Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Newbury Today Forum _ Newbury News _ Newbury Town Council's £8,000.00 allotment bill!

Posted by: Andy Capp May 3 2012, 08:03 PM

It would seem the dispute with Simon Kirby has cost Newbury Town's tax payers £8,000.00, and that is even before you include officer time. It would seem however, that Simon hasn't yet been evicted.

Julian Swift-Hook and Graham Hunt, on the face of it, seem to be really cocking this up. Why will they not just simply sue Mr Kirby, or give him what he wants, which is unmitigated access to his well kept plot?

If the case against Simon Kirby is so strong, why is it costing so much taxpayers money? I think Julian Swift-Hook and Graham Hunt should seriously 'consider their positions'.

Posted by: NWNREADER May 3 2012, 08:05 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 3 2012, 09:03 PM) *
It would seem the dispute with Simon Kirby has cost Newbury Town's tax payers £8,000.00, and that is even before you include officer time. It would seem however, that Simon hasn't yet been evicted.

Julian Swift-Hook and Graham Hunt, on the face of it, seem to be really cocking this up. Why will they not just simply sue Mr Kirby, or give him what he wants, which is unhindered access to his well kept plot?

If the case against Simon Kirby is so strong, why is it cost so much taxpayers money? I think Julian Swift-Hook and Graham Hunt should seriously 'consider their positions'.


Source?

Posted by: Andy Capp May 3 2012, 08:06 PM

QUOTE (NWNREADER @ May 3 2012, 09:05 PM) *
Source?

Your supposed to be the 'NWN reader'! wink.gif Today's NWN, Page 19, column 1.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 3 2012, 08:23 PM

By-the-way, had the council conceded to the rent rise argument and handed back the £20.00 or so to everyone, it would have cost ~£10,000.00, however; they could have immediately handed the allotmenteers 12 months notice of an increase and all this would be over!

Posted by: dannyboy May 4 2012, 12:57 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 3 2012, 09:23 PM) *
By-the-way, had the council conceded to the rent rise argument and handed back the £20.00 or so to everyone, it would have cost ~£10,000.00, however; they could have immediately handed the allotmenteers 12 months notice of an increase and all this would be over!

I don't think it was the rent rise wich was the initial problem.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 4 2012, 02:06 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 4 2012, 01:57 PM) *
I don't think it was the rent rise wich was the initial problem.

But that is the justification for the 'eviction'.

Posted by: dannyboy May 4 2012, 02:09 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 4 2012, 03:06 PM) *
But that is the justification for the 'eviction'.

You mean not paying for something eventually ends up seeing oneself eveicted?

Posted by: Andy Capp May 4 2012, 02:13 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 4 2012, 03:09 PM) *
You mean not paying for something eventually ends up seeing oneself eveicted?

In this case; no. Which is my point. Notwithstanding that Simon's complaint is that he has paid all that he is obliged to pay.

What I am asking is: why are the council unable to evict Simon?

Posted by: dannyboy May 4 2012, 02:17 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 4 2012, 03:13 PM) *
In this case; no. Which is my point. Notwithstanding that Simon's complaint is that he has paid all that he is obliged to pay.

What I am asking is: why are the council unable to evict Simon?

didn't even he admit his claim over the rent increase might not be legally watertight?

maybe thry don't want to & just want to see the whole saga over?

nothing worse than a martyr

Posted by: Andy Capp May 4 2012, 02:25 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 4 2012, 03:17 PM) *
didn't even he admit his claim over the rent increase might not be legally watertight?

I don't know, because the council seem reluctant to do anything to prove it.

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 4 2012, 03:17 PM) *
maybe thry don't want to & just want to see the whole saga over? nothing worse than a martyr

... if you are a conservative. Of course they want this over; they are receiving poor publicity over it and appear to be incompetent. Councils seem ready to sue for non payment of council tax soon enough.

Posted by: dannyboy May 4 2012, 02:32 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 4 2012, 03:25 PM) *
I don't know, because the council seem reluctant to do anything to prove it.

I'm sure SK admitted as much on this forum - notthing for the council to prove if it has already been admitted.

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 4 2012, 03:25 PM) *
... if you are a conservative. Of course they want this over; they are receiving poor publicity over it and appear to be incompetent. Councils seem ready to sue for non payment of council tax soon enough.

Sk wasn't daft enough not to pay his rent - he just didn't pay the bit he thought unlawful asked for. A few quid.

If I was running the show I'd have booted him out way back then.

The whole saga is normally what happens when two stubborn types find something to disagree over.


Posted by: On the edge May 4 2012, 03:19 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 4 2012, 03:32 PM) *
......The whole saga is normally what happens when two stubborn types find something to disagree over.



That's certainly quite right. Doesn't do the Council's credibility a lot of good and not simply resolving it makes them look very small. Of course, would have been very easy to have 'booted him out' when it all started up - but again, as this appears to be a matter of principle that would have been the tactics of the school yard bully. Common amongst those enforcing civil rules I grant you!

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. May 4 2012, 03:46 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 4 2012, 03:32 PM) *
he just didn't pay the bit he thought unlawful asked for. A few quid.

Which was indeed deemed to be unfairly asked for, which was why the Council then changed the agreements and put a gagging clause in Simon's.
QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 4 2012, 03:32 PM) *
If I was running the show I'd have booted him out way back then.

Really? Do tell. Under what legislation would you have been able to that then?

Posted by: Andy Capp May 4 2012, 05:35 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 4 2012, 03:32 PM) *
I'm sure SK admitted as much on this forum - notthing for the council to prove if it has already been admitted.

He has admitted nothing of the sort. He was simply unsure that he is right, but in law, that is true of anything. Law isn't exact when there isn't a precedent.

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 4 2012, 03:32 PM) *
Sk wasn't daft enough not to pay his rent - he just didn't pay the bit he thought unlawful asked for. A few quid.

Exactly; the amount he alleges is unenforceable.

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 4 2012, 03:32 PM) *
If I was running the show I'd have booted him out way back then.

So to a degree you must agree with me then; why haven't the council evicted him?

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 4 2012, 03:32 PM) *
The whole saga is normally what happens when two stubborn types find something to disagree over.

Considering the authorities are quick to enforce the rules a they see fit, why shouldn't the plebs have their right to exercise them?

I think we have an insight to dannyboy's Britain here.

Posted by: dannyboy May 4 2012, 06:38 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 4 2012, 06:35 PM) *
I think we have an insight to dannyboy's Britain here.

LOL - to right - a place where one or two busy bodies can't go upsetting the status quo.

Posted by: dannyboy May 4 2012, 06:39 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 4 2012, 06:35 PM) *
So to a degree you must agree with me then; why haven't the council evicted him?

Too blooming spineless.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 4 2012, 07:09 PM

I'm pretty sure that I'm right about the unfairness of the rent review term, but of course I'm not 100% confident that I'm right, that would just be delusional. I'm confident I'm right because the Regulation 5. unfairness test is objective and the issues are clear. The rent review term is unfair if, at the time the tenancy agreement was signed, and taking into account the nature of allotmenteering and the other terms of the afreement, the rent review term causes a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations arising under the contract, and that the imbalance is contrary to the requirement of good faith.

The imbalance part of the test is simple enough. Without the rent review term the landlord can't increase the rent because there is no common law right to review rent, so the rent review term creates an imbalance in the rights and obligations under the contract by allowing the landlord to increase the rent where previously she couldn't. And because the term affects the rent which is obviously an important aspect of the agreement, and because there is no limit to the increase the landlord can impose, then the imbalance created by the rent review term is significant, and to the tenant's detrement.

That doesn't necessarily make the rent review term unfair though, because the imbalance still needs to be contrary to the requirement of good faith. Good faith here is an autonomous construct of European jurisprudence and there are books written on what it means, but there's nothing marginal with the rent review term and the fact that the tenant can't escape the agreement without being obliged to pay the increase is decisive. The Council tried to argue that they wouldn't enforce the contractual requirement to give 12 months notice to quit because that would be unfair, but the contract term is there in black and white and that's all the Regulations are concerned with, and in any event their admission simply reenforces the unfairness if the rent review term.

It took them over a year to think of it, but the Council's strongest argument was that the Regulations didn't apply to the rent review term because they had a statutory right to increase the rent under Section 10 of the Allotments Act 1950. If the Section did indeed create a statutory right they would be quite right that the Rgeulations didn't apply, but it doesn't, and they do. The Section says:

QUOTE ("Section 10(1) of the Allotments Act 1950")
Land let by a council under the Allotments Acts, 1908 to 1931, for use as an allotment shall be let 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:

Council's aren't actually free to choose the rent at which they let their allotments, they have to use this statutory provision. If there was an implied common law right for the landlord to increase the rent in an annual periodic tenancy then each year the council would be obliged to charge the rent for the year as set by this provision. But there isn no common law right, so this provision just defines the rent at which the allotment is let, and that's the rent the tenant pays each year. For this section to be construed as creating a statutory right to charge a revised rent each year it would need to say that, but it doesn't.

You get a better idea of what the section means by understanding that the 1950 act was an act to ammend previous allotments legislation, and it simply overides the requirement of Section 16(3) of the Allotments Act 1922 that allotments "shall be let at the full fair rent" with a more relaxed requirement that allotments "shall be let at such rent as a tenant may reasonably be expected to pay" which essentially reapplies the implied duty under Section 23(1) of the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts 1908 as enacted that a council provide allotments where otherwise they "cannot be obtained at a reasonable rent".

So I'm not 100% confident that the rent review term would be found to be unfair by a court, but I'm pretty sure it would, and more importantly I'm pretty sure that the Council have no basis for believing that the term is fair.

Of course Trading Standards agreed that the term was unfair and obliged the council to change the tenancy agreement. Trading Standards said
QUOTE ("Trading Standards")
I spoke to our legal representative yesterday and she is of the opinion that the 'rent review term' in the old agreement was itself not unfair, what made it unfair was the lack of ability to withdraw from the contract without penalty, ie you had to give 12 months notice and pay the higher price in the meantime.

And what's crucial here is that Newbury Town Council agreed to ammend the agreement - so that agreed with Trading Standards that the term was unfair! They had to agree because Trading Standards said:
QUOTE ("Trading Standards")
The old agreement, we agreed was unfair, but was changed to comply with the legislation. (If they had not changed it WBC could have applied for a civil injunction to prevent The Council from using the term).

Julian Swift-Hook really needs to explain his statements and the council's actions in the light of this.

But finally, none of this dispute needed to happen, and none of that £8,000 needed to be spent. Trading Standards made the Council revise the tenancy agreement and that was what I wanted. I'd made my protest, there was nothing more to be gained. I wrote to every councillor on 22 May 2010 saying:
QUOTE ("Simon Kirby 22 May 2010")
Dear Councillors

I would like to suggest that now is a good time to think about a mutually acceptable solution. I have made my protest, and there is nothing more to be gained by continuing. My passion is allotmenteering and I have no particular desire to spend the summer outside the Town Hall with my placard.

I respectfully request a meeting with a couple of you as soon as reasonably possible to discuss my legitimate concerns and how we can jointly present the outcome, now that people are watching. I would be very grateful for your response.

Simon
Other than an acknowledgement of receipt from Jeff Beck not one councillor had the decency even to respond, and the town clerk, who I hadn't addressed the request to, responded:
QUOTE
Simon

Following on from your conciliatory e-mail to selected Councillors on Saturday 22 May 2010 (in response to my e-mail of Friday 21 May 2010), requesting a meeting, I was in the process of suggesting such a meeting between us to progress.

Your e-mail of 22/5/10 stated “I would like to suggest that now is a good time to think about a mutually acceptable solution. I have made my protest, and there is nothing more to be gained by continuing. My passion is allotmenteering and I have no particular desire to spend the summer outside the Town Hall with my placard. I respectfully request a meeting with a couple of you as soon as reasonably possible to discuss my legitimate concerns and how we can jointly present the outcome, now that people are watching. I would be very grateful for your response”.

However, your subsequent question to the Community Services Committee meeting on Monday simply undermined all the goodwill that your e-mail of Saturday created and merely continued your protest. It is difficult for us to have any trust in any statement you make. A written response to the Community Services question will be provided in due course.

Neither I nor Councillors see any point in any meeting, unless you provide us, in advance, with clear and specific written proposals for discussion. At that point a meeting may be considered.

In the meantime, your categorisation as a vexatious complainant remains.

Regards

Graham Hunt


I had no further interests in persuing the unfairness of the rent review term, I just wanted to get on with my allotmenteering, but in two years the Council have given me just the one option of signing the new agreement, and that was with the secret gagging clause and that was obviously unacceptable. Ostensibly the council have persued my eviction over the matter of £20, and it has so far cost them - no, cost you - £8,000.

Eviction for arrears is the simplest legal process - but there were no arrears because the rent review term was unfair. All the Council need to do is apply for a possession order, so why don't they do it? What is in those minutes that is so embarrassing that they are unable to present them in evidence?

Posted by: Cognosco May 4 2012, 07:40 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 4 2012, 03:32 PM) *
I'm sure SK admitted as much on this forum - notthing for the council to prove if it has already been admitted.


Sk wasn't daft enough not to pay his rent - he just didn't pay the bit he thought unlawful asked for. A few quid.

If I was running the show I'd have booted him out way back then.

The whole saga is normally what happens when two stubborn types find something to disagree over.


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. angry.gif


Posted by: Andy Capp May 4 2012, 07:45 PM

What was your "subsequent question to the Community Services Committee meeting on Monday"?

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 4 2012, 08:11 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 4 2012, 08:45 PM) *
What was your "subsequent question to the Community Services Committee meeting on Monday"?


QUOTE
Councillors

You are to ratify a new allotment tenancy agreement tonight because Trading Standards upheld my complaint that terms of the current agreement are unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Specifically, you are to remove the contractual obligation on the tenant to give notice to quit, and include the contractual requirement on the Council to give notice of a rent increase, and you are making these changes in an attempt to wriggle around the statutory unfairness of the current term under which you imposed an unprecedented 47% increase in rents this year.

Trading Standards have no power to compel you to make these changes, so I infer your tacit recognition that the existing rent review term is unfair under the Regulation, and consequently that this year's rent increase is unlawful and unenforceable.

You have attacked me for making the complaint to Trading Standards, but I made several approaches to this Council in private which were ignored and dismissed out of hand. Do you now recognise that my complaint to Trading Standards was justified.

Will the Deputy Leader of the Council explain his comments to the Full Council of 18 January where he states that the Regulations do not apply to the tenancy agreement? If you believe this to be true how do you reconcile that with your ratification tonight of a new agreement?

Would you now like to apologise for unlawfully demanding an extra 47% allotment rent from me this year, and do you now unequivocally retract your various notices of eviction for my refusal to pay this unlawful rent.

Under the terms of the current agreement you can not require me to sign a new agreement until April 2012, and nor can you legitimately impose any increase in rent. If you are obliged to change the agreement to comply with the Regulations all you can legitimately do right now is remove the unfair terms, but you are seeking to impose a substantially modified contract to the considerable detriment to the tenant. Most especially, you are to impose an agreement to legitimise on-going year-on-year hikes in rent. £108k of tax-payers money to provide the allotment service is eye-wateringly inefficient and in fairness to the tenants and tax-payer will you not now discuss self-management under which the service cost to the tax-payer can be zero, and simply remove the unfair terms from the agreement.

Simon

Posted by: Andy Capp May 4 2012, 08:33 PM

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. wink.gif

Posted by: Cognosco May 4 2012, 08:43 PM

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! rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 4 2012, 08:45 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 4 2012, 09:33 PM) *
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.

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 4 2012, 09:33 PM) *
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. wink.gif

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.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 4 2012, 08:54 PM

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?

Posted by: Nothing Much May 4 2012, 09:35 PM

STUFF COUNCILS FOR FUN.
ce

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 4 2012, 09:35 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 4 2012, 09:54 PM) *
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.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 4 2012, 10:16 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 4 2012, 10:35 PM) *
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.

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 4 2012, 10:35 PM) *
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?

Posted by: dannyboy May 4 2012, 10:18 PM

QUOTE (Cognosco @ May 4 2012, 08:40 PM) *
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. angry.gif


I'd never have you as a landlord.

Posted by: Nothing Much May 4 2012, 10:28 PM

Sounds like Kett's rebellion.
ce.

Posted by: NWNREADER May 5 2012, 05:52 AM

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)

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 5 2012, 08:08 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 4 2012, 11:16 PM) *
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.


QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 4 2012, 11:16 PM) *
*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.


QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 4 2012, 11:16 PM) *
Do you have evidence or proof of this?

No of course not.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 5 2012, 08:40 AM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 5 2012, 09:08 AM) *
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.

Posted by: Strafin May 5 2012, 08:48 AM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 5 2012, 09:40 AM) *
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?

Posted by: andy1979uk May 5 2012, 08:52 AM

QUOTE (Strafin @ May 5 2012, 09:48 AM) *
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.

Posted by: Strafin May 5 2012, 09:04 AM

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.

Posted by: Strafin May 5 2012, 09:04 AM

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.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 5 2012, 09:06 AM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 5 2012, 09:40 AM) *
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.
QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 5 2012, 09:52 AM) *
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.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 5 2012, 09:08 AM

QUOTE (Strafin @ May 5 2012, 10:04 AM) *
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.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 5 2012, 09:10 AM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 5 2012, 10:08 AM) *
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'.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 5 2012, 09:14 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 5 2012, 10:10 AM) *
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.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 5 2012, 09:17 AM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 5 2012, 10:14 AM) *
Does he seriously not have anything else to do

I think it is his business, and not yours.

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 5 2012, 10:14 AM) *
why is he trying to give people who rent allotments a bad name. I hope they increase it by 500% next time.

Why would you want to hurt other allotmenteers so? People which include pensioners?

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 5 2012, 10:14 AM) *
What a complete waste of his and everyone everyone elses time.

Exactly, why can't the council evict him?

Posted by: user23 May 5 2012, 09:22 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 5 2012, 10:06 AM) *
This isn't about £20.00, and everyone has their own issues, so do one.
"Do one" suggests you'd like him to go away.

Surely if he doesn't support Simon's campaign to save himself £20 a year, he's just as entitled to air his views as those that do?

Posted by: Andy Capp May 5 2012, 09:24 AM

QUOTE (user23 @ May 5 2012, 10:22 AM) *
"Do one" suggests you'd like him to go away.

Surely if he doesn't support Simon's campaign to save himself £20 a year, he's just as entitled to air his views as those that do?

He is, except his argument is ill-researched. This isn't exclusively about £20.00. Also, his manners against other forum members is questionable. I'm happy for him to be against Simon Kirby, Simon is costing the council £8,000.00 and counting. What is the problem with the council? Competence?

Oh, and by the way, just to debunk your assertion that this is about Simon saving himself £20.00, Simon has already spent £500.00 of his own money on the affair. So it is more than just about money.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 5 2012, 09:32 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 5 2012, 10:24 AM) *
He is, except his argument is ill-researched. This isn't exclusively about £20.00. Also, his manners against other forum members is questionable.


I'm happy for him to be against Simon Kirby, Simon is costing the council £8,000.00 and counting. What is the problem with the council? Competence?



I am against Simon, am not saying the council have behaved correctly either. The fact remains that the allotments still remain very very good value for money. In my opinion there are better things to spend time on than argue over £20.

I also disagree with the way Simon is trying to play the victim, its all basicly playground games and I don't have the time for it.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 5 2012, 09:38 AM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 5 2012, 10:32 AM) *
I am against Simon, am not saying the council have behaved correctly either. The fact remains that the allotments still remain very very good value for money. In my opinion there are better things to spend time on than argue over £20.

How many times do I have to say that this is not just about £20.00 before you acknowledge it?

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 5 2012, 10:32 AM) *
I also disagree with the way Simon is trying to play the victim, its all basic playground games and I don't have the time for it.

Why post then?


What you haven't heard is allegations of local councillor(s) conspiring to undermine allotment democracy when Simon and others tried to start an allotment association. Also, Simon has alleged that the council have victimised an allotment holder(s).

Our council cost many of us several thousands of pounds a year, yet they seem to lack basic competence. If Simon is in arrears, sue him for heavens sake. Like I said, this affair has cost the tax payer £8,000.00 (not taking into account officer time) and counting. Why not take him to a small claims court or something.

The fact they can't or won't, suggests Simon has a point.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 5 2012, 09:42 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 5 2012, 10:38 AM) *
How many times do I have to say that this is not just about £20.00 before you acknowledge it?


Why post then?


What you haven't heard is allegations of local councillor(s) conspiring to undermine allotment democracy when Simon and others tried to start an allotment association. Our council cost many of us several thousands of pounds a year, yet they seem to lack basic competence. If Simon is in arrears, sue him for heavens sake. The fact they can't or won't, suggests Simon has a point.


but why bother ? It is over £20, if the rent had not gone up none of this would have happened. I imagine every other person who rents a plot has just paid it and carried on with their lives, but there is always one who wants to make life difficult for himself.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 5 2012, 09:47 AM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 5 2012, 10:42 AM) *
but why bother ? It is over £20, if the rent had not gone up none of this would have happened.

Not true, he and others on his allotment have had run-ins with the council who have behaved questionably.

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 5 2012, 10:42 AM) *
I imagine every other person who rents a plot has just paid it and carried on with their lives, but there is always one who wants to make life difficult for himself.

Then that is up to him is it not? Why should the council spend £8,000.00 of tax payers money on this and still not have it resolved. What is their problem? Like you said, it is over £20.00; let him off. That'd be cheaper.

Posted by: Penelope May 5 2012, 09:55 AM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 5 2012, 10:14 AM) *
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.



Vexatious complaint ?


Posted by: Andy Capp May 5 2012, 09:58 AM

QUOTE (Penelope @ May 5 2012, 10:55 AM) *
Vexatious complaint ?

That accusation was made by the council, but it is not clear to me what the criteria is to become one.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 5 2012, 10:02 AM

QUOTE (Strafin @ May 5 2012, 10:04 AM) *
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.

Thanks Strafin.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 5 2012, 10:05 AM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 5 2012, 11:02 AM) *
Thanks Strafin.

Yes, I think Strafin made the point well. The point is, today it is you; tomorrow it could be someone else. Assuming you are in the right of course.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 5 2012, 10:25 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 5 2012, 11:05 AM) *
Yes, I think Strafin made the point well. The point is, today it is you; tomorrow it could be someone else. Assuming you are in the right of course.

I believe that the issues are just as important if it turns out that I was wrong.

Say I was wrong about the fairness of the rent review term. Is it just that I should have to risk my tenancy in order to make an honest but ultimately misguided complaint about the fairness of the tenancy agreement? It was a well-founded complaint made in good faith as chair of the allotment society out of concern for the treatment of my fellow allotmenteers, wouldn't it have been better for the Council to sit down with the society and discuss the issue rationally rather than blank us and force us to take the complaint to Trading Standards and provoke me to make a personal stand?

And more seriously, having made the decision to evict me on 12 April 2010, how can the Council have made such a poor job of evicting me when eviction for arrears is a simple legal process - the Council have evicted Gypsies from their land twice to my knowledge in under 24 hours from encampment to departure and the legal process for Gypsies is actually more complicated because if the need for the court and police to consider the welfare of the children. If the Council do indeed have grounds to evict then they have been utterly incompetent to run up a bill of £8,000 and still be no closer to evicting me.

The Council need to apply for a possession order, and they need to release the meeting minutes so that I have my opportunity to challenge the lawfullness of that, and they need to do that without further delay. Of course if they want to let me sign the new agreement we can also end the dispute that way if it's easier for them.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 5 2012, 10:54 AM

One problem you have, as far as I can tell, is that some of your approach lacks tact, and even if you are right and the council are wrong, you should still communicate with them in a courteous manner. They are people too, and if someone were to talk to you in the way you have done, I am sure you would be reluctant to be as helpful as you otherwise might. It doesn't excuse them, but you have not helped get this sorted.

I do, however, admire your tenacity. I too once had a similar dispute where I wouldn't let go. It made me feel better to some degree, but they have the luxury of obfuscation (time and money).

Posted by: andy1979uk May 5 2012, 11:05 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 5 2012, 11:54 AM) *
One problem you have, as far as I can tell, is that some of your approach lacks tact, and even if you are right and the council are wrong, you should still communicate with them in a courteous manner. They are people too, and if someone were to talk to you in the way you have done, I am sure you would be reluctant to be as helpful as you otherwise might. It doesn't excuse them, but you have not helped get this sorted.

I do, however, admire your tenacity. I too once had a similar dispute where I wouldn't let go. It made me feel better to some degree, but they have the luxury of obfuscation (time and money).


I would assumbe you are happy that they have wasted £8000 due to the fact you are moaning about £20? If this is the only thing you have to complain about then I honestly have pity for you, there are people in the world with far greater issues that a £20 allotment rise.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 5 2012, 11:08 AM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 5 2012, 12:05 PM) *
I would assume you are happy that they have wasted £8000 due to the fact you are moaning about £20? If this is the only thing you have to complain about then I honestly have pity for you, there are people in the world with far greater issues that a £20 allotment wise.

You are absolutely correct about the last bit, although you seem blind to the real argument here, but I am not happy that the council cannot resolve this properly. I think they have handled this badly and I expect better from our councillors.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 5 2012, 11:12 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 5 2012, 12:08 PM) *
You are absolutely correct about the last bit, although you seem blind to the real argument here, but I am not happy that the council cannot resolve this properly. I think they have handled this badly and I expect better from our councillors.


He's saying its not about the increase, but it is really. He spotted something where they have not acted by the letter and decided to be a stick in the mud and create alot of noise for no real reason.

Posted by: Strafin May 5 2012, 11:12 AM


Quote (Andy 79) "I would assumbe you are happy that they have wasted £8000 due to the fact you are moaning about £20? If this is the only thing you have to complain about then I honestly have pity for you, there are people in the world with far greater issues that a £20 allotment rise."

Yes and all those issues start somewhere, today it's the allotments, tomorrow it could be council tax or rent. I am not happy that the council have wasted £8000, I am glad you keep highlighting that, it is a waste because the council have been unsuccessful as it is they who have acted outside of the law. I agree with Andy Capp, you have contributed almost nothing to this forum in the short time you have been posting, you are ill informed, ignorant and in the main part abusive, so why not do one?

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 5 2012, 11:13 AM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 5 2012, 12:05 PM) *
I would assumbe you are happy that they have wasted £8000 due to the fact you are moaning about £20? If this is the only thing you have to complain about then I honestly have pity for you, there are people in the world with far greater issues that a £20 allotment rise.

No, it's not been about £20. The dispute about the £20 was over more than two years ago, since then the dispute has been that the Council have been trying to evict me and I don't wan't to be evicted from my allotment. The only resolutions the Council have offered is that I should allow myself to be evicted, or else that I should sign the new tenancy agreement with a secret no-criticism clause. The first option isn't acceptable because I'm passionate about my allotment, and the second option is unacceptable because I feel strongly that in a free society it is wrong for the state to deny someone their freedom of expression. I'm sorry you don't agree with me, but I understand that not everyone will.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 5 2012, 11:17 AM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 5 2012, 12:12 PM) *
He's saying its not about the increase, but it is really. He spotted something where they have not acted by the letter and decided to be a stick in the mud and create alot of noise for no real reason.

There is a reason: the council should behave and act appropriately; I don't think they have. If Simon is wrong then sue him. Over £8,000.00 is not a cheap alternative. As you say, this is over £20.00. £8,000.00 for the sake of £20.00?

Posted by: andy1979uk May 5 2012, 11:19 AM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 5 2012, 12:13 PM) *
No, it's not been about £20. The dispute about the £20 was over more than two years ago, since then the dispute has been that the Council have been trying to evict me and I don't wan't to be evicted from my allotment. The only resolutions the Council have offered is that I should allow myself to be evicted, or else that I should sign the new tenancy agreement with a secret no-criticism clause. The first option isn't acceptable because I'm passionate about my allotment, and the second option is unacceptable because I feel strongly that in a free society it is wrong for the state to deny someone their freedom of expression. I'm sorry you don't agree with me, but I understand that not everyone will.


Are you banning from the forum Stratin ?

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 5 2012, 11:20 AM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 5 2012, 12:19 PM) *
Are you banning from the forum Stratin ?

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 5 2012, 11:22 AM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 5 2012, 12:19 PM) *
Are you banning from the forum Stratin ?

blink.gif

I have a feeling we have a 'professional' troll at work.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 5 2012, 11:22 AM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 5 2012, 12:20 PM) *
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying.


I think Simon in my point of view that you have made your point and should just pay your £20 and enjoy your allotment. Life really is too short to make so much fuss over nothing.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 5 2012, 11:24 AM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 5 2012, 12:22 PM) *
I think Simon in my point of view that you have made your point and should just pay your £20 and enjoy your allotment. Life really is too short to make so much fuss over nothing.

He can't. The council will refuse to take any rent from him. They are trying to evicting him. So far they have spent more than £8,000.00 in trying. They have yet to take him to court. I wonder why.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 5 2012, 11:25 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 5 2012, 12:24 PM) *
He can't. The council will refuse to take any rent from him. They are trying to evicting him. So far they have spent more than £8,000.00 in trying. They have yet to take him to court. I wonder why.


Whose fault is it they are trying to evict him ?

Posted by: andy1979uk May 5 2012, 11:25 AM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 5 2012, 12:25 PM) *
Whose fault is it they are trying to evict him ?


Does he own the land the allotment is on ?

Posted by: Strafin May 5 2012, 11:26 AM

No he rents it.

Posted by: Strafin May 5 2012, 11:27 AM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 5 2012, 12:19 PM) *
Are you banning from the forum Stratin ?

It's Strafin, and yes.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 5 2012, 11:29 AM

QUOTE (Strafin @ May 5 2012, 12:27 PM) *
It's Strafin, and yes.


So because I dont back him I get banned, brilliant. No wonder there are only a handful of members here.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 5 2012, 11:31 AM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 5 2012, 12:29 PM) *
So because I dont back him I get banned, brilliant. No wonder there are only a handful of members here.


So he has not paid the rent on land he does not own, and now they are trying to evict him and he is complaining? If he loves his allotment so much, why risk it all by going to battle with the person who owns the land ?

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 5 2012, 11:31 AM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 5 2012, 12:22 PM) *
I think Simon in my point of view that you have made your point and should just pay your £20 and enjoy your allotment. Life really is too short to make so much fuss over nothing.

I kind of agree with that. I would very much like to put this thing to bed now and I'm more than happy to sign the new agreement - I'd be grateful if you would e-mail our town councillors and encourage them to make me that offer, as I feel just as you do that this pointless argument has gone on much too long now. Of course I don't feel that it's been a fuss over nothing, I feel that the dispute has raised important issues of accountability and propiety in public service, and while ultimately allotments are not that important in the scheme of things those principles are important and every single one of us should be prepared to put ourselves out to defend our rights and freedoms, but I've done my bit and I'd prefer to give it a bit of a rest now.

Posted by: Strafin May 5 2012, 11:34 AM

I can't deal with a conversation with someone so unable to see past their own opinion. He has paid his rent, he has not paid an increase which is illegal, and therefore not enforceable. If for example, you leased a car with set terms, and the owners suddenly without warning wanted a further £20 a month, would you just pay it?

Posted by: andy1979uk May 5 2012, 11:38 AM

QUOTE (Strafin @ May 5 2012, 12:34 PM) *
I can't deal with a conversation with someone so unable to see past their own opinion. He has paid his rent, he has not paid an increase which is illegal, and therefore not enforceable. If for example, you leased a car with set terms, and the owners suddenly without warning wanted a further £20 a month, would you just pay it?


But this is'nt £20 a month its £20 a year which is'nt worth arguing. It was clearly too cheap before and even with the additional £20 still good value. If if was me over £20 a year I would have not even thought to argue about it. By kicking up a fuss he is likely to lose his allotment to someone else.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 5 2012, 11:41 AM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 5 2012, 12:31 PM) *
If he loves his allotment so much, why risk it all by going to battle with the person who owns the land ?

Because I believe that there are times when it's right to stand up for what you believe is right, and you can't always do that without risking something. I didn't want to lose my allotment, but asserting my rights seemed to me to be more important. It is, as you say, only an allotment, and people have risked much more than that to win me those rights.

Posted by: Strafin May 5 2012, 11:42 AM

Could you send me £20 then please. And then the same again next year.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 5 2012, 11:44 AM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 5 2012, 12:29 PM) *
So because I dont back him I get banned, brilliant. No wonder there are only a handful of members here.

No; for being abusive. I would have done so had I been admin when you threatened jaycakes.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 5 2012, 11:46 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 5 2012, 12:44 PM) *
No; for being abusive. I would have done so had I been admin when you threatened jaycakes.


Jaycakes deserved the abuse for his lack of respect over the person who died in the ford

Posted by: Andy Capp May 5 2012, 11:48 AM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 5 2012, 12:31 PM) *
So he has not paid the rent on land he does not own, and now they are trying to evict him and he is complaining? If he loves his allotment so much, why risk it all by going to battle with the person who owns the land ?

We've been trying to explain that, but you seem incapable, or unwilling, to understand.

There's an old adage: panic early, panic often. If people stand-up for their rights more readily, then authority have to take you more seriously. Today it might be £20.00, tomorrow it might be something much more precious, but by then would already have the advantage of precedence.

Posted by: Jayjay May 5 2012, 11:49 AM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 5 2012, 11:25 AM) *
The Council need to apply for a possession order, and they need to release the meeting minutes so that I have my opportunity to challenge the lawfullness of that, and they need to do that without further delay. Of course if they want to let me sign the new agreement we can also end the dispute that way if it's easier for them.


That is the reason they have not applied for possession, all documents involved in the case have to be put before the court if requested as evidence.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 5 2012, 11:50 AM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 5 2012, 12:46 PM) *
Jaycakes deserved the abuse for his lack of respect over the person who died in the ford

It was not your place to threaten him with violence. His were only words, crass, but only words. You should be banned for that, in my opinion.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 5 2012, 11:53 AM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 5 2012, 12:38 PM) *
But this is'nt £20 a month its £20 a year which is'nt worth arguing.

It is this attitude that leads to the politicians we have. Try denying the council £20.00 in council tax and see how careless they are then; they take you to court.

Currently they have run up an £8,000.00 lawyers bill!!!!! Kerching!!!!

Posted by: andy1979uk May 5 2012, 11:56 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 5 2012, 12:50 PM) *
It was not your place to threaten him with violence. His were only words, crass, but only words. You should be banned for that, in my opinion.


but Jaycakes was the one got banned, as the admin disagree

Posted by: Andy Capp May 5 2012, 12:03 PM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 5 2012, 12:56 PM) *
but Jaycakes was the one got banned, as the admin disagree

I know they do, but that doesn't change my point. I wanted to say what you wrote, but for the sake of decorum I didn't. It would have been out of line.

Posted by: user23 May 5 2012, 12:04 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 5 2012, 01:03 PM) *
I know they do, but that doesn't change my point. I wanted to say what you wrote, but for the sake of decorum I didn't. It would have been out of line.
Hang on. You agree with what he said but think he should be banned for saying it?

Posted by: andy1979uk May 5 2012, 12:19 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ May 5 2012, 01:04 PM) *
Hang on. You agree with what he said but think he should be banned for saying it?



I did not agree with what he said

Posted by: Andy Capp May 5 2012, 12:21 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ May 5 2012, 01:04 PM) *
Hang on. You agree with what he said but think he should be banned for saying it?

No I didn't agree. I said I wanted to say it but for the sake of decorum I didn't, in other words, I don't agree about posting it. Notwithstanding it would be a threat I wouldn't have been interested in performing. It is the action of a yob.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 5 2012, 12:26 PM

Anyway, back to the point: why have the council spent £8,000.00 on £20.00 rent arrears? Why can't they sort this out? I think Graham hunt and Julian Swift-Hook should consider their position within the town council.

Posted by: user23 May 5 2012, 12:27 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 5 2012, 01:21 PM) *
No I didn't agree. I said I wanted to say it but for the sake of decorum I didn't, in other words, I don't agree about posting it. Notwithstanding it would be a threat I wouldn't have been interested in performing. It is the action of yob.
Is this because you think that sometimes, for the greater good, it's best not to take a stand or air one's opinions?

Posted by: andy1979uk May 5 2012, 12:28 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 5 2012, 01:21 PM) *
No I didn't agree. I said I wanted to say it but for the sake of decorum I didn't, in other words, I don't agree about posting it. Notwithstanding it would be a threat I wouldn't have been interested in performing. It is the action of yob.


I agree, but his words were so cruel it brought the worst out in me

Posted by: Andy Capp May 5 2012, 12:29 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ May 5 2012, 01:27 PM) *
Is this because you think that sometimes, for the greater good, it's best not to take a stand or air one's opinions?

No, it is because it is not a true statement. I explained why already.

Posted by: dannyboy May 5 2012, 02:36 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 5 2012, 12:53 PM) *
It is this attitude that leads to the politicians we have. Try denying the council £20.00 in council tax and see how careless they are then; they take you to court.

Currently they have run up an £8,000.00 lawyers bill!!!!! Kerching!!!!

Spending money to get professional advice is what I would expect. You'd rather NTC just assumed they were right?


Posted by: Andy Capp May 5 2012, 02:41 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 5 2012, 03:36 PM) *
Spending money to get professional advice is what I would expect. You'd rather NTC just assumed they were right?

Did they not get a lawyer to brush over the contract they should be suing Simon for breaching? Why did they not just take him to a small claims court, or similar. Or even just give him a similar contract with the adjustments he would approve - none of which are outrageous. I'd have done it for the price of a few pints.

Why have they spent £8,000.00 to get nowhere. This suggests they are incompetent with tax payers money.

Posted by: Cognosco May 5 2012, 03:01 PM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 5 2012, 12:12 PM) *
He's saying its not about the increase, but it is really. He spotted something where they have not acted by the letter and decided to be a stick in the mud and create alot of noise for no real reason.


It goes to show just how differently people look at the issues before them doesn't it?
You state the council did not act by the letter? So why when it was pointed out to them did they not put up their hands and say fair enough you are correct and follow the correct procedure according to the letter?
Laws are made for the reason that it makes society fair for all. If you start picking and choosing which laws to follow by the letter and which not there would be no point in having laws in the first place? The council should know the law and adhere to it far more so than an individual should be expected to know the law.

If I am correct Simon was pushing for self management of the allotments. The council, to protect their hold for having any reason for being in existence, were adamant that they would not tolerate self management. Simon and others believe self management would benefit allotmenteers and save thousands of pounds of taxpayers money per year.
So to emphasise the point your only £20 argument has fallen by the wayside. If it were only about £20 I maybe could agree with you but this fiasco, blown out of all proportion by a council that is now in serious disrepute, has now become an issue so serious that there should be official investigation of the workings of the council. To hold minutes of the council from public scutiny is serious. To try and stop a taxpayer and tenant from talking to the public and press over allegtions of council incompetence and exposing, to say the least, questionable practice between councillors of fairness to an allotment tenant it is far and above a measly £20. If it were just about £20 I am sure I would have been prepared to donate £20 to help Simon keep his allotment. So what Simon is standing up for is worth fighting for. Ater all what value would you put on freedom and free speech and fairness? angry.gif


Posted by: John C May 5 2012, 03:25 PM

I see that there is a reshuffle in the Council soon surely (but I wont hold my breath) the councillors invovled should resign from there posts.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 5 2012, 04:01 PM

QUOTE (Jayjay @ May 5 2012, 12:49 PM) *
That is the reason they have not applied for possession, all documents involved in the case have to be put before the court if requested as evidence.

I received a letter from the Council's solicitor today. The Council are to re-erect the fence around my plot on or after the 21 May and change the site locks and, according to the solicitor, should I remove the fence again I will be liable to being arrested for criminal damage.

Posted by: Cognosco May 5 2012, 04:06 PM

QUOTE (John C @ May 5 2012, 04:25 PM) *
I see that there is a reshuffle in the Council soon surely (but I wont hold my breath) the councillors invovled should resign from there posts.


I fail to see any other way out for the councillors now? They have managed to dig themselves so deep with their incompetence and unsavoury dealings the only honourable way out is to resign en masse. How can you hope to run a council that is held in such disrepute? angry.gif

Posted by: Strafin May 5 2012, 04:23 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 5 2012, 05:01 PM) *
I received a letter from the Council's solicitor today. The Council are to re-erect the fence around my plot on or after the 21 May and change the site locks and, according to the solicitor, should I remove the fence again I will be liable to being arrested for criminal damage.

You can still fight though right? Or does that signal the end?

Posted by: NWNREADER May 5 2012, 05:21 PM

QUOTE (John C @ May 5 2012, 04:25 PM) *
I see that there is a reshuffle in the Council soon surely (but I wont hold my breath) the councillors invovled should resign from there posts.

West Berks, I believe, not NTC

Posted by: NWNREADER May 5 2012, 05:41 PM

Criminal Damage does not mean something has to be 'broken', just altered in a way the owner/controller has to make good. So chalking a message on a wall can be damage as someone has to clean it up. Thus, moving the fence to get in to the allotment plot can be damage as the Council would say they have to re-instate it. Whether Simon getting in would amount to something the poise would have the slightest interest in is another matter. Maybe the CEO has spoken over tiffin to a local constable - not that there is anything wrong with that, of course.

So, best thing is if Simon were to negotiate the fence without having to touch it. I could not possibly condone or even assist the commission of a civil or criminal offence, of course, but a set of steps would likely do the trick. That means only Civil Trespass.

The devil in me takes over when a big organisation gets in a tizz over a minor issue...... Always support the underdog
http://www.underdog.co.uk/watch-our-tv-ads tells the story. I visualise SK as Underdog and NTC as the off-camera Executive

Posted by: Cognosco May 5 2012, 05:43 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 5 2012, 05:01 PM) *
I received a letter from the Council's solicitor today. The Council are to re-erect the fence around my plot on or after the 21 May and change the site locks and, according to the solicitor, should I remove the fence again I will be liable to being arrested for criminal damage.


So the £8000 is still rising? At this moment in time what is your legal status? Are you still the tenant of the plot or are you evicted?

Posted by: Penelope May 5 2012, 05:51 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 5 2012, 05:01 PM) *
I received a letter from the Council's solicitor today. The Council are to re-erect the fence around my plot on or after the 21 May and change the site locks and, according to the solicitor, should I remove the fence again I will be liable to being arrested for criminal damage.

So, let me see if I have this right, instead of a negotiated settlement they are now prepared to raise the stakes, spend more of our money, and bring themselves into greater disrepute. And they still refuse to publish the minutes of a council meeting (a legal obligation). Yet another victory for democracy. Mr left hook really knows how to look good the day after the most damaging local elections for Tory / lib politics for a generation.
The phrase "Turkey's voting for Christmas" has a certain ring to it don't you think ?

Posted by: Cognosco May 5 2012, 06:00 PM

QUOTE (Penelope @ May 5 2012, 06:51 PM) *
So, let me see if I have this right, instead of a negotiated settlement they are now prepared to raise the stakes, spend more of our money, and bring themselves into greater disrepute. And they still refuse to publish the minutes of a council meeting (a legal obligation). Yet another victory for democracy. Mr left hook really knows how to look good the day after the most damaging local elections for Tory / lib politics for a generation.
The phrase "Turkey's voting for Christmas" has a certain ring to it don't you think ?


Seems to prove the point that when cornered some species do extraorinary things?
I do believe that the council have realised there is now no where else for them to go and are like despotic leaders the world over they are going to try and cling on no matter what. They have never listened to taxpayers and have always believed they are correct no matter how much they have been proven to be wrong.
I wonder who will be the first to abandon the sinking ship to save face? Which councillor do you think will offer their resignation first? rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Penelope May 5 2012, 06:09 PM

QUOTE (Cognosco @ May 5 2012, 07:00 PM) *
Seems to prove the point that when cornered some species do extraorinary things?
I do believe that the council have realised there is now no where else for them to go and are like despotic leaders the world over they are going to try and cling on no matter what. They have never listened to taxpayers and have always believed they are correct no matter how much they have been proven to be wrong.
I wonder who will be the first to abandon the sinking ship to save face? Which councillor do you think will offer their resignation first? rolleyes.gif


Err, none of the above ? The bunker mentality is alive and well in ntc.

Posted by: John C May 5 2012, 06:25 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 5 2012, 05:01 PM) *
I received a letter from the Council's solicitor today. The Council are to re-erect the fence around my plot on or after the 21 May and change the site locks and, according to the solicitor, should I remove the fence again I will be liable to being arrested for criminal damage.


What would happen if you were already there when they put the fence up.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 5 2012, 06:38 PM

So he lost his plot and its cost the tax payer £8000, well done Simon I dont think.

Posted by: NORTHENDER May 5 2012, 06:47 PM

Who now owns the crops that has been planted on the site? If they are Simon's does he have the right to retrieve them?

Posted by: NWNREADER May 5 2012, 06:52 PM

QUOTE (John C @ May 5 2012, 07:25 PM) *
What would happen if you were already there when they put the fence up.



I think http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/12/scenes_from_guantanamo_bay.html is what they have in mind

Posted by: NWNREADER May 5 2012, 06:55 PM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 5 2012, 07:38 PM) *
So he lost his plot and its cost the tax payer £8000, well done Simon I dont think.


Losing the plot is not an SK-only activity

Posted by: Cognosco May 5 2012, 07:01 PM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 5 2012, 07:38 PM) *
So he lost his plot and its cost the tax payer £8000, well done Simon I dont think.


It is not over yet and £8000 is still rising! I fail to see how it is Simon's fault that the council did not grasp the letter of the law? He was the one that pointed it out to them and of course is now paying the price. Perhaps a letter to your local councillor enquiring as to why they did not follow the letter of the law and why they are harrassing a taxpayer for pointing this out to them? Also why they tried to issue an unfair gagging contract to a local taxpayer to try and ensure the public did not get knowledge of their wrongdoing? Then of course you might like to enquire how much it would save us taxpayers, who do not have a tenancy of an allotment, per year for generations to come if the council allowed self management. Then also enquire why they are not allowing the public access to council minutes as they are required to do so? But mind how you word it or you may be declared vexatious. That is if they even bother to aknowledge your letter in the first place? And finally of course please do not hold your breath as any reply can take some considerable time. Even if they do reply do not expect the response to bear any relation to the question posed! rolleyes.gif

You may also like to suggest it may be better for all concerned if resignations were the order of the day. This may assist slightly in the recovery of the standing of local politicians as at this moment in time the council are held in disrepute. angry.gif

Posted by: Penelope May 5 2012, 07:10 PM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 5 2012, 07:38 PM) *
So he lost his plot and its cost the tax payer £8000, well done Simon I dont think.


I don't think it's Simon whose lost the plot here.

Posted by: Penelope May 5 2012, 07:17 PM

QUOTE (NWNREADER @ May 5 2012, 07:52 PM) *
I think http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/12/scenes_from_guantanamo_bay.html is what they have in mind


LOL, wash common allotments, twinned with Camp Justice.

Posted by: On the edge May 5 2012, 07:52 PM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 5 2012, 07:38 PM) *
So he lost his plot and its cost the tax payer £8000, well done Simon I dont think.


Rather a lot to spend on legal fees when the Council is supposed to be expert in that area and believe they are right don't you think. Whatever the rights or wrongs on both sides, at most, an hour or two independent arbitration should have solved this.

Posted by: Cognosco May 5 2012, 08:10 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ May 5 2012, 08:52 PM) *
Rather a lot to spend on legal fees when the Council is supposed to be expert in that area and believe they are right don't you think. Whatever the rights or wrongs on both sides, at most, an hour or two independent arbitration should have solved this.


Totally agree! Not only the amount they have spent on this fiasco but the damage it has done to the local council in the eyes of the general public especially in this time of, shall we say, politicians held in low esteem. I am concerned not only with the cost but the very underhanded way the council have dealt with simon. To add insult to injury the council are refusing to answer any questions, verbally or written, that are made to the council regarding the allotment fiasco. They are withholding minutes of council meetings from the public and have even verbally stated they will not release any information on the matter via a Freedom of Information request either? Just what have they got to hide? What are they so scared of that are in the minutes they don't want to be made public? Will we ever have transparency in our local authorties? Not only should our local authorties treat taxpayers with fairness they should be seen to be doing it. Publish the minutes so taxpayers can decide for themselves. If Simon has been wrong show the taxpayers why he has been wrong and why he has to be evicted? Because at this moment the only eviction should be all of the town council from the town hall, they have brought the council into disrepute! angry.gif

Posted by: Andy Capp May 6 2012, 12:07 AM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 5 2012, 05:01 PM) *
I received a letter from the Council's solicitor today. The Council are to re-erect the fence around my plot on or after the 21 May and change the site locks and, according to the solicitor, should I remove the fence again I will be liable to being arrested for criminal damage.

If true, why not the first time you removed it?


That NEWBURY TOWN LIBERAL DEMOCRAT is an incompetent COWARD.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 6 2012, 10:36 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 6 2012, 01:07 AM) *
If true, why not the first time you removed it?

I wondered that myself, and it may be the "tiffin". Just removing the fence isn't itself criminal damage, not even with some very minimal tearing where it was attached, though I will of course be careful how I remove it.

As it is I am still the council's tenant and if they put up a fence around my allotment then that's an unlawful interference with my rights of access and quiet enjoyment and I am within my rights to remove the fence.

I am still happy to sign the new agreement as an immediate and no-cost end to this dispute, but if the Council won't accept that proposal and won't negotiate a resolution to the dispute then they need to apply for a possession order and prove their purported Notice to Quit by producing in evidence those meeting minutes. As they don't show any signs of doing that I now need to sue the Council for breach of contract in the small claims court, and as the Council will be perverse in the extreme not to couter-claim for possession it does rather beg the question why it has taken them two years and £8,000 to get to this point.

Posted by: Squelchy May 6 2012, 10:42 AM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 5 2012, 07:38 PM) *
I dont think.


Clearly.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 6 2012, 10:42 AM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 6 2012, 11:36 AM) *
I wondered that myself, and it may be the "tiffin". Just removing the fence isn't itself criminal damage, not even with some very minimal tearing where it was attached, though I will of course be careful how I remove it.

As it is I am still the council's tenant and if they put up a fence around my allotment then that's an unlawful interference with my rights of access and quiet enjoyment and I am within my rights to remove the fence.

I am still happy to sign the new agreement as an immediate and no-cost end to this dispute, but if the Council won't accept that proposal and won't negotiate a resolution to the dispute then they need to apply for a possession order and prove their purported Notice to Quit by producing in evidence those meeting minutes. As they don't show any signs of doing that I now need to sue the Council for breach of contract in the small claims court, and as the Council will be perverse in the extreme not to couter-claim for possession it does rather beg raise wink.gif the question why it has taken them two years and £8,000 to get to this point.

What about jumping the fence to get in?

Posted by: Penelope May 6 2012, 10:50 AM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 6 2012, 11:36 AM) *
I wondered that myself, and it may be the "tiffin". Just removing the fence isn't itself criminal damage, not even with some very minimal tearing where it was attached, though I will of course be careful how I remove it.

As it is I am still the council's tenant and if they put up a fence around my allotment then that's an unlawful interference with my rights of access and quiet enjoyment and I am within my rights to remove the fence.

I am still happy to sign the new agreement as an immediate and no-cost end to this dispute, but if the Council won't accept that proposal and won't negotiate a resolution to the dispute then they need to apply for a possession order and prove their purported Notice to Quit by producing in evidence those meeting minutes. As they don't show any signs of doing that I now need to sue the Council for breach of contract in the small claims court, and as the Council will be perverse in the extreme not to couter-claim for possession it does rather beg the question why it has taken them two years and £8,000 to get to this point.


The problem you have is that they are used to issuing edicts and having them obeyed, as you have neither obeyed or gone quietly they started to chuck their weight around. They know they're wrong (they're not stupid ) but after all the posturing and threats, and of course the eight grand spend on bad advice they can't back down 'cos that will expose their ineptitude. Expect this to run and run.

Posted by: Penelope May 6 2012, 10:52 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 6 2012, 11:42 AM) *
What about jumping the fence to get in?


No ! That will upset Mr Capp (isn't he a sweety ? )

Posted by: Andy Capp May 6 2012, 11:04 AM

QUOTE (Penelope @ May 6 2012, 11:52 AM) *
No ! That will upset Mr Capp (isn't he a sweety ? )

I'm thinking that the law might be able to pinch Simon for intruding.

Posted by: Roger T May 6 2012, 11:05 AM

QUOTE (Squelchy @ May 6 2012, 11:42 AM) *
Clearly.


Quite a chuckle. Although at another's expense, I must try not to.


Anyway, I guess needs must. I don't think Simon Kirby was the reason for the wasted money, I suppose every situation has a due process. Maybe inefficient, like me at washing up, but manage to get the job done.

I was at the Zoo yesterday, with Nephew and Mrs T - This reminded me of a situation I witnessed. A small child did something wrong, which action was it, I could not tell. But he had about 4 people shouting at him, I would assume from his family. Not sure strangers would be yelling at this kid.
In my mind, as a kindly tempered young man, we can all dream - I thought a measured word from one, perhaps the parents rather than a whole family, would achieve a better result.

So in this situation, things could be resolved much easier. As for actual cost and tax payers money and all of that interesting stuff... well... not our place to say I feel. Our direct contribution would be tiny, sort of like my bravery when faced with a lion. Haven't moved that fast for 20 years.

Posted by: NWNREADER May 6 2012, 11:09 AM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 6 2012, 11:36 AM) *
I wondered that myself, and it may be the "tiffin". Just removing the fence isn't itself criminal damage, not even with some very minimal tearing where it was attached, though I will of course be careful how I remove it. Tearing, even if minimal, is damage. No malice required, since 1971, just the fact you have no right to do it. Risky for you while the legality of the eviction is in doubt.

As it is I am still the council's tenant and if they put up a fence around my allotment then that's an unlawful interference with my rights of access and quiet enjoyment and I am within my rights to remove the fence. Only if the eviction is unlawful. Mind you, you may then have a Civil Action for denial of access, but again, not certain. You do tend to believe the law is entirely on your side, but that is not always so even if the words in the books seem to say so.

I am still happy to sign the new agreement as an immediate and no-cost end to this dispute, but if the Council won't accept that proposal and won't negotiate a resolution to the dispute then they need to apply for a possession order and prove their purported Notice to Quit by producing in evidence those meeting minutes. As they don't show any signs of doing that I now need to sue the Council for breach of contract in the small claims court, and as the Council will be perverse in the extreme not to couter-claim for possession it does rather beg the question why it has taken them two years and £8,000 to get to this point. No problem going to the SCC as you have no exposure to Costs

I read somewhere the NTC accounts show a payment of #1200 to Gardner Leader over the affair. Any clue where the #8k figure comes from? While the number is certainly possible I would hate to think an error was leading to SK being scared off by the scale of Costs they may seek to apply for - let alone the ordure that will be heaped upon him for being such a drain on resources......

Posted by: Andy Capp May 6 2012, 11:16 AM

QUOTE (NWNREADER @ May 6 2012, 12:09 PM) *
I read somewhere the NTC accounts show a payment of #1200 to Gardner Leader over the affair. Any clue where the #8k figure comes from? While the number is certainly possible I would hate to think an error was leading to SK being scared off by the scale of Costs they may seek to apply for - let alone the ordure that will be heaped upon him for being such a drain on resources......

I think £1,200.00 might have been just for the recent Graham Hunt case. The one where he wriggled out of the minutes disclosure on a 'technicality'.

Posted by: NWNREADER May 6 2012, 11:19 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 6 2012, 12:16 PM) *
I think £1,200.00 might have been just for the recent Graham Hunt case.

As it was a personal prosecution I wonder why the Council picked up that tab........... Doubtless it is in his contract....

Posted by: Jayjay May 6 2012, 11:33 AM

QUOTE (NWNREADER @ May 6 2012, 12:09 PM) *
I read somewhere the NTC accounts show a payment of #1200 to Gardner Leader over the affair. Any clue where the #8k figure comes from? While the number is certainly possible I would hate to think an error was leading to SK being scared off by the scale of Costs they may seek to apply for - let alone the ordure that will be heaped upon him for being such a drain on resources......


Obviously do not know in this case, but I recall how they came to a huge sum in Richard Garvie's case. They do not just take the solicitors fees (why they need solicitors when they have a legal dept that costs a tidy sum is for another thread), but they cost the time also. So, if a a receptionist takes a message, the head of dept then dictates a letter, a secretary types it and the post boy franks it, they cost it at several hours. This is the sum the council then quotes. The fact these people would get paid regardless, the council decides to ignore.

Posted by: NWNREADER May 6 2012, 11:42 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 6 2012, 12:04 PM) *
I'm thinking that the law might be able to pinch Simon for intruding.


Not for Civil Trespass, and I can't see it amounting to Aggravated Trespass. He would do well not to put the slightest mark or disturbance to the fence, so a set of steps would be wise....

Posted by: NWNREADER May 6 2012, 11:44 AM

QUOTE (Jayjay @ May 6 2012, 12:33 PM) *
Obviously do not know in this case, but I recall how they came to a huge sum in Richard Garvie's case. They do not just take the solicitors fees (why they need solicitors when they have a legal dept that costs a tidy sum is for another thread), but they cost the time also. So, if a a receptionist takes a message, the head of dept then dictates a letter, a secretary types it and the post boy franks it, they cost it at several hours. This is the sum the council then quotes. The fact these people would get paid regardless, the council decides to ignore.

I don't believe NTC has a legal team in-house. The costs mentioned excluded Officer Time.

Posted by: Nothing Much May 6 2012, 11:54 AM

I have been looking at one of the leaflets that come with weekend papers.
I have just had a new roof installed and a damaged ceiling below was replastered.
It was done by a young lad on stilts. They are available for £99.50.

The fence should be a walkover. All Simon would need is one of those printed posters
that spring up. "This is a legal occupation".
Squatting .Of course ,I don't approve of such things in my area.
But that grade 2 listed shed has to be preserved.
ce

Posted by: user23 May 6 2012, 12:03 PM

QUOTE (Jayjay @ May 6 2012, 12:33 PM) *
Obviously do not know in this case, but I recall how they came to a huge sum in Richard Garvie's case. They do not just take the solicitors fees (why they need solicitors when they have a legal dept that costs a tidy sum is for another thread), but they cost the time also. So, if a a receptionist takes a message, the head of dept then dictates a letter, a secretary types it and the post boy franks it, they cost it at several hours. This is the sum the council then quotes. The fact these people would get paid regardless, the council decides to ignore.
I don't think you're right. http://www.newbury.gov.uk/pdfs/information-pack/staffstructure-contactdetails.pdf it seems they only have ten staff and four of those are part-time.

Posted by: NWNREADER May 6 2012, 12:16 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ May 6 2012, 01:03 PM) *
I don't think you're right. http://www.newbury.gov.uk/pdfs/information-pack/staffstructure-contactdetails.pdf it seems they only have ten staff and four of those are part-time.

And none are 'Legal'

Posted by: Strafin May 6 2012, 12:40 PM

All of them a waste of money, that's why unemployment is low in this town!

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 6 2012, 12:45 PM

QUOTE (NWNREADER @ May 6 2012, 12:42 PM) *
Not for Civil Trespass, and I can't see it amounting to Aggravated Trespass. He would do well not to put the slightest mark or disturbance to the fence, so a set of steps would be wise....

I'm not too keen to risk a criminal prosecution, and I don't particularly want to give the council the excuse of changing the site locks which will cost around £700 which they might possibly try to recover from me so if the fence goes up again it might be prudent to leave it and consider myself exlcuded. The down-side to that is my allotment goes to pot just at the time of year when I need to be planting out for the season and getting the weeds under control, but I should win damges for that if I win the court case, and as you say, if it's in the small-claims and I defend eviction on simple grounds it should be very cheap with minimum risk.

Posted by: NWNREADER May 6 2012, 01:08 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 6 2012, 01:45 PM) *
I'm not too keen to risk a criminal prosecution, and I don't particularly want to give the council the excuse of changing the site locks which will cost around £700 which they might possibly try to recover from me so if the fence goes up again it might be prudent to leave it and consider myself exlcuded. The down-side to that is my allotment goes to pot just at the time of year when I need to be planting out for the season and getting the weeds under control, but I should win damges for that if I win the court case, and as you say, if it's in the small-claims and I defend eviction on simple grounds it should be very cheap with minimum risk.

Depending how brave and careful you are then continuing to work the plot is simply a matter for you. A bit of a cleft stick - if you fight you might lose, if you withdraw they will decide you were wrong... Not sure fighting eviction is something the small claims court will touch. Look up the Rules

Posted by: On the edge May 6 2012, 02:45 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ May 6 2012, 01:03 PM) *
I don't think you're right. http://www.newbury.gov.uk/pdfs/information-pack/staffstructure-contactdetails.pdf it seems they only have ten staff and four of those are part-time.


Really useful post this. Illustrates the problem. This is a PARISH council we are talking about!

Posted by: Nothing Much May 6 2012, 02:51 PM

An answer might be to join the Guerilla Gardeners.
Marrows on St John's roundabout. Leeks near the Town Hall,
Marigolds by the town dump.

I think you really have to stand up for your rights Simon.

Kett did make his point in Norfolk. The fact that he was executed is unfortunate.
A point of principle. Like "Passport to Pimlico". You have to stand by your man.
I expect RogerT will give you his last cupcake.

And a new use for Combe Gibbet sounds good.
It is a long haul by bike... great on the way down. (So to speak).

Despite the jests, there does seem to be a good support for the stand on principle.
ce




Posted by: Simon Kirby May 6 2012, 03:45 PM

QUOTE (NWNREADER @ May 6 2012, 02:08 PM) *
Not sure fighting eviction is something the small claims court will touch. Look up the Rules

I'll be sueing for breach of contract, and that's small-claims territory if the issues are simple enough, and this is just about whether the Notice to Quit is valid without the meeting minutes which won't take 30 seconds to decide. If the Council produce the meeting minutes then depending what's in them it may or may not be so simple. If the meeting minutes don't expose any substantial unreasonableness then my goose is cooked because I can't afford to raise the Article 6 Human Rights defence - seems Human Rights are only only for illegal immigrants and ethnic minorities. Possession orders can be dealt with on the small-claims track if the issues are simple enough and both parties agree, but I would expect the Council to refuse so that they can threaten a massive legal bill to scare me off.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 6 2012, 03:47 PM

QUOTE (Nothing Much @ May 6 2012, 03:51 PM) *
Kett did make his point in Norfolk. The fact that he was executed is unfortunate.

smile.gif

Posted by: user23 May 6 2012, 04:03 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ May 6 2012, 03:45 PM) *
Really useful post this. Illustrates the problem. This is a PARISH council we are talking about!
What makes you think having six full time staff (and four part time if I read the spreadsheet right) to manage cemeteries, playgrounds, parks, allotments, bus shelters, gardens, markets, Christmas lights and more in an area containing 30,000 people, is a problem?

With the Localism Bill now passed, I suspect they might be doing more too.

Posted by: Nothing Much May 6 2012, 04:11 PM

Best wishes with your further gardening and court proceedings.
For those without Wiki to hand Kett was a prosperous gent who disagreed with enclosure.
Such as Simons fencing off his bit of Wash Common.

Did they not fight battles against tyranny there?.
Not sure that Cromwell (From Anglian Stock)
worked wonders either.But NTC seem desperados by comparison.
ce

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 6 2012, 05:43 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ May 6 2012, 05:03 PM) *
What makes you think having six full time staff (and four part time if I read the spreadsheet right) to manage cemeteries, playgrounds, parks, allotments, bus shelters, gardens, markets, Christmas lights and more in an area containing 30,000 people, is a problem?

With the Localism Bill now passed, I suspect they might be doing more too.

As a for-instance, Birmingham City Council have three full-time allotments officers to run their service over 115 sites, the largest service in the country. Newbury Town Council tell me that they run their six sites with 1.5 full-time-equivelent staff with a service team staffing cost of £34,400.

The town hall accounts for £60,600 of the Council's staff spend, and the civic duties another £35,700.

Posted by: user23 May 6 2012, 06:23 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 6 2012, 06:43 PM) *
As a for-instance, Birmingham City Council have three full-time allotments officers to run their service over 115 sites, the largest service in the country. Newbury Town Council tell me that they run their six sites with 1.5 full-time-equivelent staff with a service team staffing cost of £34,400.

The town hall accounts for £60,600 of the Council's staff spend, and the civic duties another £35,700.
The document I linked to seems to say that the staff who look after the allotments also look after Victoria Park, tree works, gardens, cemeteries, bus shelters, footway lighting, park bookings, market liaison, cemeteries, christmas lights and committee support so I assume the £34,400 would be spread across all these services, not just allotments.

Posted by: NWNREADER May 6 2012, 06:27 PM

I think part of Simon's core point is that the fees charged to allotment holders pay for those non-allotment activities as well, which he feels is inappropriate. He implies the Council do not publish the cost of running the allotments alone.

I could be wrong

Posted by: user23 May 6 2012, 06:52 PM

QUOTE (NWNREADER @ May 6 2012, 07:27 PM) *
I think part of Simon's core point is that the fees charged to allotment holders pay for those non-allotment activities as well, which he feels is inappropriate. He implies the Council do not publish the cost of running the allotments alone.

I could be wrong
I've no idea if this is true or not but if it is, isn't this a good thing?

Wouldn't this mean the people who rent land from us, the residents of Newbury for next to nothing (not sure what the average spend is, but £70 per year springs to mind, can someone correct me if I'm wrong please) put a little something back in to the upkeep of cemeteries, parks, etc.

If it's the case the it seems like a fair deal as renting a private plot of land to do the same thing I guess must cost hundreds, perhaps thousands each year.

Posted by: NWNREADER May 6 2012, 07:02 PM

Maybe, but I believe Simon suggests that option - for funding other services through allotment fees - is not legal, Something to do with the Law...... I realise we only have to obey the bits we agree with these days, but that is a different story!

Posted by: Cognosco May 6 2012, 07:03 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ May 6 2012, 07:52 PM) *
I've no idea if this is true or not but if it is, isn't this a good thing?

Wouldn't this mean the people who rent land from us, the residents of Newbury for next to nothing (not sure what the average spend is, but £70 per year springs to mind, can someone correct me if I'm wrong please) put a little something back in to the upkeep of cemeteries, parks, etc.

If it's the case the it seems like a fair deal as renting a private plot of land to do the same thing I guess must cost hundreds, perhaps thousands each year.


strewth with thinking like this you can't wonder at the problem we have with local authorities? rolleyes.gif

Posted by: user23 May 6 2012, 07:12 PM

QUOTE (NWNREADER @ May 6 2012, 08:02 PM) *
Maybe, but I believe Simon suggests that option - for funding other services through allotment fees - is not legal, Something to do with the Law...... I realise we only have to obey the bits we agree with these days, but that is a different story!
As I say, I've no idea whether this happens or indeed even the average spend per allotment renter.

I just like this idea that if a small group of people are going to rent land to grow crops from the residents of Newbury at way below market value they should give something back to support essentials like cemeteries and parks.

Posted by: Cognosco May 6 2012, 07:21 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ May 6 2012, 08:12 PM) *
As I say, I've no idea whether this happens or indeed even the average spend per allotment renter.

I just like this idea that if a small group of people are going to rent something from the residents of Newbury at way below market value they should give something back to support essentials like cemeteries and parks.


So any small group of taxpayers who use council facilities, football pitches, cricket pitches, tennis courts, council employee car parks, etc who do not pay the market value for this service should stump up extra payments for essential services like cemeteries and parks then? rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 6 2012, 07:39 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ May 6 2012, 07:23 PM) *
The document I linked to seems to say that the staff who look after the allotments also look after Victoria Park, tree works, gardens, cemeteries, bus shelters, footway lighting, park bookings, market liaison, cemeteries, christmas lights and committee support so I assume the £34,400 would be spread across all these services, not just allotments.

No, just allotments. There are (I think) four staff in the service team and a total of ten full-time equivelent staff and between them they run those services you mention. The total aggregated staff costs of all staff under the allotments head is £34,400 - that is just managing the allotment service. The market is another £18,000; floral displays £17,100; Chrimbo Lights £12,700; cemeteries £27,200; parks, open spaces and recreation grounds £36,400; assets, war memorial, footway lighting, clock house £17,000. On top of that there's also £101,000 of staff costs for back-office administration, and with the £60,600 of staff costs for the town hall and £35,700 for civic duties that more or less the total staff bill of £364,200. Remember too that NTC doesn't actually have any direct labour now so all the actual work done in maintaining the cemetaries, planting the floral displays, cutting the grass and picking litter in the parks and open spaces, and cutting the grass in the allotments is done by contractors.

Posted by: Cognosco May 6 2012, 07:42 PM

Any way why digress? Why don't the council publish the minutes to the relevant meeting and other information so that the taxpayer, who is footing the bill for their allotment fiasco, can decide if this money was well spent or not? angry.gif

Simon has published all his own figures and the council have never responded with figures to refute any of his figures why? angry.gif They refuse to answer any correspondence or verball questions to councillors regarding the allotment fiasco why? Why should a councillor refuse to discuss any details with one of their own constituents? Where is the transparency? Why have they gone into lockdown over this fiasco if they are correct? Why will they not explain the expenditure of taxpayers funds to a constituent? Something is very wrong with this council and it can only now be put to bed by the council resigning and the sooner the better regardless of who is right or wrong in the case but purely for how they have mishandled a simple case of an allotment plot! angry.gif

Posted by: Nothing Much May 6 2012, 07:45 PM

I have just been reading a review of the Private Gardens in London squares,
the history goes back a long way of course.
But more recently there were vegetable patches or bomb shelters.
Some are still evident in Victoria. Not the spuds and cabbages though.

I googled Allotment Laws and have decided to head off for Silent Witness.
At least I won't understand anything on the telly.
ce

Posted by: user23 May 6 2012, 07:46 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 6 2012, 08:39 PM) *
No, just allotments. There are (I think) four staff in the service team and a total of ten full-time equivelent staff...
The document on their website that I posed a link to doesn't support what you say here, they seem to have less staff than you claim. This makes me doubt the other figures you posted.

It could be wrong of course, but I suspect someone would have noticed and informed them of an error. Government bodies at whatever level tend to be quite fastidious about this sort of thing.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 6 2012, 07:49 PM

QUOTE (NWNREADER @ May 6 2012, 07:27 PM) *
I think part of Simon's core point is that the fees charged to allotment holders pay for those non-allotment activities as well, which he feels is inappropriate. He implies the Council do not publish the cost of running the allotments alone.

I could be wrong

No, not a point I've made. I believe dannyboy argued some time back that there was some cross-subsidy of staff time going on but there is no evidence to support that, and none of the services are obviously under-manned.

The contentious suggestion that I make, and the one that got me the Vexatious Complainant of the Year Award several years running is that the Council don't publish the full all-in commercial cost of providing their services but account separately for an Administration service (at £186,800), a Town Hall service (at £93,000), etc, where these are just overheads and not services in their own right. Not a point of view that has won universal acceptance, but a valid point of view all the same.

Posted by: On the edge May 6 2012, 07:50 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ May 6 2012, 05:03 PM) *
What makes you think having six full time staff (and four part time if I read the spreadsheet right) to manage cemeteries, playgrounds, parks, allotments, bus shelters, gardens, markets, Christmas lights and more in an area containing 30,000 people, is a problem?

With the Localism Bill now passed, I suspect they might be doing more too.


Knowing a little about administration and what they actually need to do in reality - I do think this is gross over resourcing. This also makes a lie of the claims that were made for Unitary Authorities as well - but that's another story.

The fact remains, NTC is simply a Parish Council - no more no less.

I used to support, indeed promote localism - however, having seen what could happen by the activities of local government round here (and not just this example) I now believe the idea is seriously defective.

Posted by: On the edge May 6 2012, 07:54 PM

QUOTE (NWNREADER @ May 6 2012, 01:16 PM) *
And none are 'Legal'


As a job role - the Town Clerk (or in modern parlance the Chief Executive) was always a lawyer. Useful talent; even for managing cemeteries as David Lloyd George once demonstrated.

Posted by: Cognosco May 6 2012, 07:55 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ May 6 2012, 08:46 PM) *
The document on their website that I posed a link to doesn't support what you say here, they seem to have less staff than you claim. This makes me doubt the other figures you posted.

It could be wrong of course, but I suspect someone would have noticed and informed them of an error. Government bodies at whatever level tend to be quite fastidious about this sort of thing.


Oh yes like making a public announcement that regarding the self management issue " despite claims for self managment their has been no proposals put forward for self management"

Just recently "Their have been no proposals put forward for self management that were acceptable"

So please don't try and claim they are fastidious! rolleyes.gif

If only they were fastidious in making the relevant minutes public that would help! rolleyes.gif

Posted by: user23 May 6 2012, 07:59 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ May 6 2012, 08:50 PM) *
The fact remains, NTC is simply a Parish Council - no more no less.
A "Parish Council" that provides services for around 30,000 people.

Posted by: On the edge May 6 2012, 08:18 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ May 6 2012, 08:59 PM) *
A "Parish Council" that provides services for around 30,000 people.

Then its time for the chopper.

Posted by: Cognosco May 6 2012, 08:23 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ May 6 2012, 09:18 PM) *
Then its time for the chopper.


Resignations long overdue? rolleyes.gif

Posted by: user23 May 6 2012, 08:25 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ May 6 2012, 09:18 PM) *
Then its time for the chopper.
Split the Civil Parish of Newbury?

Where would you draw the lines?

Posted by: NWNREADER May 6 2012, 08:28 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ May 6 2012, 08:59 PM) *
A "Parish Council" that provides services for around 30,000 people.


But not big budget 'demand' services - parks & gardens are the same year after year, as are allotments. cemetery likewise, although the new customers reduce the cost.

As for the staff numbers, maybe what we see are the 'officers', not the labourers etc (as they are contracted now). Thus the contract may supply 3,4 etc employees, but they are off the balance sheet as people.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 6 2012, 08:43 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ May 6 2012, 08:46 PM) *
The document on their website that I posed a link to doesn't support what you say here, they seem to have less staff than you claim. This makes me doubt the other figures you posted.

It could be wrong of course, but I suspect someone would have noticed and informed them of an error. Government bodies at whatever level tend to be quite fastidious about this sort of thing.

Can you be specific about where you see the discrepancy?

I don't have the breakdown for this year's costs, but this was the response to a FoI request made 4 March 2010 for a break-down of the staffing cost of the allotment service:
QUOTE
The indirect staff costs that are included as a cost basis for the precept leaflet are based on estimating the percentage of time that each officer spends on each service. For 2009/10, the estimate for the allotment service was:

Chief Executive Officer - 10%
Services Manager - 15%
2 x Services Officers - 30% each
Services Officer 2 - 30%
Grounds Maintenance Officer - 22.5%
3 x Grounds Staff - 5% each

which when applied to that year's total staff costs extrapolated to approximately £40,000.

The 390K budget is all direct staff costs – Pro Rata Salary + Employers NI + Employers pension + overtime + expenses + reserve for merit increments + reserve for NJC cost of living increment + contingency in case we need to employ temporary staff + staff tea / coffee / milk / sugar costs.

The 2012 staff bill is less because the cemetary staff were out-sourced to a contractor, and the staff costs for the service are also less as a result of the Grounds Staff now appearing under the running costs head as contract maintenance.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 6 2012, 08:44 PM

QUOTE (NWNREADER @ May 6 2012, 09:28 PM) *
As for the staff numbers, maybe what we see are the 'officers', not the labourers etc (as they are contracted now). Thus the contract may supply 3,4 etc employees, but they are off the balance sheet as people.

Quite so.

Posted by: user23 May 6 2012, 08:53 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 6 2012, 09:43 PM) *
Can you be specific about where you see the discrepancy?
You said they had a total of ten full-time equivalent staff. The way I read the structure is they have ten staff but at least four are part time, but perhaps I'm reading it incorrectly.

By the way, in a previous post I guessed the average spend in Newbury on allotment rent was £70 per year based on what I though I'd seen posted on here. Do you know what the actual correct figure is?

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 7 2012, 10:10 AM

QUOTE (user23 @ May 6 2012, 09:53 PM) *
You said they had a total of ten full-time equivalent staff. The way I read the structure is they have ten staff but at least four are part time, but perhaps I'm reading it incorrectly.

By the way, in a previous post I guessed the average spend in Newbury on allotment rent was £70 per year based on what I though I'd seen posted on here. Do you know what the actual correct figure is?

The job add the Council placed http://www.nalc.gov.uk/About_NALC/NALC_Staff/Newbury_Town_Council.aspx says:
QUOTE
Newbury Town Council is one of the larger Town Councils in the country, effectively a small business with a £1.2 million turnover, providing a variety of services to around 30,000 customers, with a team of 9.5 “Full Time Equivalent” Officers and 23 elected Members.


And the job description posted http://www.nalc.gov.uk/Document/Download.aspx?uid=dec8e098-0d25-41b8-973a-05b302702aec says "that this is a new role as agreed on 8/11/11" so it looks as though the council's current full-time-equivelent head count is 10.5.

Given that the Council published staff costs are currently £364,221 that makes the average staff cost (that's wages, pension, tea and biscuits) - that's an average of £34.7k. That does seem rather a lot when I'd have expected admin clerks and caretakers to earn about half that.

Sorry, in a rush, I'll post the rest later.

Posted by: On the edge May 7 2012, 10:53 AM

QUOTE (user23 @ May 6 2012, 09:25 PM) *
Split the Civil Parish of Newbury?

Where would you draw the lines?


The obvious answer is the same as the rest of the Parishes - follow the ecclesiastical boundaries. However, I'd abolish all Parish Councils as an administrative function. Centre everything on a single, properly Unitary authority. No reason why the Parish Council in the rural areas couldn't simply function on the same lines as the Neighbourhood Action Groups or Resident Associations in the urban areas.

This would stop some of the inane wasteful and costly squabbling that goes on today. Such as the massive legal bill incurred simply transferring responsibility of Victoria Park, wrangling over payments to keep lavatories open, etc, etc. It would also increase the capability of WBC making it a more viable management unit.

The issue in this thread being yet another example where a more professional and focussed approach to what is really a service matter would have avoided all of this.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 7 2012, 11:14 AM

QUOTE (user23 @ May 6 2012, 09:53 PM) *
By the way, in a previous post I guessed the average spend in Newbury on allotment rent was £70 per year based on what I though I'd seen posted on here. Do you know what the actual correct figure is?

If you assume there are 500 plots (it's not a number the council publish as such and they subdividing the bigger plots so the number keeps growing, but it's a reasonable number to assume):

The allotment service runs at a published nett cost of £42,700, of which £34,400 is staff costs, £24,700 is running costs, £2,800 is overheads, and there's £19,200 revenue. On top of that there also needs to be an apportionment of the council's central administration costs (the Administration service) and overheads (mostly the Town Hall service) of £32,000 administration, and £20,000 of non-service overheads.

So the per-plot breakdown is an average service cost of £228 per plot, of which the tenant contributes £38, and the tax-payer £190, and of that £228 per plot, £69 is service staff costs, £49 is running costs, and £110 is administration and overheads. The average rent nationally is now around £5.30 per pole, and in Newbury it's £7.30 which is well into the upper quartile, and the break-even rent for NTC would be £43.43 per pole, so that would be a rent of £434 for my allotment. Self-managed sites typically charge around £3 to £4 per pole and run a better service at no cost to the tax-payer, though of course in Newbury that would mean the loss of a £114k income stream for the council and a 10% reduction in councillor importance.

Posted by: Cognosco May 7 2012, 11:42 AM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 7 2012, 12:14 PM) *
If you assume there are 500 plots (it's not a number the council publish as such and they subdividing the bigger plots so the number keeps growing, but it's a reasonable number to assume):

The allotment service runs at a published nett cost of £42,700, of which £34,400 is staff costs, £24,700 is running costs, £2,800 is overheads, and there's £19,200 revenue. On top of that there also needs to be an apportionment of the council's central administration costs (the Administration service) and overheads (mostly the Town Hall service) of £32,000 administration, and £20,000 of non-service overheads.

So the per-plot breakdown is an average service cost of £228 per plot, of which the tenant contributes £38, and the tax-payer £190, and of that £228 per plot, £69 is service staff costs, £49 is running costs, and £110 is administration and overheads. The average rent nationally is now around £5.30 per pole, and in Newbury it's £7.30 which is well into the upper quartile, and the break-even rent for NTC would be £43.43 per pole, so that would be a rent of £434 for my allotment. Self-managed sites typically charge around £3 to £4 per pole and run a better service at no cost to the tax-payer, though of course in Newbury that would mean the loss of a £114k income stream for the council and a 10% reduction in councillor importance.


The argument for abolishing the town council is looking stronger. Especially when the councillors are not representing the taxpayers? They are not transparent they will not answer genuine concerns regarding the allotment fiasco? They are bluntly refusing to make public, minutes of meetings? So what are they in office for? It would appear to be a lot of expenditure in these times of hardship to just keep a tradition alive. If Simon's figures are correct, I have no reason to believe they are not, then administration costs for such a small service is completely out of all proportion. No wonder they are trying to evict and gag him? A complete breakdown of allotment costs, not fudged in with other costs, should be made available to the taxpayers as soon as possible. The problem now of course is that they have brought such disrepute on anything the councils says or does that taxpayers will have doubts even if they produce the cost figures? Perhaps it may be beneficial for the new establishment to produce the costs after the resignations? rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 7 2012, 02:53 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ May 6 2012, 01:03 PM) *
I don't think you're right. http://www.newbury.gov.uk/pdfs/information-pack/staffstructure-contactdetails.pdf it seems they only have ten staff and four of those are part-time.

I count 12 staff, five designated as part time. If we assume part-time staff work half the hours of full-time staff (and there's no particular reason why that's right) that makes 9.5 full-time-equivelent staff (one of which is currently a vacancy). That would appear to be consistent with the 9.5 head-count mentioned in the job advert if the count included the job itself which was described as a new role, and a head count of 10.5 would also be consistent if the part-time staff work on average more than half the hours of full-time staff.

Assuming a 9.5 head-count, this is the staff allocation for the published services.

CODE
market                                              0.47
floral displays                                     0.45
christmas lights                                    0.33
cemeteries                                          0.71
administration                                      2.64
parks, open spaces, recreation grounds              0.95
allotments                                          0.90
town hall                                           1.58
civic duties                                        0.93
committee expenditure                               0.01
WBC toilets                                         0.01
Flood Alleviation Scheme                            0.00
neighbourhood warden scheme                         0.03
young people's council                              0.04
assets, war memorial, footway lighting, clock house 0.44
grants                                              0.00
election expenses                                   0.01
total                                               9.50

So allowing for the 0.15 of direct labour that were out-sourced the allotments now appear to be run by 31% less staff than two years ago - way to go NTC, nice efficiency improvement there. Oh, but hang on, the total head-count hasn't changed -- surely they haven't just booked the officer's time to something else, something less allotmenty, something that would make the allotment service look just that little bit less inefficient?

1.58 staff for the town hall looks a lot, especially when the caretaker was one of those part-time roles.

And 0.93 staff for civic duties looks heavy too, that's more or less the number of staff employed to manage the whole of the parks, open spaces, and recreation grounds services combined.

Posted by: blackdog May 7 2012, 04:58 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ May 7 2012, 11:53 AM) *
The obvious answer is the same as the rest of the Parishes - follow the ecclesiastical boundaries. However, I'd abolish all Parish Councils as an administrative function. Centre everything on a single, properly Unitary authority. No reason why the Parish Council in the rural areas couldn't simply function on the same lines as the Neighbourhood Action Groups or Resident Associations in the urban areas.

Plenty of civil parishes differ from their ecclesiastical counterparts, notably in or near urban areas - eg Speen, Stockcross, Shaw *** Donnington, Greenham and the three Newbury parishes (one of which combines two former ecclesiastical parishes). Of course the three Newbury parishes and Speen all have the same man in charge and many (all?) local rural parishes have been combined/grouped ecclesiastically into 'united benefices' or somesuch.

Personally I'd rather re-establish a county council (preferably covering the pre-1974 boundaries), do away with district councils like WBC, and give parishes more power - more like the French system. The abolished the wrong council when they went unitary.



Posted by: Simon Kirby May 7 2012, 06:00 PM

QUOTE (blackdog @ May 7 2012, 05:58 PM) *
Personally I'd rather re-establish a county council (preferably covering the pre-1974 boundaries), do away with district councils like WBC, and give parishes more power - more like the French system. The abolished the wrong council when they went unitary.

That's just the problem: power. Parishes have more than enough powers already but in Newbury we've elected people who just want to be powerful and aren't interested in using those powers to provide services and build communities. Strangely enough I disagree with OtE and agree with User here: I feel that parish councils are better placed than primary councils to enable many of the leisure and community services that really matter to us at a local level, but they need to be enabling and empowering communities to do it for themselves Big Society-style and not building monolithic administration behemoths. A part-time professional clerk could run NTC if we elected councillors who actually wanted to contribute some public service and put in some work.

Bizzarely enough I think parish councils are better placed to run an allotment service than an independent society because the parish council has some very useful statutory powers and because it's already a publicly accountable body corporate and both of those features make it ideal to own communal property in trust, and because the standing of the council and its democratic accountability make it naturally more stable than an independent associatiton. But rather than employing an army of local government officers to run a grounds maintenance empire directed by a committee of wanabe party politicos who know diddly squat about allotmenteering and the allotment movement the allotment service should be run by its allotmenteers with a couple of councillors for democratic balance and just overseen by the council which is just there to ensure fair play.

And I think very many of the council's services could be run along this model, better, more inclusively, and at negliagable cost to the tax-payer. Certainly an arms-lenght Chrimbo Lights committee of mainly non-council bods could do a fantastic job of the lights as happens in other towns, same with the market, same too with the parks and open spaces with volunteer park-keepers and community green spaces. I think the parish umbrella could also empower many community initiatives that we haven't even thought about. But it depends on our elected councillors having the courage and vision to build a big society and relax the state control, and while we elect tories and lib dems it won't.

Posted by: On the edge May 7 2012, 09:53 PM

I suppose it all boils down to power and politics. Emotionally, I felt scrapping Berkshire CC was the wrong thing to do, but seem to recall at the time it was badly served, rather like the GLC. Seems to me whatever we do needs to have some break on those who simply want to play politics; there is no justifiable need for them at local level. Not quite sure how we'd achieve that but if we did, it would certainly move us forward.

Posted by: blackdog May 8 2012, 08:12 AM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 7 2012, 07:00 PM) *
That's just the problem: power. Parishes have more than enough powers already but in Newbury we've elected people who just want to be powerful and aren't interested in using those powers to provide services and build communities. Strangely enough I disagree with OtE and agree with User here: I feel that parish councils are better placed than primary councils to enable many of the leisure and community services that really matter to us at a local level, but they need to be enabling and empowering communities to do it for themselves Big Society-style and not building monolithic administration behemoths. A part-time professional clerk could run NTC if we elected councillors who actually wanted to contribute some public service and put in some work.

The powers I would like to devolve down to parishes are those related to planning - where they have virtually no say at present. Cameron's localism concept sort of suggested this, but is falling apart as they come up against the need to force councils to build more houses. Pretty much everything else WBC does comes down to placing contracts for services - which could be done more cost effectively by a larger, county-wide council.

I agree that NTC is overstaffed - and massively over-politicised; but that is only one of the 63 parish councils in West Berks, most of which have no staff at all and are a great example of 'big society' in action (and have been long before anyone thought up the 'big society' buzzword).




Posted by: Simon Kirby May 8 2012, 08:56 AM

QUOTE (blackdog @ May 8 2012, 09:12 AM) *
The powers I would like to devolve down to parishes are those related to planning - where they have virtually no say at present. Cameron's localism concept sort of suggested this, but is falling apart as they come up against the need to force councils to build more houses. Pretty much everything else WBC does comes down to placing contracts for services - which could be done more cost effectively by a larger, county-wide council.

I agree that NTC is overstaffed - and massively over-politicised; but that is only one of the 63 parish councils in West Berks, most of which have no staff at all and are a great example of 'big society' in action (and have been long before anyone thought up the 'big society' buzzword).

Yes, I completely agree with your comments on the majority of existing parish councils that have been supporting and empowering their communities in a Big-Society for the last hundred years.

I'm very much less convinced about planning decisions. I'm particularly uncomfortable with the idea that planning decisions would be made subjectively by elected councillors who may tend to be jealous, vindictive, authoritarian, socially advantaged, and reactionary (not to mention discriminatory). Correct me if I'm wrong, but parish councils can already write Design Standards which are material consideration in the determination of planning decisions. This seems to me the appropriate level of influence for a community to have in its own environment. But there is still the need for strategic thinking and parishes are unlikely to look at the big picture so there is certainly a role for primary councils writing design statements and strategic plans as well. I'm very much more comfortable with the presumption in favour of sustainable developement and planning decisions taken entirely by professional planners on the basis of objective standards and evidence, and there's a very good argument for taking planning out of local authority control altogether and making it into a national inspectorate. Just look at Sandleford - as things stand strategic planning is an unholy party-political bun-fight that's deaf and blind to the legitimate aspirations, needs, and concerns of the community, and that can't be right.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 8 2012, 10:41 AM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 8 2012, 09:56 AM) *
Yes, I completely agree with your comments on the majority of existing parish councils that have been supporting and empowering their communities in a Big-Society for the last hundred years.

I'm very much less convinced about planning decisions. I'm particularly uncomfortable with the idea that planning decisions would be made subjectively by elected councillors who may tend to be jealous, vindictive, authoritarian, socially advantaged, and reactionary (not to mention discriminatory). Correct me if I'm wrong, but parish councils can already write Design Standards which are material consideration in the determination of planning decisions. This seems to me the appropriate level of influence for a community to have in its own environment. But there is still the need for strategic thinking and parishes are unlikely to look at the big picture so there is certainly a role for primary councils writing design statements and strategic plans as well. I'm very much more comfortable with the presumption in favour of sustainable developement and planning decisions taken entirely by professional planners on the basis of objective standards and evidence, and there's a very good argument for taking planning out of local authority control altogether and making it into a national inspectorate. Just look at Sandleford - as things stand strategic planning is an unholy party-political bun-fight that's deaf and blind to the legitimate aspirations, needs, and concerns of the community, and that can't be right.


My goodness this topic is boring now

Posted by: Andy Capp May 8 2012, 10:51 AM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 8 2012, 11:41 AM) *
My goodness this topic is boring now

rolleyes.gif You don't have to read, nor post, if you don't want to.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 8 2012, 11:19 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 8 2012, 11:51 AM) *
rolleyes.gif You don't have top read, nor post, if you don't want to.


Yeagh I know but 174 replies, a FB group and an article in the Newbury news all because someone disagrees with a £20 rent increase. I mean come on.

Posted by: Roger T May 8 2012, 11:21 AM

I never quite understand that, why people post to complain they don't like the topic. Register your thoughts on the topic, like I suppose one would comment on someone's air freshener when asked. But maybe it's rude to walk into a house and complain their new Glade Crystal Air smells like doggie mud.
It seems much less effort to simply leave the page instead of adding nothing whatsoever. Like when you have £5 and earn £0 in interest. You'd be angry too.

I think for Simon Kirby after reading this thread that his plight is one strewn with danger.. sort of like the yellow brick road but perhaps a bit more muddy. And where Tin-Tin is replaced by a Town Councillor. Unless I'm getting my movies mixed up. Mrs T was always the one winning Cluedo.
But the topic is more than just Simon Kirby's shed, it's looks like (and I may be wrong because I don't have my glasses) that the council act like they are accountable to no-one.

I guess nothing can be of interest to everyone - And everyone can't be of interest to nothing. Like fooling some of the people all of the time. And some of the people all of the time... and if it's not of interest I would probably not post. Either I'd post or ramble.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 8 2012, 11:29 AM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 8 2012, 12:19 PM) *
Yeagh I know but 174 replies, a FB group and an article in the Newbury news all because someone disagrees with a £20 rent increase. I mean come on.

I wish you would just go away. You offer nothing to the debate, although it is becoming increasingly clear you are trolling in an attempt to frustrate the thread. You have been told more than once what this is about, but you keep coming back to the same old rubbish.

It is people like you who should be banned, not the eccentrics like jaycakes, et al.

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. May 8 2012, 11:32 AM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 8 2012, 12:19 PM) *
Yeagh I know but 174 replies, a FB group and an article in the Newbury news all because someone disagrees with a £20 rent increase. I mean come on.


Really? That the original £20 was wrongly levied is not a matter of dispute anymore. It's what has happened after that that's rather caught peoples' attention.

Instead of just saying "whoops sorry bit of a ****-up on writing that contract, no-one sign it.. ....here's another one" The Council at first denied it, then reissued new contracts but with a 'gagging' order on Simon's so that he couldn't tell anyone what had gone on. He quite rightly refused to sign. Branches of the State should not gag it's citizens when they point out 'the king is in the all together'.
Yet NTC ploughed firmly on, into the train wreck this issue has now become for them.
.
You yourself suggested that Simon should pay up. He's tried to, but N.T.C. (and it's agents) won't accept the money from him. So I'm afraid your suggestion falls.

Posted by: dannyboy May 8 2012, 11:32 AM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 8 2012, 12:19 PM) *
Yeagh I know but 174 replies, a FB group and an article in the Newbury news all because someone disagrees with a £20 rent increase. I mean come on.

Actually I think it was the councils reluctance to have a debate on self management at the allotments which started SK & NTC on a collsion course. The nit picking over the wording of the council's allotment contract was just part of the tit for tat the pair got engaged in.

Posted by: dannyboy May 8 2012, 11:35 AM

QUOTE (Dodgys smarter brother. @ May 8 2012, 12:32 PM) *
Really? That the original £20 was wrongly levied is not a matter of dispute anymore. It's what has happened after that that's rather caught peoples' attention.

Instead of just saying "whoops sorry bit of a ****-up on writing that contract, no-one sign it.. ....here's another one" The Council at first denied it, then reissued new contracts but with a 'gagging' order on Simon's so that he couldn't tell anyone what had gone on. He quite rightly refused to sign. Branches of the State should not gag it's citizens when they point out 'the king is in the all together'.
Yet NTC ploughed firmly on, into the train wreck this issue has now become for them.
.
You yourself suggested that Simon should pay up. He's tried to, but N.T.C. (and it's agents) won't accept the money from him. So your suggestion falls.

Train wreck - LOL,

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. May 8 2012, 11:35 AM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 8 2012, 12:32 PM) *
Actually I think it was the councils reluctance to have a debate on self management at the allotments which started SK & NTC on a collsion course. The nit picking over the wording of the council's allotment contract was just part of the tit for tat the pair got engaged in.


Is this the same Council who have now opened a debate on self-management?

Posted by: Andy Capp May 8 2012, 11:39 AM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 8 2012, 12:32 PM) *
Actually I think it was the councils reluctance to have a debate on self management at the allotments which started SK & NTC on a collsion course. The nit picking over the wording of the council's allotment contract was just part of the tit for tat the pair got engaged in.

I think it goes back further than that. Reading between the lines it seems one or more councillors disliked what was happening at Falkland allotments. Coupled with a relatively high increase in rent, Simon was eager to make the allotments self managed. This might have had two effects according to him: one, it would remove the council from day to day interest in the site; two, it might be cheaper on the allotment holders, and possibly cheaper in the long run on the tax payer as well.

I think the main reason is that Simon saw unfairness from one or more councillors in the way they managed his site. That I think is the main reason for his belligerence.

Posted by: dannyboy May 8 2012, 11:41 AM

QUOTE (Dodgys smarter brother. @ May 8 2012, 12:35 PM) *
Is this the same Council who have now opened a debate on self-management?

Things change.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 8 2012, 11:44 AM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 8 2012, 12:41 PM) *
Things change.

I would imagine that the self management interest has been generated by Simon's vociferous postings on here and else where. The council need a 'see, told you so', argument behind them.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 8 2012, 11:49 AM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 8 2012, 12:32 PM) *
Actually I think it was the councils reluctance to have a debate on self management at the allotments which started SK & NTC on a collsion course. The nit picking over the wording of the council's allotment contract was just part of the tit for tat the pair got engaged in.

I think that's probably correct. Self-management was never an explicit dispute but I believe it was the council's fear that an active allotment society and engaged tenantry would lead inexorably to a loss of their power and revenue that drove them to oppose and frustrate the allotment society. For the Council to have engaged with the allotment society over the fairness of the tenancy agreement would have legitimised the society, and that was the very last thing they wanted.

Posted by: dannyboy May 8 2012, 12:04 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 8 2012, 12:44 PM) *
I would imagine that the self management interest has been generated by Simon's vociferous postings on here and else where. The council need a 'see, told you so', argument behind them.

LOL, I think you take the importance of this forum way to seriously!

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 8 2012, 12:18 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 8 2012, 01:04 PM) *
LOL, I think you take the importance of this forum way to seriously!

And yet it was important enough to the Council that I sign a secret no-criticism clause to stop me posting here, so much so that the Council would not resolve the dispute without that gagging clause, even though it would appear to breach my Article 10 right to freedom of expression.

Posted by: dannyboy May 8 2012, 12:30 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 8 2012, 01:18 PM) *
And yet it was important enough to the Council that I sign a secret no-criticism clause to stop me posting here, so much so that the Council would not resolve the dispute without that gagging clause, even though it would appear to breach my Article 10 right to freedom of expression.

Seems NTC also over estimate the reach & importance of this forum too.

Don't sign the agreement then. That way you'll be able to say what you like.


Posted by: Simon Kirby May 8 2012, 12:36 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 8 2012, 01:30 PM) *
Seems NTC also over estimate the reach & importance of this forum too.

Don't sign the agreement then. That way you'll be able to say what you like.

No one has the right to say "what they like", but we all have the right to criticise the state and it's not good for the state to try and suppress that right. But whatever, if the Council would allow me to sign the new tenancy agreement just like any other allotmenteer and end this dispute here and now I'd do it gladly and that would be an end of it.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 8 2012, 01:16 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 8 2012, 01:36 PM) *
No one has the right to say "what they like", but we all have the right to criticise the state and it's not good for the state to try and suppress that right. But whatever, if the Council would allow me to sign the new tenancy agreement just like any other allotmenteer and end this dispute here and now I'd do it gladly and that would be an end of it.


its like trying to fight with HMRC, its just not worth the effort.

Posted by: Roger T May 8 2012, 03:15 PM

Viva la revolution. Just because they are big, does not mean an inability to take them on. Otherwise, the corporations would punish the little guy. I'm sure I saw that in an 80's movie.

I guess we've heard of the tax refunds. Sods law states, I haven't received one. But proves accountability.
Maybe if I had an accountant, I would have received a tax refund. Perhaps I should write.

Posted by: Penelope May 8 2012, 03:16 PM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 8 2012, 02:16 PM) *
its like trying to fight with HMRC, its just not worth the effort.

Only for some people.

Posted by: dannyboy May 8 2012, 03:19 PM

QUOTE (Penelope @ May 8 2012, 04:16 PM) *
Only for some people.

I hear Vodafone did well at it.

Posted by: Jayjay May 8 2012, 03:33 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 8 2012, 04:19 PM) *
I hear Vodafone did well at it.


and Top Shop's Philip Green.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 8 2012, 04:01 PM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 8 2012, 02:16 PM) *
its like trying to fight with HMRC, its just not worth the effort.

If you mean that I'll lose my allotment and NTC will carry on just the same; yes, that was always the most likely outcome, but that can happen when you stand up to bullies, you get a right good kicking.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 8 2012, 04:04 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 8 2012, 05:01 PM) *
If you mean that I'll lose my allotment and NTC will carry on just the same; yes, that was always the most likely outcome, but that can happen when you stand up to bullies, you get a right good kicking.



did you refuse to pay the 20% VAT rate when it came in ? Did you withold the increase when paying your bills ?

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. May 8 2012, 04:08 PM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 8 2012, 05:04 PM) *
did you refuse to pay the 20% VAT rate when it came in ? Did you withold the increase when paying your bills ?


He probably paid it because it was brought in legally. Shouldn't think he was any more happy about it than anyone else. I suspect that if H.M. Government did try and raise taxes illegally, then there would be those who would stand up and fight against it. Don't you?

Posted by: andy1979uk May 8 2012, 04:10 PM

QUOTE (Dodgys smarter brother. @ May 8 2012, 05:08 PM) *
He probably paid it because it was brought in legally.


but am sure it has cost him more than £20, cannot believe he expects other tax payers to fund his allotment.

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. May 8 2012, 04:11 PM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 8 2012, 05:10 PM) *
but am sure it has cost him more than £20, cannot believe he expects other tax payers to fund his allotment.


He doesn't, he wants self-management looked at in order to SAVE taxpayers pockets.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 8 2012, 04:13 PM

QUOTE (Dodgys smarter brother. @ May 8 2012, 05:11 PM) *
He doesn't, he wants self-management looked at in order to SAVE taxpayers pockets.


but he went about it the wrong way, and now has lost his allotment plot.

Posted by: Roger T May 8 2012, 04:27 PM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 8 2012, 05:10 PM) *
but am sure it has cost him more than £20, cannot believe he expects other tax payers to fund his allotment.

You do go on about tax payers money quite a lot. Are you a millionaire?
One can dream.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 8 2012, 04:39 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 8 2012, 01:04 PM) *
LOL, I think you take the importance of this forum way to seriously!

I'm not the only one. And we have several public notices to prove it.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 8 2012, 04:41 PM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 8 2012, 05:10 PM) *
but am sure it has cost him more than £20, cannot believe he expects other tax payers to fund his allotment.

He doesn't, but the council do.

Posted by: Jay Sands May 8 2012, 04:42 PM

Perhaps the town council should think about this recent adjudication at a High Court hearing and then rethink their own behaviour:

"And he said that the appeal panel’s decision to uphold a council standards committee censure ruling should be set aside. Mr Justice Beatson, who heard evidence at a High Court hearing in Cardiff last month, delivered judgment at a hearing in London yesterday. An adjudication panel report said that Mr Calver chose to “b**** from the sidelines”, the judge was told.

The judge said that some comments were sarcastic and mocking, and some sought to undermine one council member in an “unattractive way”. But most related to how council meetings were run and recorded. They were in no sense “high” manifestations of political expression, Mr Justice Beatson said in his written ruling. Many of them, he added, were “comments about the inadequate performance of councillors in their public duties.

“As such, in my judgment, they fall within the term ‘political expression’ in the broader sense.”
He ruled that the panel’s decision was “a disproportionate interference with the claimant’s rights under Article 10 of the convention”. The judge also accepted an argument advanced by Mr Calver’s lawyers that it was necessary to bear in mind the “traditions of robust debate”, which might include “some degree of lampooning of those who place themselves in public office”. "


Posted by: Andy Capp May 8 2012, 04:44 PM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 8 2012, 05:13 PM) *
but he went about it the wrong way, and now has lost his allotment plot.

Not yet he hasn't but that does look likely. The council have deeper pockets than Simon. Pockets financed by the tax payer, and so far this '£20.00' dispute has cost the tax payer over £8,000.00.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 8 2012, 05:08 PM

QUOTE (Jay Sands @ May 8 2012, 05:42 PM) *
... The judge also accepted an argument advanced by Mr Calver’s lawyers that it was necessary to bear in mind the “traditions of robust debate”, which might include “some degree of lampooning of those who place themselves in public office”. "

This is something the Newbury Town Council and West Berkshire Council are particularly sensitive about.

Posted by: Cognosco May 8 2012, 07:05 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 8 2012, 05:44 PM) *
Not yet he hasn't but that does look likely. The council have deeper pockets than Simon. Pockets financed by the tax payer, and so far this '£20.00' dispute has cost the tax payer over £8,000.00.


They should be made liable for this payment from their own pockets in my opinion! angry.gif To bring this burden onto taxpayers when all they had to do was put up their hands and say we made a mistake, apologise to Simon and move on, but no NTC can not be seen to be wrong so on we go. If reports are correct the main issue that started this fiasco has now been moved forward by the council anyway by asking tenanats if they would consider self management. So why not just put up their hands and say we are offering Simon a new tenancy contract and we are withdrawing the eviction notice. I feel sure Simon would not push it to the limit, not only to save taxpayers yet more expenditure, but to show that he is not vindictive unlike certain ex and existing councillors. wink.gif

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 8 2012, 07:21 PM

QUOTE (Cognosco @ May 8 2012, 08:05 PM) *
So why not just put up their hands and say we are offering Simon a new tenancy contract and we are withdrawing the eviction notice. I feel sure Simon would not push it to the limit, not only to save taxpayers yet more expenditure, but to show that he is not vindictive...

I feel that would be a the decent thing to do all round. I think we can all lean some lessone from what's gone on but the best thing for everyone now is just to end the dispute, I'll sign up to the new agreement like everyone else, and we'll all move on.

Posted by: Penelope May 8 2012, 07:30 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 8 2012, 08:21 PM) *
I feel that would be a the decent thing to do all round. I think we can all lean some lessone from what's gone on but the best thing for everyone now is just to end the dispute, I'll sign up to the new agreement like everyone else, and we'll all move on.


No you won't, they aren't going to let you, you've shown them up, they want revenge pure and simple.

Sorry mate.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 8 2012, 07:56 PM

QUOTE (Penelope @ May 8 2012, 08:30 PM) *
No you won't, they aren't going to let you, you've shown them up, they want revenge pure and simple.

Sorry mate.

They also don't trust him. He's offered an olive branch before, but followed it up with a rather spiteful message to the councillors.

Posted by: Cognosco May 8 2012, 08:01 PM

QUOTE (Penelope @ May 8 2012, 08:30 PM) *
No you won't, they aren't going to let you, you've shown them up, they want revenge pure and simple.

Sorry mate.


Probably correct? But if they evict Simon I feel sure they will never be forgotten for it or for years to come.
They have managed to bring a small town council into disrepute! Every time something goes not quite as it should for the council in the future taxpayers will always bring up the allotment fiasco to remind them. rolleyes.gif

Still waiting for the minutes of the relevant meeting to be made public..... they are still in lockdown but we will have to keep demanding access to them. angry.gif

Posted by: andy1979uk May 8 2012, 10:11 PM

QUOTE (Cognosco @ May 8 2012, 09:01 PM) *
Probably correct? But if they evict Simon I feel sure they will never be forgotten for it or for years to come.
They have managed to bring a small town council into disrepute! Every time something goes not quite as it should for the council in the future taxpayers will always bring up the allotment fiasco to remind them. rolleyes.gif

Still waiting for the minutes of the relevant meeting to be made public..... they are still in lockdown but we will have to keep demanding access to them. angry.gif



I agree with Simon, it is time to move on. Am sure he just wants to get back to his allotment especially with the weather improving.

Posted by: NWNREADER May 9 2012, 06:25 AM

QUOTE (Cognosco @ May 8 2012, 09:01 PM) *
Probably correct? But if they evict Simon I feel sure they will never be forgotten for it or for years to come.
They have managed to bring a small town council into disrepute! Every time something goes not quite as it should for the council in the future taxpayers will always bring up the allotment fiasco to remind them. rolleyes.gif

Still waiting for the minutes of the relevant meeting to be made public..... they are still in lockdown but we will have to keep demanding access to them. angry.gif


Problem is, the story is not widely known, so the majority of citizens do not know the allegations and counter-argument. there is no 'groundswell' of opinion in the electorate, just a few commentators on a forum.

Posted by: dannyboy May 9 2012, 09:20 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 8 2012, 08:56 PM) *
They also don't trust him. He's offered an olive branch before, but followed it up with a rather spiteful message to the councillors.

A sticking point I'm sure.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 9 2012, 10:09 AM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 9 2012, 10:20 AM) *
A sticking point I'm sure.



I think they will likely evict him to prove a point, rightly or wrongly. I would imagine he would not be able to rent another plot from them either. Although the rent rise may have not been implemented correctly, it was at the end of the day very small and the council happen to own the land he is on.

In my view he has shot himself in the foot as achieved nothing and lost everything.

Posted by: On the edge May 9 2012, 10:48 AM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 9 2012, 11:09 AM) *
I think they will likely evict him to prove a point, rightly or wrongly. I would imagine he would not be able to rent another plot from them either. Although the rent rise may have not been implemented correctly, it was at the end of the day very small and the council happen to own the land he is on.

In my view he has shot himself in the foot as achieved nothing and lost everything.


I for one am very heartened that some still hold out for principles. Your observation is perhaps more a testament to modern society. No wonder the teaching of history has declined - the very last thing 'the powers that be' want is for us to learm about those who stuck up for our rights and freedoms. It may only be an allotment, like it was only a cross on a bit of paper.....

Posted by: dannyboy May 9 2012, 10:50 AM

QUOTE (On the edge @ May 9 2012, 11:48 AM) *
I for one am very heartened that some still hold out for principles. Your observation is perhaps more a testament to modern society. No wonder the teaching of history has declined - the very last thing 'the powers that be' want is for us to learm about those who stuck up for ourrights and freedoms. It may only be an allotment, like it was only a cross on a bit of paper.....

I'm glad the council didn't capitulate & give in too. Just think what anarchy that would bring.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 9 2012, 11:03 AM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 9 2012, 11:50 AM) *
I'm glad the council didn't capitulate & give in too. Just think what anarchy that would bring.



but it was'nt his allotment was it, he rented it at a peppercorn rent. Maybe he will learn just to get on and enjoy life rather than make himself public enemy number 1.

Posted by: Roger T May 9 2012, 11:16 AM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 9 2012, 12:03 PM) *
but it was'nt his allotment was it, he rented it at a peppercorn rent. Maybe he will learn just to get on and enjoy life rather than make himself public enemy number 1.


Well, it was his allotment. The plot was rented but his allotment was his. And it was an award winning one, from looking at his profile.
Many congratulations. I too enjoy my shed although, not large enough to host a barbeque.

Posted by: Penelope May 9 2012, 11:17 AM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 9 2012, 12:03 PM) *
but it was'nt his allotment was it, he rented it at a peppercorn rent. Maybe he will learn just to get on and enjoy life rather than make himself public enemy number 1.


I seem to remember someone else doing that, his name was J C and he lived a long long time ago. I wonder what happened to the group he set up ?

Posted by: dannyboy May 9 2012, 11:19 AM

QUOTE (Penelope @ May 9 2012, 12:17 PM) *
I seem to remember someone else doing that, his name was J C and he lived a long long time ago. I wonder what happened to the group he set up ?

They tried for World domination & caused countless millions of deaths.

Posted by: Penelope May 9 2012, 11:25 AM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 9 2012, 12:19 PM) *
They tried for World domination & caused countless millions of deaths.


Who ? McDonalds ?

Posted by: Andy Capp May 9 2012, 11:33 AM

Simon's 'downfall' is his language, not his principle. It is also not a good idea to pick a fight you are not prepared or cannot afford to lose. Simon should have focused on support before he went forward.

The council are quite entitled to reclaim their rent, but they seem to avoid the usual channels which throws suspicion on the veracity their position.

Simon has behaved poorly and has not helped his cause; there will be a number of allotmenteers that do not admire his effort. Having said that, I am shocked at the apparent unprofessional, incompetent, and frankly, insidious way the Newbury Town Council have behaved. A bill exceeding £8,000.00 over a £20.00 arrears is astounding.

Newbury Town Council should be pushing to lower costs and minimising loss of service levels. Self management could be a solution, and they should be helping promote it, rather than being stubborn and belligerent about it.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 9 2012, 11:35 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 9 2012, 12:33 PM) *
Simon's 'downfall' is his language, not his principle. It is also not a good idea to pick a fight you are not prepared, or cannot afford, to lose. Simon should have focused on support, before he went forward.

The council are quite entitled to reclaim their rent, but they seem to avoid the usual channels which throws suspicion on the veracity their position.

Simon has behaved poorly and has not helped his cause; there will be a number of allotmenteers that do not admire his effort. Having said that, I am shocked at the apparent unprofessional, incompetent, and frankly, insidious way the Newbury Town Council have behaved.

They should be pushing to lower costs and minimising loss of service levels. Self management could be a solution, and they should be helping promote it, rather than being stubborn and belligerent about it.



well summarised

Posted by: Roger T May 9 2012, 11:41 AM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 9 2012, 12:35 PM) *
well summarised


A summary was surmised in a well summarised way.

QUOTE (Penelope @ May 9 2012, 12:25 PM) *
Who ? McDonalds ?

That's untold misery to millions right there. The Big Macs, not big, smaller than in my youth, and taste like a squashed duck.
The local McDonalds, at the retail park (well, fairly local) I rarely visit. Only when on the way back from the Sea-side with the Nephew. Yet to happen this year. But a week ago, I went at 8pm for a meal. I was told to park in a bay parking, my companion ordered a Big Mac meal, Me a Snack Wrap, Barbeque.
I would imagine these are frequently ordered items. 10 minute wait ensued.

I complained and got about £25 of free food vouchers. Not bad really, but a genuine complaint was necessary as, the wrong order was given to us, but with the correct receipt. The staff were unhelpful, many of them being unable to comprehend my frail and dulcet tones.

Posted by: On the edge May 9 2012, 12:23 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 9 2012, 12:33 PM) *
Simon's 'downfall' is his language, not his principle. It is also not a good idea to pick a fight you are not prepared or cannot afford to lose. Simon should have focused on support before he went forward.

The council are quite entitled to reclaim their rent, but they seem to avoid the usual channels which throws suspicion on the veracity their position.

Simon has behaved poorly and has not helped his cause; there will be a number of allotmenteers that do not admire his effort. Having said that, I am shocked at the apparent unprofessional, incompetent, and frankly, insidious way the Newbury Town Council have behaved. A bill exceeding £8,000.00 over a £20.00 arrears is astounding.

Newbury Town Council should be pushing to lower costs and minimising loss of service levels. Self management could be a solution, and they should be helping promote it, rather than being stubborn and belligerent about it.


Agree broadly. 'behaving badly' is often the only recourse the 'governed' have. Can't think of one improvement to society over last x hundred years that hasn't involved 'bad behaviour' on the part of those promoting the idea.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 9 2012, 12:32 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ May 9 2012, 01:23 PM) *
Agree broadly. 'behaving badly' is often the only recourse the 'governed' have. Can't think of one improvement to society over last x hundred years that hasn't involved 'bad behaviour' on the part of those promoting the idea.

I agree, but at the end of the day, we are all people and to some extent, our effort is governed by how others treat us. Simon could have still made his point without the spite.

The best and simplest strategy is to establish your goals and focus only on those things that will help fulfill them. Simon hasn't admitted it, but I think he also wanted to see some damage to the council that goes beyond simply winning an argument, and I think that has undermined his chances of success. The governmental machine is a big and tedious organisation to deal with and you have to accept that you will more than likely fail to get all that you want out of a dispute, regardless of the veracity of your position ... unless you have plenty of time, or deep pockets.


All that being said, I fully support Simon's position on this and it has affected the way I will vote in the future, or until certain persons no longer stand for election.

Posted by: Newbelly May 9 2012, 03:56 PM

Have I got this right?

An allotment holder objects to a rent increase. He also wants “self-management” which is declined by the town council.

The town council then appears to behave a bit “secret squirrel” and will not release the minutes of some meeting and requests that the allotment holder agrees to stop criticising them.

Matters have escalated, there has been a war of words and the chap has now been banned from his allotment.

Is that it in a nutshell? And this has cost us £8000?

This seems an awfully protracted storm in a teacup. The phrase “banging some heads together” comes to mind!

Posted by: Strafin May 9 2012, 04:42 PM

Pretty much, but it wasn't so much that he didn't agree with the increase. He considers a 47% increase in rent illegal in line with the unfair contracts laws.

Posted by: blackdog May 9 2012, 07:03 PM

QUOTE (Newbelly @ May 9 2012, 04:56 PM) *
Have I got this right?

An allotment holder objects to a rent increase. He also wants “self-management” which is declined by the town council.

The town council then appears to behave a bit “secret squirrel” and will not release the minutes of some meeting and requests that the allotment holder agrees to stop criticising them.

Matters have escalated, there has been a war of words and the chap has now been banned from his allotment.

Is that it in a nutshell? And this has cost us £8000?

This seems an awfully protracted storm in a teacup. The phrase “banging some heads together” comes to mind!

You miss out three key points:

1. Trading Standards agree with the allotment holder's complaint that the terms of the rent rise are unfair.

2. Crown Prosecution Service takes CEO of council to court for withholding minutes of a council meeting.

3. Council offers allotment holder new contract with pencilled in extra condition that he agrees never to criticise them again, for anything.

Posted by: Nothing Much May 9 2012, 07:08 PM

Number 3 sounds like a "Star Chamber" condition.
ce

Posted by: Andy Capp May 9 2012, 07:09 PM

QUOTE (blackdog @ May 9 2012, 08:03 PM) *
2. Crown Prosecution Service takes CEO of council to court for withholding minutes of a council meeting.

Who subsequently is declared to have no case to answer because the complaint against him was not lodged in time. In other words, he didn't have to explain himself because the complainant took too long to lodge the complaint, so we never got to hear whether the CEO should have released the minutes or not.

I understand that incident cost the taxpayer £1,100.00, even though it wasn't the council who were charged. This also shows how precious the information within the minutes are to the council; they would rather spend £1,100.00 on defending the decision to not release them.

I wonder why.

Posted by: On the edge May 9 2012, 07:17 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 9 2012, 01:32 PM) *
....
All that being said, I fully support Simon's position on this and it has affected the way I will vote in the future, or until certain persons no longer stand for election.


Me too!

Posted by: dannyboy May 9 2012, 07:42 PM

QUOTE (Penelope @ May 9 2012, 12:25 PM) *
Who ? McDonalds ?

Christ, did he start that too - I always thought it was Ray Crock.

Posted by: Newbelly May 9 2012, 08:17 PM

QUOTE (blackdog @ May 9 2012, 08:03 PM) *
You miss out three key points:

1. Trading Standards agree with the allotment holder's complaint that the terms of the rent rise are unfair.

2. Crown Prosecution Service takes CEO of council to court for withholding minutes of a council meeting.

3. Council offers allotment holder new contract with pencilled in extra condition that he agrees never to criticise them again, for anything.


Perhaps the key point here is the bigger picture! rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Andy Capp May 9 2012, 08:34 PM

Let's be in the council's shoes for a moment. We have a 'serial complainant', or a 'vexatious complainant'. We are also happy that we are in the right. The contracts are good and we have an allotment holder that won't pay the new rent.

Why can't we take him to a small claims court, or have him evicted for arrears? Why would it take so long to do so?

Posted by: dannyboy May 9 2012, 09:37 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 9 2012, 09:34 PM) *
Let's be in the council's shoes for a moment. We have a 'serial complainant', or a 'vexatious complainant'. We are also happy that we are in the right. The contracts are good and we have an allotment holder that won't pay the new rent.

Why can't we take him to a small claims court, or have him evicted for arrears? Why would it take so long to do so?

Cos you need to be sure first.


I wonder how old that clause with the wrong wording actually was part of the Allotment Contract. Could be decades. Allotments are not usually the cause of so much grief.




Posted by: Andy Capp May 9 2012, 09:55 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 9 2012, 10:37 PM) *
Cos you need to be sure first.

If we were talking about a court case where Simon was convicted of rent arrears, that might have some weight, but we still have a dispute.

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 9 2012, 10:37 PM) *
I wonder how old that clause with the wrong wording actually was part of the Allotment Contract. Could be decades.

So the town council have for decades been cheating allotemteers? It is the job of the council to get this right. They should have already had the contracts vetted, surely? Does this mean we have paid for substandard work already?

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 9 2012, 10:37 PM) *
Allotments are not usually the cause of so much grief.

I'd suggest:
QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 9 2012, 10:37 PM) *
Allotments The council are not usually used to having their activities scrutanised the cause of so much grief.

Posted by: dannyboy May 9 2012, 09:58 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 9 2012, 10:55 PM) *
If we were talking about the a court case where Simon was convicted of rent arrears, that might have some weight, but we still have a dispute.


So the town council have for decades been cheating allotemteers? It is the job of the council to get this right. They should have already had the contracts vetted, surely? Does this mean we have paid for substandard work already?


I'd suggest:

Cheating them? LOL.


Posted by: Andy Capp May 9 2012, 10:00 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 9 2012, 10:58 PM) *
Cheating them? LOL.

It was your suggestion and my question. I'd suggest taking money that you are not entitled to take is cheating.

Posted by: Grumpy May 9 2012, 10:36 PM

I suggest that Wash Common declares UDI, and forms it's own Parish Council.

Posted by: dannyboy May 9 2012, 11:07 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 9 2012, 11:00 PM) *
It was your suggestion and my question. I'd suggest taking money that you are not entitled to take is cheating.

I'd say it was a geuine error that could have been pointed out & corrected. Cheating would imply knowledge of forethought

Posted by: Andy Capp May 10 2012, 12:15 AM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 10 2012, 12:07 AM) *
I'd say it was a geuine error that could have been pointed out & corrected.

But it seems it hasn't; therefore (possibly) cheated?

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 10 2012, 12:07 AM) *
Cheating would imply knowledge of forethought

I understand that in professional terms, ignorance is no defence. These people are paid to get it right. It is quite possible, of course, that Simon is wrong, but the methods employed by the council is why were are in the position we find ourselves.

Posted by: dannyboy May 10 2012, 12:24 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 10 2012, 01:15 AM) *
But it seems it hasn't; therefore (possibly) cheated?


I understand that in professional terms, ignorance is no defence. These people are paid to get it right. It is quite possible, of course, that Simon is wrong, but the methods employed by the council is why were are in the position we find ourselves.

We have only heard one side of the story. I agree that Ignorance is no defence, but cheating is too strong a term.

No one else who rents an allotment has come forward to claim that their bill is unfair. My neighbours have two plots & spend hours down on their plots.

still, Road House has just finished so I can go to bed now.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 10 2012, 12:44 AM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 10 2012, 01:24 AM) *
We have only heard one side of the story. I agree that Ignorance is no defence, but cheating is too strong a term.

It was with a question mark. If the council have information that shows they have not been correct, then the act of withholding any information to that effect would be an act of cheating. Like I have said, it is the way the council is acting that leads people to think this.

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 10 2012, 01:24 AM) *
No one else who rents an allotment has come forward to claim that their bill is unfair. My neighbours have two plots & spend hours down on their plots.

This doesn't excuse the actions of the council.

A few months ago, a bunch of allotmenteers complained about the cost (none were Simon Kirby), and the following articles contain a couple of new names between them:

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2010/old-news-article-12237
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2010/old-news-article-12098

Posted by: dannyboy May 10 2012, 08:35 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 10 2012, 01:44 AM) *
It was with a question mark. If the council have information that shows they have not been correct, then the act of withholding any information to that effect would be an act of cheating. Like I have said, it is the way the council is acting that leads people to think this.


This doesn't excuse the actions of the council.

A few months ago, a bunch of allotmenteers complained about the cost (none were Simon Kirby), and the following articles contain a couple of new names between them:

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2010/old-news-article-12237
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2010/old-news-article-12098

The council certainly are making a hash of the matter.

So, that makes 3 names ( including SK who is the main complainee in those 2 articles ).

What makes this whole farce even dafter is that if SK hadn't been shot down by NTC over self management, he wouldn't have gone through the allotment contract with a fine toothcomb to find something to shoot the council down with.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 10 2012, 09:28 AM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 10 2012, 09:35 AM) *
The council certainly are making a hash of the matter.

So, that makes 3 names ( including SK who is the main complainee in those 2 articles ).

You missed the bit where I explained allotmenteers complained about the recent increase, but doesn't seem to be listed in the NWN search.

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 10 2012, 09:35 AM) *
What makes this whole farce even dafter is that if SK hadn't been shot down by NTC over self management, he wouldn't have gone through the allotment contract with a fine toothcomb to find something to shoot the council down with.

I wholly agree. According Simon Kirby, the council were initially interested in self management, but then changed their tune and become difficult about it; seemingly stringing the association along I understand. Meanwhile, there was one or more councillors that seemed to actively undermine Simon and his colleagues efforts regarding their allotment association. If true, a part of this is down to an unjustifiable amount of solidarity was shown between councillors and their ambitions.

Like I said before, if Simon is in arrears, sue him. If not, they look as if they have something to hide.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 10 2012, 09:30 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 10 2012, 10:28 AM) *
You missed the bit where I explained allotmenteers complained about the recent increase, but doesn't seem to be listed in the NWN search.


I wholly agree. According Simon Kirby, the council were initially interested in self management, but then, changed their tune and become difficult about it. Seemingly stringing the association along I understand.

Like I said before, if Simon is in arrears, sue him. If not, they look as if they have something to hide.



I do find it hard to see why they would complain about the rent rise, clearly it was too cheap for too long.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 10 2012, 09:38 AM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 10 2012, 10:30 AM) *
I do find it hard to see why they would complain about the rent rise, clearly it was too cheap for too long.

It was within range of what a typical allotment was, although Newbury is in the upper-range.

Why have you an exclusive infatuation with the cost argument? There has been plenty of discussion for you to realise that this is more than a simple rent rise issue. I'm tending to think that you are not wholly impartial on this matter.

This is much more than about value for money, this is about an apparently incompetent and deceitful council. If Simon owes money, he should pay-up and be made to. If the council have behaved wrongly, then they should correct matters properly and as soon as possible.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 10 2012, 09:40 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 10 2012, 10:38 AM) *
It was within range of what a typical allotment was, although Newbury is in the upper-range.

Why have you an exclusive infatuation with the cost argument? There has been plenty of discussion for you to realise that this is more than a simple rent rise issue. I'm tending to think that you are not wholly impartial on this matter.

This is much more than about value for money, this is about an apparently incompetent and deceitful council. If Simon owes money, he should pay-up and be made to. If the council have behaved wrongly, then they should correct matters properly and as soon as possible.


if they had not raised the rent then Simon would not have thrown his toys out of the pram, even he admits he wishes he had'nt.

Posted by: dannyboy May 10 2012, 09:42 AM

I'm tending to think that you are not wholly impartial on this matter

God, not that old Chestnut.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 10 2012, 09:45 AM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 10 2012, 10:40 AM) *
if they had not raised the rent then Simon would not have thrown his toys out of the pram, even he admits he wishes he had'nt.

I don't think that is true. This is also about a clash of personalities within the allotments and council. I think egos on both sides are playing a big part in all this, and it has cost the tax payer more than £8,000.00 so far.

Posted by: dannyboy May 10 2012, 09:45 AM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 10 2012, 10:40 AM) *
if they had not raised the rent then Simon would not have thrown his toys out of the pram, even he admits he wishes he had'nt.

The complaint was not about the rent increase per se but that the allotment contract didn't give any time to give notice to quit before the increase was announced. Allegedly thus meaning that the council in theory could impose a 5000% rent increase & the allotment holders whould be contractually bound to pay for 1 year.

( motto - always read the small print before you sign, ignorance is no defence )


Posted by: dannyboy May 10 2012, 09:46 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 10 2012, 10:45 AM) *
I don't think that is true. This is also about a clash of personalities within the allotments and council. I think egos on both sides are playing a big part in all this, and it has cost the tax payer more than £8,000.00 so far.

Not to mention hours of our time idly engaging in chit chat about it. My time is blooming expensive......

Posted by: Andy Capp May 10 2012, 09:50 AM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 10 2012, 10:42 AM) *
I'm tending to think that you are not wholly impartial on this matter

God, not that old Chestnut.

And I stand by it.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 10 2012, 10:11 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 10 2012, 10:50 AM) *
And I stand by it.


the thing is though, they did'nt impose a 5000% rise, and he lost is allotment for the sake of giving them £20.

Posted by: dannyboy May 10 2012, 10:14 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 10 2012, 10:50 AM) *
And I stand by it.

The old 'I can ignore what you say because your are partisan & are being told to post what you are by your employers' ploy.


Posted by: Roger T May 10 2012, 10:15 AM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 10 2012, 11:11 AM) *
the thing is though, they did'nt impose a 5000% rise, and he lost is allotment for the sake of giving them £20.

It's the principal, that matters really. That's important.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 10 2012, 11:45 AM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 10 2012, 11:11 AM) *
the thing is though, they did'nt impose a 5000% rise, and he lost is allotment for the sake of giving them £20.

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 10 2012, 11:14 AM) *
The old 'I can ignore what you say because your are partisan & are being told to post what you are by your employers' ploy.

Where have I said that? Please show. I certainly haven't ignored his posts.

The point I'm making is that it is not possible to have a reasonable debate with someone that will not debate due to their pre-existing position; he 'He' keeps coming back to a debunked argument. That is the action of someone with an ulterior motive. I believe 'he' is on a 'mission'.

While I am supporting Simon Kirby on this, it is only because I have a presumption of his innocence, and I have not been impressed with the council's actions: two mealy-mouthed public statements, questionable actions of some councillors, and the dodging of the court case.

If Simon is wrong, then he should cough up. If a reasonable assessment shows that self management doesn't save the tax payer, then he should drop the idea. Although I would expect the council to actively seek self management, in accordance with their partys' policy, and for the sake of financial sustainability.

If, however, the council are wrong (and on the face of it, spending 8,000.00 on this is and getting nowhere is in my view wrong), they should also do the decent thing.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 10 2012, 12:12 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 10 2012, 12:45 PM) *
Where have I said that? Please show. I certainly haven't ignored his posts.

The point I'm making is that it is not possible to have a reasonable debate with someone that will not debate due to their pre-existing position; he 'He' keeps coming back to a debunked argument. That is the action of someone with an ulterior motive. I believe 'he' is on a 'mission'.

While I am supporting Simon Kirby on this, it is only because I have a presumption of his innocence, and I have not been impressed with the council's actions: two mealy-mouthed public statements, questionable actions of some councillors, and the dodging of the court case.

If Simon is wrong, then he should cough up. If a reasonable assessment shows that self management doesn't save the tax payer, then he should drop the idea. Although I would expect the council to actively seek self management, in accordance with their partys' policy, and for the sake of financial sustainability.

If, however, the council are wrong (and on the face of it, spending 8,000.00 on this is and getting nowhere is in my view wrong), they should also do the decent thing.



You cant hide away from the fact that it started over a rise in which Simon disagreed with. Its beyond a joke now, words would fail me as to what I think of him at this time.

Posted by: Penelope May 10 2012, 01:02 PM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 10 2012, 01:12 PM) *
You cant hide away from the fact that it started over a rise in which Simon disagreed with. Its beyond a joke now, words would fail me as to what I think of him at this time.


If it takes someone like Simon to expose the corruption in the council then I support him.

Posted by: andy1979uk May 10 2012, 01:39 PM

QUOTE (Penelope @ May 10 2012, 02:02 PM) *
If it takes someone like Simon to expose the corruption in the council then I support him.



I don't, he's made abit of an idiot of himself

Posted by: Roger T May 10 2012, 01:50 PM

At least he wasn't wrapped in cotton woll. I imagine breathing could be quite an irritation, if that would be the case. Also I doubt sheep would be best pleased withh the use of their product.

I guess speaking out against oppression, or unfair treatment makes yourself an idiot. Thank god for those idiots, in the world-wars. Else ve vould be speaking ein Duetsch.

Is your opinion actually an opinion, or are you just here for the conflict?

Posted by: andy1979uk May 10 2012, 01:57 PM

QUOTE (Roger T @ May 10 2012, 02:50 PM) *
At least he wasn't wrapped in cotton woll. I imagine breathing could be quite an irritation, if that would be the case. Also I doubt sheep would be best pleased withh the use of their product.

I guess speaking out against oppression, or unfair treatment makes yourself an idiot. Thank god for those idiots, in the world-wars. Else ve vould be speaking ein Duetsch.

Is your opinion actually an opinion, or are you just here for the conflict?



Roger, if any of what you said make sense I would have replied.

Posted by: Roger T May 10 2012, 02:03 PM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 10 2012, 02:57 PM) *
Roger, if any of what you said make sense I would have replied.

You did reply. Ha, ha. I do make me laugh.

I makes perfect sense, in some occasions. The odd ramble but, never did anyone harm.

Posted by: Penelope May 10 2012, 02:09 PM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 10 2012, 02:57 PM) *
Roger, if any of what you said make sense I would have replied.



Or indeed if you had a valid opinion, but no, just keep sticking to the 'smaller view'

Posted by: Bloggo May 10 2012, 02:13 PM

QUOTE (Penelope @ May 10 2012, 03:09 PM) *
Or indeed if you had a valid opinion, but no, just keep sticking to the 'smaller view'

Maybe it is all a little "grown-up" for Roger and becoming a "Troll" is his only contribution.

Posted by: Penelope May 10 2012, 02:30 PM

Don't feed the trolls.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 10 2012, 05:27 PM

QUOTE (Penelope @ May 10 2012, 03:30 PM) *
Don't feed the trolls.

That includes the 'other' Andy on this forum; who is clearly only here on a wind-up.

What ever happens Simon, you have exposed what this rubbish council are capable of. £8,000.00 over a £20.00 arrears is beyond a joke.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 10 2012, 05:49 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 10 2012, 09:35 AM) *
What makes this whole farce even dafter is that if SK hadn't been shot down by NTC over self management, he wouldn't have gone through the allotment contract with a fine toothcomb to find something to shoot the council down with.

I think that's kind of right, sort of. If the Council hadn't deliberately scuppered the establishment of the allotment society by frustrating the request for a site hut in 2007 then the council would now be working hand-in-hand with an allotment society. I'm pretty sure the fairness of the tenancy agreement would have come up for discussion anyway, but if the Council was the kind of Council that would engage with its allotmenteers it would also have welcomed discussion on the fairness of the tenancy agreement. The real issue is that the Council isn't that kind of council.

Anywho, I've decided to throw the towel in and surrender my tenancy. I don't see this ending other than through litigation, and I don't have deep enough pockets for that. I'm far from certain that I can successfully challenge the Notice to Quit on the basis that the Council can't produce the minutes of the meeting that decided it, and that was the only argument that was simple enough to deal with cheaply in the small claims court. The Article 6 grounds and unreasonableness grounds are complex with plenty of scope for an appeal, and likewise the challenge of the lawfulness of the Council's resolution to discriminate against who they let plots to.

The stress of it has also taken its toll on my health and I need to move on now. I'm grateful for you comments, the critical ones and the supportive ones. It's given me plenty to reflect on.

Posted by: Cognosco May 10 2012, 06:35 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 9 2012, 10:58 PM) *
Cheating them? LOL.


It would show the incompetence of the council if if the contract has been incorrect for so long would it not?
The banks have been made to reimburse money they took from PPI policies that were not legal so why not the council repaying monies if they took then unlawfully? rolleyes.gif

Posters keep referring to Simon not being happy paying extra money for the rent of his allotment. It is not about the money at all? It all started with Simon and other allotmenteers trying to set up an allotment association and suggesting self management to save themselves and the taxpayers money and to have a better run alloment site. If I have understood the argument correctly a certain ex councillor was opposed to this and took umbrage that someone would dare to oppose what the council were steadfastly fighting against. From then until now the council have done everything possible to ensure Simon was isolated and life was made as difficult as possible on the allotment site for him and anyone who was thought to be backing him.

Simon has consistently been open with his facts and figures the council apart from a couple of semi public annoucements, which they gave him no right of reply, has produced nothing. They have not even made public minutes of a crucial meeting regarding Simon and his allotment why?

One statement the council issued stated that they had asked for suggestions and proposal but to date nothing had been put forward? A later statement contradicted this and said no proposals had been put forward that were acceptable?

So proposals had obviously been forwarded but they were unacceptable to the council?
Was this because if the allotments were self managed there would be no other reason for the council to be in existence? Perhaps this would go some way to explain why the council have risked everything in trying to silence a lone voice that was fighting for fairness and transparency against an authority that obviously does not want the same? rolleyes.gif

Simon has at times been, shall we say not calm and collected in the way he has dealt with the council, but anyone who has had any dealings with this particular council may suggest this was perfectly understandable, they have made some people want to do more than get a bit angry with them the way the treat them when trying to get information from the council that they do not want share with the taxpayers.
Instead of the council saying yes we have made a genuine mistake with the rent increase thank you for pointing this out they have got even more vindictive, if that is possible, they even tried to get Simon to sign a new contract, to stop him exposing to taxpayers how wrongly they have treated him, it included a gagging clause that was so preposterous that I still am unable to believe they even contemplated issuing such a contract.

They have now spent £8000 of taxpayers money, and it is not over yet, for a dispute that should have been able to be settled with a couple of hours of a decent officers and councillors time.

The council have been made to look like an amatuer bunch to say the least and it has brought the council into disrepute. Simon should be given a public apology and this should be followed by an en masse resignation of the council. A council should be there to serve the taxpayers not as a self righteuous can do no wrong we are in charge authority. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Cognosco May 10 2012, 06:42 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 9 2012, 10:37 PM) *
Cos you need to be sure first.


I wonder how old that clause with the wrong wording actually was part of the Allotment Contract. Could be decades. Allotments are not usually the cause of so much grief.


Only NTC could make a fiasco out of something like this! rolleyes.gif Mind you they are fighting for survival, in Syria the government is fighting for survival with guns and tanks and hanging on by their fingernails, oh heck I saw a tank transporter driving up the ring road this morning.....Simon keep your head down! rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Cognosco May 10 2012, 06:45 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 10 2012, 01:15 AM) *
But it seems it hasn't; therefore (possibly) cheated?


I understand that in professional terms, ignorance is no defence. These people are paid to get it right. It is quite possible, of course, that Simon is wrong, but the methods employed by the council is why were are in the position we find ourselves.


Are you able to inform me of what project the council have undertaken in the last few years that they have managed to get right? rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Cognosco May 10 2012, 06:47 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 10 2012, 01:24 AM) *
We have only heard one side of the story. I agree that Ignorance is no defence, but cheating is too strong a term.

No one else who rents an allotment has come forward to claim that their bill is unfair. My neighbours have two plots & spend hours down on their plots.

still, Road House has just finished so I can go to bed now.


Perhaps they have got their heads down? They have seen what happens to anyone who puts their head above the parapet and speaks out against the council...... hang on someone knocking on my door!!! rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Cognosco May 10 2012, 06:58 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 10 2012, 09:35 AM) *
The council certainly are making a hash of the matter.

So, that makes 3 names ( including SK who is the main complainee in those 2 articles ).

What makes this whole farce even dafter is that if SK hadn't been shot down by NTC over self management, he wouldn't have gone through the allotment contract with a fine toothcomb to find something to shoot the council down with.


He wasn't shot down as you put it! The council refused to even discuss an allotment association let alone self management! angry.gif They waffled on for some time hoping that it would all go away but when they realised it would not, with the assistance of a certain ex councillor they escalated a simple problem that would take very little solving by trying to be vindictive and forcing Simon and his few followers to back down. Simon quite rightly, like any other person who expects fairness and transparency from a local authority, stood up for his rights and pointed out that the council were in the wrong. The rest as they say is history! But it isn't over yet. wink.gif

Posted by: Cognosco May 10 2012, 07:00 PM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 10 2012, 10:30 AM) *
I do find it hard to see why they would complain about the rent rise, clearly it was too cheap for too long.


Read the posts! They were complaining about an illegal contract not the rent increase amount as such! Strewth! rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Cognosco May 10 2012, 07:06 PM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 10 2012, 10:40 AM) *
if they had not raised the rent then Simon would not have thrown his toys out of the pram, even he admits he wishes he had'nt.


No because they would not have issued an illegal contract would they! He does not regret taking on a vindictive council only that he may lose his allotment which he cherishes but when you stand up for what is right a lot of times you lose something that you wish you had not. But stop and think of all the lone people who have stood up for their rights and how they have suffered only to be later hailed as heros in this world. Keep up the good work Simon is what I shout! angry.gif

Posted by: Cognosco May 10 2012, 07:09 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 10 2012, 10:46 AM) *
Not to mention hours of our time idly engaging in chit chat about it. My time is blooming expensive......



You think your time is expensive....that is nothing to what the council are charging for administration of a few allotments ! rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Cognosco May 10 2012, 07:12 PM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 10 2012, 11:11 AM) *
the thing is though, they did'nt impose a 5000% rise, and he lost is allotment for the sake of giving them £20.


Illegally giving them £20.

If I come and demanded £20 illegally from you I suppose you would hand it over as it may cause you a bit of bother after all it is only £20 that you do not have to give me? rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Cognosco May 10 2012, 07:13 PM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 10 2012, 01:12 PM) *
You cant hide away from the fact that it started over a rise in which Simon disagreed with. Its beyond a joke now, words would fail me as to what I think of him at this time.


So nothing to do with the council then? unsure.gif

Posted by: Andy Capp May 10 2012, 07:14 PM

QUOTE (Cognosco @ May 10 2012, 08:00 PM) *
Read the posts! They were complaining about an illegal contract not the rent increase amount as such! Strewth! rolleyes.gif

Don't worry, Andy is on a mission and that account is not the only one operated by the same user.

Posted by: Cognosco May 10 2012, 07:15 PM

QUOTE (Penelope @ May 10 2012, 02:02 PM) *
If it takes someone like Simon to expose the corruption in the council then I support him.


Yes pity there are not more like him in Newbury it may be a better place to live and work if there were! angry.gif

Posted by: Cognosco May 10 2012, 07:16 PM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 10 2012, 02:39 PM) *
I don't, he's made abit of an idiot of himself


Pot and kettle is prominent in my mind after reading this post! rolleyes.gif

Posted by: andy1979uk May 10 2012, 07:17 PM

QUOTE (Cognosco @ May 10 2012, 08:16 PM) *
Pot and kettle is prominent in my mind after reading this post! rolleyes.gif


I have one account thanks

Posted by: Cognosco May 10 2012, 07:21 PM

QUOTE (andy1979uk @ May 10 2012, 08:17 PM) *
I have one account thanks


I see just how observant and careful you are with your reasoned debates I have never mentioned anything about your accounts I think you may find that it was Andy. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: andy1979uk May 10 2012, 07:22 PM

QUOTE (Cognosco @ May 10 2012, 08:21 PM) *
I see just how observant and careful you are with your reasoned debates I have never mentioned anything about your accounts I think you may find that it was Andy. rolleyes.gif


whoever it was

Posted by: Andy Capp May 10 2012, 07:23 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 10 2012, 06:49 PM) *
Anywho, I've decided to throw the towel in and surrender my tenancy. I don't see this ending other than through litigation, and I don't have deep enough pockets for that. I'm far from certain that I can successfully challenge the Notice to Quit on the basis that the Council can't produce the minutes of the meeting that decided it, and that was the only argument that was simple enough to deal with cheaply in the small claims court. The Article 6 grounds and unreasonableness grounds are complex with plenty of scope for an appeal, and likewise the challenge of the lawfulness of the Council's resolution to discriminate against who they let plots to.

The stress of it has also taken its toll on my health and I need to move on now. I'm grateful for you comments, the critical ones and the supportive ones. It's given me plenty to reflect on.

The only lessons I see you need to learn are strategy and support.

Set gaols and only focus on those things that facilitate them. Don't get tied-up in 'petty arguments'. Stick to the substantive points. Don't make unnecessary enemies (e.g. Cllr Allen).

Don't do it alone. Get support from your peers because unless you have clear incriminating evidence, you won't get anywhere otherwise.

Get political support. This broken local democracy is such that you had no political support. It means you were on to a hiding to nothing.


One thing that is definitely wrong. A site warden should not be a councillor or related to a councillor. That needs addressing.

Posted by: Cognosco May 10 2012, 07:33 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 10 2012, 08:23 PM) *
The only lessons I see you need to learn are strategy and support.

Set gaols and only focus on those things that facilitate them. Don't get tied-up in 'petty arguments'. Stick to the substantive points. Don't make unnecessary enemies (e.g. Cllr Allen).

Don't do it alone. Get support from your peers because unless you have clear incriminating evidence, you won't get anywhere otherwise.

Get political support. This broken local democracy is such that you had no political support. It means you were on to a hiding to nothing.


One thing that is defiantly wrong. A site warden should not be a councillor or related to a councillor. That needs addressing.


Especially if it means they get a Freebie plot out of it. rolleyes.gif So much for a big society another of Dave's ideas had fallen by the wayside in newbury. wink.gif

Posted by: Grumpy May 11 2012, 08:52 AM

Did they ever make a sequel to the NeverEnding Story?

Posted by: blackdog May 11 2012, 10:15 AM

QUOTE (Grumpy @ May 11 2012, 09:52 AM) *
Did they ever make a sequel to the NeverEnding Story?

No - it ended. unsure.gif

Posted by: Cognosco May 11 2012, 07:31 PM

QUOTE (Grumpy @ May 11 2012, 09:52 AM) *
Did they ever make a sequel to the NeverEnding Story?


They renamed it the "Never Ending Gaffs of Newbury Local Authorities" rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Newbelly May 11 2012, 09:14 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 10 2012, 08:23 PM) *
The only lessons I see you need to learn are strategy and support.

Set gaols and only focus on those things that facilitate them. Don't get tied-up in 'petty arguments'. Stick to the substantive points. Don't make unnecessary enemies (e.g. Cllr Allen).

Don't do it alone. Get support from your peers because unless you have clear incriminating evidence, you won't get anywhere otherwise.

Get political support. This broken local democracy is such that you had no political support. It means you were on to a hiding to nothing.

Perhaps if such words of advice had been offered earlier, things may have been different and a lot of stress and money saved?

Posted by: Cognosco May 12 2012, 11:06 AM

QUOTE (Newbelly @ May 11 2012, 10:14 PM) *
Perhaps if such words of advice had been offered earlier, things may have been different and a lot of stress and money saved?


Are you not of the opinion that it is about time the council were held to account in obeying laws and regulations the same as us mere mortals. The two local authorities have got away with no transparency and not representing the taxpayers for far to long. They just womble along from day to day doing just the same as they always have in their own little cocooned world. Along comes someone who has a bit of gumption and knows the way the council are carryng out business is not really to the benefit of the taxpayers and has the temerity to point this out. Of course there occurs a flurry of the usual....troublemaker this should not be allowed....where will this all lead to if he is not stopped.....why, we have a councillor actually running his allotment site how could it possible be made better.....we are an ancient council.....we know how things should be traditionally carried out.....no he must be stopped in his tracks.
Taxpayers who feel some sympathy for Simon secretly hopes that he is able to take on the council but keep their heads down the motto is in Newbury you can't take on the authorities.

And it appears the silent ones were correct? Even though backed by trading standards, a part of the same hierarchy that Simon was taking on, who reluctantly after deciding there was no way out ruled that the council were wrong the council still gets away with victimisation!

They try every dirty trick in the book to make him back down all to no avail. The council refuse to make public minutes of council meetings even under the freedom of information act. The Chief Executive gets taken to court and wriggles out on a technical point.
The coucil tries to get Simon to sign a new contract, complete with a gagging clause, that means Simon would be unable to make public any wrong doings of the council in the future without the express permission of the Chief Executive. This alone, in a less apathetic borough, would have brought the taxpayers out in droves to protest and insist councillors start resigning.
The council refuse to take Simon to court for non payment of rent.....the general opinion is becuase they would lose.
So all they can do is say.....sod off you have caused us major problems exposing our gaffs and we no longer want you as a tenant?

And what do we hear from taxpayers........ oh well they left me alone I am ok....for now anyway?

The problem is there is no choice of selection when it comes to politics in Newbury. You only have the choice of two and both of those come from the same mold so really Newburians perhaps deserve to be led by likes of the untransparent self satisfied misfits that usually sits on our merry go round of undemocratic local politics.

Still look on the bright side this little fracas has only cost £8000, that we know of, and the council can now carry on as usual and the taxpayers of Newbury can carry on paying over the odds for administration costs that are far above what they should be and the merry councillors can sit and waffle at council meetings and pat each other on the back for sorting that little distraction over the allotments and everything in Newbury will be back to normal....just as it should be.

No harm done....honesty, justice, fairness, transparency blown out of the water but that is the small price that has to be paid to continue the traditions of dear old Newbury! angry.gif




Posted by: Andy Capp May 12 2012, 11:06 AM

QUOTE (Newbelly @ May 11 2012, 10:14 PM) *
Perhaps if such words of advice had been offered earlier, things may have been different and a lot of stress and money saved?

I doubt he realised the council could stoop so low.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 12 2012, 11:10 AM

QUOTE (Cognosco @ May 12 2012, 12:06 PM) *
No harm done....honesty, justice, fairness, transparency blown out of the water but that is the small price that has to be paid to continue the traditions of dear old Newbury! angry.gif

At least I have been warned off of voting for Julian Swift-Hook and his spineless colleagues, the Liberal Democrats.

Posted by: Biker1 May 13 2012, 07:30 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 12 2012, 12:10 PM) *
At least I have been warned off of voting for Julian Swift-Hook and his spineless colleagues, the Liberal Democrats.

That happened to me many years ago.
I find it hard to believe I once voted for them! sad.gif

Posted by: Newbelly May 13 2012, 04:40 PM

Moving forward, could there be a proper or better mediation element in contracts for allotmenteers where an unconnected third party can help?

The legal profession supports mediation before litigation in many areas of dispute and I cannot but think that an independent local solicitor (for example) could have spent a few hours reviewing the dispute and taking a view? This could either be pro-bono or for a modest fixed fee. Even if not altogether legally binding, it may give both parties a steer on their behaviour?

From what I have read, NTC have not exactly covered themselves in glory over this, but for there to be a meeting of minds, both parties have to be reasonable and sometimes give a bit of ground (no pun intended!).

Posted by: Cognosco May 13 2012, 05:31 PM

QUOTE (Newbelly @ May 13 2012, 05:40 PM) *
Moving forward, could there be a proper or better mediation element in contracts for allotmenteers where an unconnected third party can help?

The legal profession supports mediation before litigation in many areas of dispute and I cannot but think that an independent local solicitor (for example) could have spent a few hours reviewing the dispute and taking a view? This could either be pro-bono or for a modest fixed fee. Even if not altogether legally binding, it may give both parties a steer on their behaviour?

From what I have read, NTC have not exactly covered themselves in glory over this, but for there to be a meeting of minds, both parties have to be reasonable and sometimes give a bit of ground (no pun intended!).


Therein lies the problem. NTC, after trying to stall an allotment association, kept up the pretence that they would look at the possibilities of an association. Yet evidence clearly shows they were adamant that there would be no association.
One of NTC own councillors was responsible for the running of the Wash Common allotments and no tenant was going to say how they could run it better for the tenants and taxpayers alike. This refusal to even consider looking at an association let alone self management was how the fiasco started. It has since been suggested that if the NTC had the allotments taken from their control then it would mean the end of the need for a Town Council. It has also been shown that the council costs for administering the allotments is exorbitant meaning that this is putting a needless extra burden on taxpayers.

As to the suggestions of a mediator that would only work if both parties were prepard to participate it is clearly obvious the the NTC were not.
Simon, in good faith, produced facts and figures to the public to back up his claims and apart from the council claiming the figures Simon produced were wrong; has never produced evidence to the contrary.
The council then started making life difficult for Simon and anyone who they thought, pointed out by the NTC Councillor, were backing him by inspecting allotments etc in the middle of winter.
This progressed to other even nastier and vindictive claims being made against him all with not a shred of evidence only that he was using up officer time.

There is no need to explain now all the other unjust and dishonrouble tactics the council used as they have been well aired. Suffice to say it has culminated in the council being brought into disrepute for trying to submit a gagging contract and the withholding of minutes of council meetings, if it is as thought they don't wish made public, because it would show exactly how Simon was mistreated.

So yes a mediation service would be a good suggestion for other towns but as NTC have proven, not only over this fiasco but also many others in the recent past, it would not work in Newbury as they want to dictate what Newburians want and no one else should get in the way of this. A local mediator would be risking their livelihood unless they proved they would back the council anyway.
Other town councils and government bodies may be steering, albiet slowly, towards transparency and openess but this will never extend to Newbury whilst we have a council that can be allowed to treat taxpayers with such disdain.
I also think perhaps Newburians deserve such a disreputable council for not trying to find out what the council has been trying to cover up in their name and treating a taxpayer in such an appalling manner for only producing facts and figures to back up a claim for an allotment association leading to possible self management.

So good suggestion but not workable with this disreputed council I fear. angry.gif

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)