial technicalities as you so call it it ... remember that when they over charge your council tax by 80 quid per year because it's actually gone up 3.3% rather than 2.7.

LOL<

when did that happen to anyone?

[Cognosco]

LOL<

when did that happen to anyone?

Well hopefully our vexatious poster friend will prevent this kind of occurrence happening!
Misleading information issued by a local authority is wrong. You have to inquire what is the reason for issuing misleading information. You should be grateful that someone is taking the time to scrutinies our local authorities especially when you know of their track records?

[dannyboy]

Well hopefully our vexatious poster friend will prevent this kind of occurrence happening!
Misleading information issued by a local authority is wrong. You have to inquire what is the reason for issuing misleading information. You should be grateful that someone is taking the time to scrutinies our local authorities especially when you know of their track records?

I totally agree.

heaven forbid it should ever happen.

[MontyPython]

I totally agree.

heaven forbid it should ever happen.

It happens frequently. Unfortunately some of the electorate are so stupid they can't see it even when it is pointed out to them!

[Andy Capp]

We are yet to see any of that. What we do have is minor nitpicking over trivial technicalities. Lets have something, anything, worthy of 'Rotton Boroughs'.....

I don't see misleading councillors as any of those.

[Cognosco]

I don't see misleading councillors as any of those.

Exactly! Politicians fiddling expenses, bankers dreaming up dodgy gambling deals, businesses having accountants dreaming up tax loopholes, councillors cutting spending on essential services to keep their tinpot empires intact, the list goes on! Then along comes Dannyboy and his other council cohorts to try and trivialise councillors deliberately misleading precept payers so that this sort of underhand tactic becomes the norm and is accepted as part of everyday life.

[NWNREADER]

I have no opinion on Allotments, and I am not an NTC resident.

Price/tax increases are emotive. Surely the real question should be 'Why?' and not just 'How much?'?
Changing the unit of measurement can easily be used as a smokescreen for hiding the cost and leading to divisive argument of the rate of change. I can remember running a staff refreshment facility when decimalisation came in. I dutifully translated all the prices to the 'new' equivalent, as precisely as I could. The Finance Manager berated me and changed them all again, usually rounded up to the nearest 5p. "Our suppliers will be doing the same" was the justification........

In the current debate I see 2 issues -
1. Why is the cost increasing (at all); and
2. How much is a plot holder paying for the new period as opposed to the previous one - as a %age if you like? The price paid is what matters, not the units of measure.

Remember petrol pre decimalisation and metrication? 1d a gallon increase was commented on, now we barely notice .5p/litre.....

[Simon Kirby]

In the current debate I see 2 issues -
1. Why is the cost increasing (at all); and
2. How much is a plot holder paying for the new period as opposed to the previous one - as a %age if you like? The price paid is what matters, not the units of measure.

In reverse order:
2. The allotmenteers will see a 4.5% increase.

Last year they were charged at £7.50/pole (which is 29.65p/m²) and this year the proposal is to charge 31.00p/m². I don't know what increase was voted for in the end - Does anyone else know?

1. The Council is legally obliged to let allotments "at such rent as a tenant may reasonably be expected to pay for the land if let for such use on the terms (other than terms as to rent) on which it is in fact let" so a council can only change its rate if their assessment of what "a tenant may reasonably be expected to pay for [an allotment]" changes. There is no prescriptive formula for making that assessment and a council can decide it in any rational way it chooses, but raising rents to better cover costs is not a legitimate reason because the statutory obligation isn't concerned about the cost of providing the service, simply about the cost of the allotment.

This came before the courts in 1981 in Harwood vs Reigate and Banstead BC and the judgment was that an allotment service was a leisure service and was entitled to exactly the same subsidy as all of the council's other leisure services and that a council could not discriminate against the allotment service and raise it's rents by more than it might raise the charges for its football pitches or bowling greens. Of course NTC spectacularly ignored than a couple of years ago and set an unlawful 47% increase, but then NTC doesn't care to be told what it can and can't do.