Newbury Town Council's £8,000.00 allotment bill!, And he still hasn't been properly evicted!!! Options

[Andy Capp]

I see nothing much that is unreasonable in Graham Hunt's reply. One minute you say you want to put it behind you, then you fire a smug volley with next. I think your message to the councillors was ill advised.

Would please humour me because I still struggle with some of your language. What is a 'rent review term'?

Would you also tell me concisely the bit you think is wrong with the contract, and how the council tried to change it to make it right? Please no esoteric language. Simple words and sentences.

[Cognosco]

See totally vexatious! No wonder they won't give answers to questions such as that. Newbury councillors have never heard of such questions? They usually have no one asking questions regarding what they do or say. If they let Simon get away with this I don't know where this will all end? Why you would have officers working day and night to write replies to taxpayers who, erroneously, thought the council incompetent? No this will never do it will be the end of years of tradition taxpayers should only have contact and dealings with councillors when an election is due not before! He must be made an example of!

[Simon Kirby]

Would please humour me because I still struggle with some of your language. What is a 'rent review term'?

This term: "The rent will be revisable every year". It gives the council the right to increase the rent. Without this term they can't.

Would you also tell me concisely the bit you think is wrong with the contract, and how the council tried to change it to make it right? Please no esoteric language. Simple words and sentences.

The contract obliged the tenant to give 12 month's notice to quit, but didn't require the council to give any notice of a rent increase. "12. The tenancy may also be determined by the Council or the Tenant by twelve months notice in writing in compliance with the Allotments Act 1922". So if the rent was increased from £50 to £250 the tenant would be legally and contractually obliged to pay, and if they didn't the council could sue them for the rent in the small claims court, and because the tenant was exposed to an unpleasantly large and unexpected bill that is the essential unfairness. The Council removed the requirement on the tenant to give 12 months notice, and added a clause requiring the council to give notice of a rent increase.

[Andy Capp]

That all makes sense. Contracts, I understand, should be equal. 12 months (or any other time frame) notice should be given to both parties.

OK. So they removed the clause for an allotmenteer to give 12 months notice, and inserted a notice for a rent review. Is that correct? If so, what is your complaint now?

[Nothing Much]

STUFF COUNCILS FOR FUN.
ce

[Simon Kirby]

OK. So they removed the clause for an allotmenteer to give 12 months notice, and inserted a notice for a rent review. Is that correct? If so, what is your complaint now?

Yes, that's correct - though I wasn't allowed to sign that agreement, I hold my allotment on the old agreement. My main complaint is that the council are trying to evict me for making the complaint to Trading Standards.

[Andy Capp]

Yes, that's correct - though I wasn't allowed to sign that agreement, I hold my allotment on the old agreement

OK, I think I might be getting there. You won't pay the 'arrears' because you don't think you are obliged to. They are evicting you for refusing to pay it. You say you would sign the current agreement and I assume they are meant to drop the claim for the £20.00; based on the idea that because they have subsequently changed the agreement, that is admission to the old one being void.

1 Am I right?
2 Would the new agreement have the 'shut your gob' clause?*
3 Is there anything in the new agreement you don't like and would intend to challenge?
4 What is the notice period for the council to change the rent?


*Personally, although I wouldn't like it, I think it would be reasonable for the landlord to insist that tenants follow the complaints procedure before going to the media (including the Internet). This clause, however, should only be concerning allotments. I'd say all other bets are off and you should be able to protest however you see fit, within the law.

My main complaint is that the council are trying to evict me for making the complaint to Trading Standards.

Do you have evidence or proof of this?

[dannyboy]

So if I come along and boot you out of your house, which would be illegal, you would just accept it then if I follow the lines of you argument?
Simon has done nothing illegal as far as I or many others can see, the only wrong he has done as far as I can see is the perhaps blunt manner in which he used to expose that some inept councillors do not know what they are doing as regards the law, when they were exposed they then tried to ensure that Simon was gagged, hence the reprehensible contract that broke every civil liberty law there is. So just to ensure Simon did not get away with these dastardly deeds they then spend £8000 pounds of taxpayers money in trying to remove him from his beloved plot of land.

Simon has paid the rent that he was legally obliged to pay nothing more nothing less how can that be wrong?
So the only way they can evict him is because they want to they do not have any other legal reason to evict him.

Roll on the next election where I for one will ensure that these matters are fully aired again in public.
The only decent thing for the council to do is to resign en masse and the quicker the better for all Newbury taxpayers as they have now ensured that the council has been brought into disrepute.

I'd never have you as a landlord.

[Nothing Much]

Sounds like Kett's rebellion.
ce.

[NWNREADER]

I agree that SKs subsequent question to the Council was ill-advised in terminology even though correct in thrust.

Odd that SK says he wrote to every Councillor, yet the response refers to an email to 'selected Councillors'. I wonder how that conclusion arose? Was it a line fed to the CE or did he ask all Councillors and only got a few replies?

Interesting that a current (?) official representative of an allotment association recently asked NTC to justify a rent increase..... (Minutes)

[Simon Kirby]

OK, I think I might be getting there. You won't pay the 'arrears' because you don't think you are obliged to. They are evicting you for refusing to pay it. You say you would sign the current agreement and I assume they are meant to drop the claim for the £20.00; based on the idea that because they have subsequently changed the agreement, that is admission to the old one being void.

1 Am I right?
2 Would the new agreement have the 'shut your gob' clause?*
3 Is there anything in the new agreement you don't like and would intend to challenge?
4 What is the notice period for the council to change the rent?

1. Yes.
2. Of course not, it would be the same agreement that everyone else has.
3. Yes and no. Several clauses are still oppressive and unfair, and the rent review term is badly drafted, but I would rather not have anything to do with it now and would rather others took up the challenge.
4. 13 months, though that would appear to have been an error of incompetent drafting, the council intended it to be one months which is not enough to achieve fairness.

*Personally, although I wouldn't like it, I think it would be reasonable for the landlord to insist that tenants follow the complaints procedure before going to the media (including the Internet). This clause, however, should only be concerning allotments. I'd say all other bets are off and you should be able to protest however you see fit, within the law.

Yes, I would rather the Council followed their complaints procedure and that it wasn't necessary for me to suffer the humiliation and indignity of protesting my personal rights in a public forum. I was allowed to take my grievance to the Community Services committe eight months after I was given the notice of forfeiture, and that was the first time the council engaged in any way with my complaint - ten minutes in a public meeting to make the Unfair Terms argument. It was humiliating and utterly pointless. It's almost three years since I raised the issue of the unfair terms with the town clerk and in all of that time the council have never engaged with the complaint. I had a meeting with the council's solicitor but even then there was no engagement, I just stated my case and they had nothing to say - except they went away and revoked the forfeiture and gave me a Notice to Quit instead.

Do you have evidence or proof of this?

No of course not.

[andy1979uk]

1. Yes.
2. Of course not, it would be the same agreement that everyone else has.
3. Yes and no. Several clauses are still oppressive and unfair, and the rent review term is badly drafted, but I would rather not have anything to do with it now and would rather others took up the challenge.
4. 13 months, though that would appear to have been an error of incompetent drafting, the council intended it to be one months which is not enough to achieve fairness.



Yes, I would rather the Council followed their complaints procedure and that it wasn't necessary for me to suffer the humiliation and indignity of protesting my personal rights in a public forum. I was allowed to take my grievance to the Community Services committe eight months after I was given the notice of forfeiture, and that was the first time the council engaged in any way with my complaint - ten minutes in a public meeting to make the Unfair Terms argument. It was humiliating and utterly pointless. It's almost three years since I raised the issue of the unfair terms with the town clerk and in all of that time the council have never engaged with the complaint. I had a meeting with the council's solicitor but even then there was no engagement, I just stated my case and they had nothing to say - except they went away and revoked the forfeiture and gave me a Notice to Quit instead.



No of course not.

Am sorry but this situation is a joke, an extra £20 a year in rent ? What planet are you on, grow up and find something better to spend your time on.

[Strafin]

Am sorry but this situation is a joke, an extra £20 a year in rent ? What planet are you on, grow up and find something better to spend your time on.

I think Simon has detailed numerous times what his complaint is, and it isn't about the £20. Are you happy about the £8000 the council have spent so far then?

[andy1979uk]

I think Simon has detailed numerous times what his complaint is, and it isn't about the £20. Are you happy about the £8000 the council have spent so far then?

No its a complete waste, and if Simon simply pain the extra £20 all this would have been sorted. Allotment rents are cheap and good value as it is, I think he has some serious issues or a very sad and lonely life that he has nothing else to do.

[Strafin]

So you would happily pay another 47% on your council tax, rent or anything else without questioning it? You are happy for the council to break the law, so long as it is someone else on the receiving end? And you are happy that the council are trying to cover up the whole fiasco, thus far unsuccessfully, at huge costs to the taxpayer, rather than admit that they have made a mistake? Simon is fighting for us all, to try and keep our society just and fair, albeit in a small way.

[Strafin]

So you would happily pay another 47% on your council tax, rent or anything else without questioning it? You are happy for the council to break the law, so long as it is someone else on the receiving end? And you are happy that the council are trying to cover up the whole fiasco, thus far unsuccessfully, at huge costs to the taxpayer, rather than admit that they have made a mistake? Simon is fighting for us all, to try and keep our society just and fair, albeit in a small way.

[Andy Capp]

Am sorry but this situation is a joke, an extra £20 a year in rent ? What planet are you on, grow up and find something better to spend your time on.

No its a complete waste, and if Simon simply pain the extra £20 all this would have been sorted. Allotment rents are cheap and good value as it is, I think he has some serious issues or a very sad and lonely life that he has nothing else to do.

This isn't about £20.00, and everyone has their own issues, so do one.

[andy1979uk]

So you would happily pay another 47% on your council tax, rent or anything else without questioning it? You are happy for the council to break the law, so long as it is someone else on the receiving end? And you are happy that the council are trying to cover up the whole fiasco, thus far unsuccessfully, at huge costs to the taxpayer, rather than admit that they have made a mistake? Simon is fighting for us all, to try and keep our society just and fair, albeit in a small way.

47% of not allot is still not, he is being difficult as he clearly has nothing better to do. If I were the council I would evict the lot of them and concrete over it, maybe that would teach people to be grateful for the very cheap deal they already get.

[Andy Capp]

47% of not allot is still not, he is being difficult as he clearly has nothing better to do. If I were the council I would evict the lot of them and concrete over it, maybe that would teach people to be grateful for the very cheap deal they already get.

Except legislation would prevent you from doing so. As for value for money, allotment land is classified as agricultural, so is priced differently. The council have spent £8,000.00 and cannot, or will not evict him. That is the 'crime'.

[andy1979uk]

Except legislation would prevent you from doing so. As for value for money, allotment land is classified as agricultural, so is priced differently.

Does he seriously not have anything else to do, why is he trying to give people who rent allotments a bad name. I hope they increase it by 500% next time. What a complete waste of his and everyone everyone elses time.