NTC consider allotment rent increase enforcement Options

[On the edge]

He has every right to complain and campaign if he feels he's been unfairly treated. Of course, quite rightly, he is only representing his own case but that does not mean he doesn't know excatly how his peers feel. This may all be regarded as kicking up a fuss over a technicality that has been accepted for years. Boy am I glad there are still people willing to do that; we would have lost many rights over the years had not a few people taken a stand.

[Iommi]

He has every right to complain and campaign if he feels he's been unfairly treated. Of course, quite rightly, he is only representing his own case but that does not mean he doesn't know excatly how his peers feel. This may all be regarded as kicking up a fuss over a technicality that has been accepted for years. Boy am I glad there are still people willing to do that; we would have lost many rights over the years had not a few people taken a stand.

Top post! I 'fear' dannyboy and user23 are not bipartisan on this affair.

[user23]

Or it could be about betting things done properly? I don't see anything wrong with that, and SK is prepared to put his allotment on the line for this cause. I hope he doesn't end up a martyr.

He and a fellow allotment holder could write their account of events.

It could be called "From Tomatoes to Martyrs"

[dannyboy]

Or it could be about betting things done properly? I don't see anything wrong with that, and SK is prepared to put his allotment on the line for this cause. I hope he doesn't end up a martyr.

True - but why wait until now to take it all the way? Sour apples on both sides methinks

[Simon Kirby]

"Unfair" is a subjective term in this case and therefore it seems pointless arguing as he no doubt thinks it is and they think not. If he could prove the rent rise is illegal that would be a different story, but it doesn't seem it is.

No, S.5(1) of the Regulations defines the test of fairness as A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer. 'Good faith' here means that traders must deal fairly and openly with you. S.6(1) says ... the unfairness of a contractual term shall be assessed, taking into account the nature of the goods or services for which the contract was concluded and by referring, at the time of conclusion of the contract, to all the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract and to all the other terms of the contract or of another contract on which it is dependent.

Ultimately it's the court that decides whether a term is unfair by applying the S.5 test, but to give a bit of insight there's a grey-list that goes with the Regulations - examples of terms which are most likely unfair - and unfair rent review terms are covered by Schedule 2 S.1(l) [Terms which have the object or effect of] ... allowing a seller of goods or supplier of services to increase their price without in both cases giving the consumer the corresponding right to cancel the contract ...;

He's also a bit guilty of Garvism in that first he says "What's got the Council rattled is that the allotmenteers are beggining to understand how increadibly inefficiently the service is run" suggesting he has a mandate to question the charges from many allotment holders but when goes on to say that he represents "Just me".

I claim no mandate, and I have no problem with you comparing me to Richard.

[Simon Kirby]

True - but why wait until now to take it all the way? Sour apples on both sides methinks

Actually what I did first was meet the Chief Executive last summer and mention the Regulations to him so that the Council would have time to do the right thing. I also wrote to the Chief Executive in December mentioning again my understanding that the Regulations made a rent increase without notice unfair. I also wrote to Cllrs Ifor Sheldon, Julian Swift-Hook, and Arthur Johnson cautioning them that it was my understanding that a rent increase without notice would be unfair under the Regulations. I received no response from any of them. After the rent increase was approved the Society asked the Council to suspend the increase pending investigation of the issue, but they refused, and so I reported the matter to Trading Standards who upheld my complaint and the Council had to redraft the tenancy agreement. I refused to pay the increase because I believed it to be unfair, and the Council issued one months notice of eviction as required by the tenancy agreement and allotments act to expire 17 May. I gave the Council an ultimatum on 16 May either to issue court proceedings seeking possession within 14 days, or else to relinquish their claim and resign - I figured I'd had my allotment longer than there'd been a town council so if they could evict me with so little engagement and consideration I was happy to see them resign for trying to bluff me. The council instead wrote me a letter saying that they'd evict me December 13.

I have since written to encourage the councillors to discuss the issue with me and have had no response, until at last the Chief Executive responded to my request to escalate my complaint to Committee. That's where we are now.

[Guest_Newbury Expat_*]

I don't know whether the details of what you've said are true or what you've left out but when it comes down to it isn't this what generally happens to those who won't pay their rent?

It's hardly "democracy in action" if it's you and you alone protesting about these new charges. Perhaps if you had more allotment holders supporting your cause you might stand more of a chance.

But isn't it one of the hallmarks of a democracy the opportunity for an individual to stand up for his rights? Maybe that's idealistic and maybe naive, but I think it's a positive sign when one stands up for their principles.

Furthermore, just because others may not be as vocal, does not mean their rights are not being affected. If we took the stance that we couldn't be bothered, wouldn't this laissez-faire approach be almost exactly what most people on these boards are against.

I had taken you to be one of the 'action oriented' people here and did not like it when people complain about things if they are not prepared to do anything about it. My apologies if I read you wrong, but I'm pretty certain that you have consistently asked someone having a moan "what they are going to do about it". On this topic you seem to be only interested in belittling Simon's efforts in something he clearly feels very passionate about and to which he is putting that passion into action.

It does seem instead that you prefer rather to be contrarian without a consistent point of view and an intent of posting to provoke. A waste really.

[user23]

But isn't it one of the hallmarks of a democracy the opportunity for an individual to stand up for his rights? Maybe that's idealistic and maybe naive, but I think it's a positive sign when one stands up for their principles.

Furthermore, just because others may not be as vocal, does not mean their rights are not being affected. If we took the stance that we couldn't be bothered, wouldn't this laissez-faire approach be almost exactly what most people on these boards are against.

I had taken you to be one of the 'action oriented' people here and did not like it when people complain about things if they are not prepared to do anything about it. My apologies if I read you wrong, but I'm pretty certain that you have consistently asked someone having a moan "what they are going to do about it". On this topic you seem to be only interested in belittling Simon's efforts in something he clearly feels very passionate about and to which he is putting that passion into action.

I'm belittling no one. I'm just saying that he doesn't seem to have the support of anyone else, probably can't prove that these charges are unfair and doesn't seem to have thought about the consequences of not increasing the rent.

Just because one feels very passionate and is outspoken about something doesn't make them correct and doesn't make them immune from criticism.

[Simon Kirby]

I'm belittling no one. I'm just saying that he doesn't seem to have the support of anyone else, probably can't prove that these charges are unfair and doesn't seem to have thought about the consequences of not increasing the rent.

Just because one feels very passionate and is outspoken about something doesn't make them correct and doesn't make them immune from criticism.

Your're pretty much right when you say I have no support.

Whether the court agrees that the rent review term fails the Regulations' fairness test is a decision only the court can make and I'm no lawer so there is a big risk for me here. I've laid out my argument and I'd be interested to know what you think. Being taken to court is not my choice and if I can avoid it I will. I would rather the Council discussed this rationally and calmly, but I won't be intimidated if they won't.

Consequences? First off the Council need to be able to increase the rent lawfully, and if it can't then that's that. The problem is that the tenancy agreement is unfair, and the Council had plenty of warning that it was unfair but they chose to do nothing about it. Drafting a fair agreement is simple enough. Having the rent track RPI is automatically fair, and it's likely that the current term would be fair if the agreement included the requirement to give at least 12 months notice of the increase. The Council could have chosen to comply with the Regulations, but instead I had to make a complaint to Trading Standards before the Council would comply.

I'll mention too that the Council might well have brought this to a satisfactory conclusion had they just offered me the new agreement, but I was offered it pre-evicted - I would still have to leave 13 December. I declined.

I've also considered the consequence of the Council raising £5k less in revenue. I've posted here how inefficiently the Council administer the service. The answer is not to charge higher rents, the answer is to be more efficient, and self-management is the solution. I've researched this at some considerable length and given the opportunity I would introduce it in Newbury with a saving to the tax-payer of around £100k. I've asked the Council to discuss this with me and they won't.

And of course there is a consequence to the Council of being caught in a lie. If the Council decide at this late hour that the rent review term is enenforceable then they need to explain why it took them eighteen months to work it out. And if the Council decide on Monday that they were right all along then the consequences for them will be worse still if they lose in court.

[dannyboy]

Actually what I did first was meet the Chief Executive last summer and mention the Regulations to him so that the Council would have time to do the right thing. I also wrote to the Chief Executive in December mentioning again my understanding that the Regulations made a rent increase without notice unfair. I also wrote to Cllrs Ifor Sheldon, Julian Swift-Hook, and Arthur Johnson cautioning them that it was my understanding that a rent increase without notice would be unfair under the Regulations. I received no response from any of them. After the rent increase was approved the Society asked the Council to suspend the increase pending investigation of the issue, but they refused, and so I reported the matter to Trading Standards who upheld my complaint and the Council had to redraft the tenancy agreement. I refused to pay the increase because I believed it to be unfair, and the Council issued one months notice of eviction as required by the tenancy agreement and allotments act to expire 17 May. I gave the Council an ultimatum on 16 May either to issue court proceedings seeking possession within 14 days, or else to relinquish their claim and resign - I figured I'd had my allotment longer than there'd been a town council so if they could evict me with so little engagement and consideration I was happy to see them resign for trying to bluff me. The council instead wrote me a letter saying that they'd evict me December 13.

I have since written to encourage the councillors to discuss the issue with me and have had no response, until at last the Chief Executive responded to my request to escalate my complaint to Committee. That's where we are now.

But you have been wanting to take the allotments into self management for 3 years. The council has said no to that, so it could be interpreted that you picking up on the technicality of the rent increase is in response to that - as if you have been out looking for something to moan about.

[Iommi]

But you have been wanting to take the allotments into self management for 3 years. The council has said no to that, so it could be interpreted that you picking up on the technicality of the rent increase is in response to that - as if you have been out looking for something to moan about.

Is there a problem wishing to change things for the better, especially if it saves tax payers money? Even if not, he is unhappy about how the allotments are run, just because others suffer from deference, shouldn't mean he should remain reticent, I feel.

[Simon Kirby]

Dannyboy makes a fair point. I am seen as a trouble maker. It's not my intention to make trouble for trouble's sake, but the perception is a problem for me because it alienates allotmenteers and the few decent councillors who might otherwise engage. It's unfortunate, but I am rather abrasive. I wish it were otherwise because it doesn't help what I'm trying to achieve. It's also made it easy for the Council to undermine my initiatives.

[dannyboy]

Dannyboy makes a fair point. I am seen as a trouble maker. It's not my intention to make trouble for trouble's sake, but the perception is a problem for me because it alienates allotmenteers and the few decent councillors who might otherwise engage. It's unfortunate, but I am rather abrasive. I wish it were otherwise because it doesn't help what I'm trying to achieve. It's also made it easy for the Council to undermine my initiatives.

You need to become a secret organ grinder & find yourself a monkey.

[dannyboy]

Is there a problem wishing to change things for the better, especially if it saves tax payers money? Even if not, he is unhappy about how the allotments are run, just because others suffer from deference, shouldn't mean he should remain reticent, I feel.

Change things for the better is one POV. Trying to gain control of a council asset is another.

[Iommi]

Change things for the better is one POV. Trying to gain control of a council asset is another.

The idea is allegedly to save tax payers money and run the allotments more efficiently? It could be seen as councillors trying to protect their self importance? The allotments would always remain a council asset.

Personalities should never come into this.

[Simon Kirby]

Change things for the better is one POV. Trying to gain control of a council asset is another.

And that's really rather the point: allotmenteers don't want controlling, and only a control-monger would think of self-management like this. Self-management makes the allotmenteers responsible for cutting their own paths, and hedges, collecting their own rents, and doing their own site inspections. Visit some self-managed sites and see for yourself. It's not rocket surgery, and it doesn't cost £200 per plot that NTC charge the tax-payer. Even without the saving self-management is a good thing because of the community it engenders, but when it saves £100k of tax-payers money it's a no-brainer.

[dannyboy]

And that's really rather the point: allotmenteers don't want controlling, and only a control-monger would think of self-management like this. Self-management makes the allotmenteers responsible for cutting their own paths, and hedges, collecting their own rents, and doing their own site inspections. Visit some self-managed sites and see for yourself. It's not rocket surgery, and it doesn't cost £200 per plot that NTC charge the tax-payer. Even without the saving self-management is a good thing because of the community it engenders, but when it saves £100k of tax-payers money it's a no-brainer.

Saves £100k of what money?

[JeffG]

I didn't find the relevant post, but I assume you have paid the previous amount and just withheld the increase that is in dispute?

[Simon Kirby]

I didn't find the relevant post, but I assume you have paid the previous amount and just withheld the increase that is in dispute?

Yes Jeff, that's right. I paid at last year's rate.

[Simon Kirby]

Saves £100k of what money?

Allotment self-management would save £100k of tax-payer money. The NTC precept would be £100k less if the Council implemented allotment self-management.

Under fully-devolved self-management the allotment service would be self-funding and receive no financial support from the Council and the Council would have no involvement in the service and expend no resources to support it so you save the whole of the cost of the service.

So you save £21,680 running costs, £35,450 staff costs, £3,598 of service overheads (mostly budget margin), debit £17,500 for the revenue, £19,631 saving on the back-office, and because the Council now delivers 16% less services than before you also shed £34,226 of overheads (things like town hall, civic duties, committee expenditure, young people's council, and grants), so that's a total saving on the precept of £97,085.

All of those savings follow naturally except the overheads, and saving on these overheads is largely a question of reining-in the budgets to account for the Council being 16% smaller, and that's straight-forward for all but the town hall.

I've given a breakdown of how those savings, and others, could be made in this thread.

None of that makes any savings from efficiencies, but there's something to be said here too. It costs the Council around £185 to administer each plot (compare that with the average plot rent of £35). That's not cutting the site hedges or mending the fences, it's the administrative things like collecting the rents and issuing new tenancies. Site administration can be commercially out-sourced from £7 per plot, and the company makes a profit on that. It would be interesting to know if that kind of efficiency is replicated in the other council services.