Allotment Dispute Options

[panda]

they are

and a lot of them will be happier when he goes

[Rosewinelover]

and a lot of them will be happier when he goes

How do you know all this? Have you evidence?

[panda]

How do you know all this? Have you evidence?

Just go round some allotments and ask people what they think of him. then you will know

[dannyboy]

How do you know all this? Have you evidence?

You don't need evidence. Just rumours.

[Rosewinelover]

Just go round some allotments and ask people what they think of him. then you will know

My parents (who have an allotment) have not had this discussion with others about Simon. I asked them after reading the 1st thread on the forum, so you can not say ALOT of them, but the few you have spoken with.

[Rosewinelover]

You don't need evidence. Just rumours.

Remember that when your fighting with RG over you wanting him providing evidence next time

[dannyboy]

Remember that when your fighting with RG over you wanting him providing evidence next time

I do, I do.

[dannyboy]

My parents (who have an allotment) have not had this discussion with others about Simon. I asked them after reading the 1st thread on the forum, so you can not say ALOT of them, but the few you have spoken with.

Perfect example.

[Darren]

The individual continues to be classified as a Vexatious Complainant.

Which is legal speak for "we're now going to ignore you.

[NWNREADER]

I know a 'Vexatious Litigant' is someone who the Civil Courts formally identify, and that person is then barred from taking out proceedings without leave of a Judge.
I'm not clear on Vexatious Complainant. While many councils have a published policy on the definition and actions to be taken it is hard to see how NTC justify the statement.
Councils are clearly entitled to declare someone to be a Vexatious Complainant, but with no public policy on the point (unless not on the web!) means someone so declared is at difficulty to know if the application is fair and proper, or how to overcome it.

[Simon Kirby]

Well, whatever happens, they appear to have given you notice which is completely in accordance with the contract, so I don't know how you'd fight that.

Indeed. The Council have withdrawn my eviction for rent arrears because the consumer protection rights that I asserted made the arrears unenforceable. However, they have given me notice to quit which is a completely seperate mechanism of bringing the tenancy to an end and requires no fault on my part. It would be possible to overturn the decision with a judicial review on the grounds of unreasonableness but I can't afford to take that action and I don't believe I can make a public law defence in a county court possession application.

It would have been interesting for it to have gone to court. I know that would have potentially meant a lot of stress for you, but it would be good to get a proper judgement on it, rather than the council choosing to take a different route.

I gave the Council a final Letter Before Action on Monday. I have again been billed for the increased rent and so if the Council do not concede the unenforceability of the increase by close of play Friday I will commence court action myself without any further delay. It won't defeat the Notice to Quit, but it will lay bare the true reason for the notice, and I will then have grounds to apply to the court for relief.

I have also renewed my complaint to Trading Standards. TS declined to take any action as the Town Council had purported to have terminated my tenancy, but the Council have acknowledged that the agreement remains in place and as the Council continue to enforce an unfair contract term it is the duty of Trading Standards to take enforcement action.

It sounds like you have a fair sized plot. Would you consider caving and just paying the increase or, with the apparent notice served, is that not even an option anymore and you have to leave?

I've not been offered the option, but it is not my intention to waive my consumer rights or be intimidated into silence.

[Simon Kirby]

Just go round some allotments and ask people what they think of him. then you will know

I think it would interest the Forum if you were to name the chief instigator of this malignancy and detail the campaign against me, and you might also like to declare your own interest.

[NWNREADER]

I think it would interest the Forum if you were to name the chief instigator of this malignancy and detail the campaign against me, and you might also like to declare your own interest.

Maybe a bit OTT.
You have been expansive on your work with the Wash Common site, but NTC would not want a split system. Even if 100% of Wash Common plot holders wanted to run their own scheme NTC would have to retain the infrastructure - at a greater cost per plot - for the remainder.
Clearly NTC are not minded to conduct any investigation of interest. Unless you can demonstrate that a good majority of all plot holders want a change then the democratic process would suggest you should not continue to press for self-management.
You may have a case regarding the fees issue (not the fee itself, but the process for deciding and promulgating). If you eat the elephant slice by slice eventually you might get there. You are trying to swallow it whole.

I think you should have continued to pay the rent at the rate it was prior to your objection, but What I know about the Law of Property could be written in the same space as RGs 'What I like about WBC list'

[Strafin]

It strikes me that this statement shows that Simon was right, but that there are other avenues for the council to go down in order to go through with their rent increase. I don't think that anyone believes the charges are too high, but the council have not acted lawfully in putting them up. I am pleased that Simon has fought this far, but they're going to get him out however you look at it.

[panda]

I think it would interest the Forum if you were to name the chief instigator of this malignancy and detail the campaign against me, and you might also like to declare your own interest.

I didn't say there was a campaign against you.

[ebalch]

I don't have any involvement in the dispute or any interest in the allotments but from all I've read on the forum about this matter (there's been plenty to read!), it's nice to finally hear a comment back from the council, albeit one which seems rather defensive.

It would seem that the council have acted incorrectly (though I'm only basing that on what I've read from Simon) and now they have decided to adopt a new stance of ignorance towards Simon, which still doesn't address the issue directly. Trying to ignore a problem doesn't make it go away. It would be nice for those in power to admit they've done wrong from time to time, even if only to apologise for their perceived bad behavior. If they wish to adopt a new policy of eviction then so be it but we're all capable of apologies and it doesn't weaken your position to admit you've made mistakes in the past.

For what it's worth, good luck to you Simon.

[Cognosco]

The Town Council have issued a press-release about my dispute with them. I would be grateful if you would read it and comment.

Simon it is hard to give a detailed comment as we have only heard your side of the argument?

Knowing the reputation of the local authorities that run Newbury I have no reason to doubt anything you say but I would still like to see all correspondence etc. It is like a jury trying to make a decision without hearing all the evidence?

It would appear that they have been very heavy handed over someone who is really only technically in rent arrears?

Simon are you really the only one who would like allotment self management?

I do believe the council to issue this statement in this way they need to be rebuked and severely.

Having looked at some of the legal issues I would agree it seems from your evidence Simon the council are not abiding by the law let alone the spirit of the law?

I fail to see why, with the cost to the taxpayer, the council are not eager to let the allotmenteers self manage if there is enough wanting it? How much would it cost to prepare a questionnaire to all allotment holders asking if they are prepared to self manage? This would put the issue to rest surely providing all the facts from both arguments were explained?

The only way to settle this argument if both parties are not prepared to go to any arbitration is for the case to go before the courts?

[Simon Kirby]

You have been expansive on your work with the Wash Common site, but NTC would not want a split system. Even if 100% of Wash Common plot holders wanted to run their own scheme NTC would have to retain the infrastructure - at a greater cost per plot - for the remainder.
Clearly NTC are not minded to conduct any investigation of interest. Unless you can demonstrate that a good majority of all plot holders want a change then the democratic process would suggest you should not continue to press for self-management.

The issue here it not whether self-management is the right thing, but whether I should be evicted for demanding it. Ask yourself - what would David Cameron do?

You may have a case regarding the fees issue (not the fee itself, but the process for deciding and promulgating). If you eat the elephant slice by slice eventually you might get there. You are trying to swallow it whole.

I think you should have continued to pay the rent at the rate it was prior to your objection, but What I know about the Law of Property could be written in the same space as RGs 'What I like about WBC list'

What's the elephant thing?

I have indeed paid the rent at the pre-objection rate.

[Simon Kirby]

Simon it is hard to give a detailed comment as we have only heard your side of the argument?

Knowing the reputation of the local authorities that run Newbury I have no reason to doubt anything you say but I would still like to see all correspondence etc. It is like a jury trying to make a decision without hearing all the evidence?

It would appear that they have been very heavy handed over someone who is really only technically in rent arrears?

Simon are you really the only one who would like allotment self management?

I do believe the council to issue this statement in this way they need to be rebuked and severely.

Having looked at some of the legal issues I would agree it seems from your evidence Simon the council are not abiding by the law let alone the spirit of the law?

I fail to see why, with the cost to the taxpayer, the council are not eager to let the allotmenteers self manage if there is enough wanting it? How much would it cost to prepare a questionnaire to all allotment holders asking if they are prepared to self manage? This would put the issue to rest surely providing all the facts from both arguments were explained?

The only way to settle this argument if both parties are not prepared to go to any arbitration is for the case to go before the courts?

The Wash Common Allotment Society surveyed it's members on self-management and from memory it was like 85% who were willing to contribute to the administration and maintenance.

I'm very happy to hand over all correspondence to any enquirery, the problem has been finding any authority willing to enquire. Do you have something in mind?

[Andy Capp]

I think the council have issued a statement that somewhat shows the bad faith between you and the council. With the way the notice is written, I find it hard to believe that you couldn't have in some way done something to deserve the vexatious tag.

While you have not been named, it is quite obvious from text that lies within the public domain who it is they are referring to. I would expect better from council officials and feel they have issued the statement with regrettable malice.

There are advantages to self-management in certain circumstances, but the cost savings claimed by this individual are wholly unrealistic, the risk of failure is high, and in fact the vast majority of the Council’s allotment tenants are happy with the traditional method of allotment management currently deployed (as is made clear to the Council through the regular tenants’ meetings and “self-help” associations).

A detailed Self-Management proposal that explains the benefit to Newbury’s residents as well as its allotment tenants would of course be considered, but despite a great deal of rhetoric, no such proposal has been made.

Several things I found interesting in this passage above.

A detailed Self-Management proposal explaining the benefits from Simon Kirkby has not been made, yet they know enough to say that his costs savings are unrealistic.

They say the vast majority are happy with the current set up, but that isn't the same as saying they have made enquiries and self management hasn't proved popular.

It's like as has been posted before, perhaps tax payers should push for self management regardless what either parties feel? Make self management a prerequisite for owning an allotment?