Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 25 2010, 10:18 PM

Early signs from Newbury Town Council are that there's a 33% allotment rent hike on the way next year, hot on the heels of this year's 47% rise. Cllr Arthur Johnson is apparently costing a proposal for a 25% pensioner discount and as not even Newbury Town Council could be idiotic enough to cut rents right after the unholy ballyhoo http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=12098 created it's likely that the plan will be to create the differential with a 33% increase for non-pensioners. Early indications are that around a quarter of tenants would qualify for the discount so the Council will still hope to make an additional £4.5k of revenue which would be comparable with last year's gain.

The Council reported at Monday's Community Services Committee that only half of the tenants have so far signed the new Tenancy Agreement, and the Council will be following up with the other half soon. As it is, the thirteen months notice of any rent rise that the new Agreement provides is not unreasonable.

Not so good for me though. The Council have so far failed to respond to my Letter Before Claim so legal action looks increasingly likely if I am not to be evicted in December.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 29 2010, 02:30 PM

I now understand from Newbury Town Council that they do not intend to honour the terms of the new allotment Tenancy Agreement. The Agreement was drafted in cooperation with Trading Standards after I complained that the rent review term was unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 because the increase was unilateral and imposed without notice. The new Agreement which obliges the Council to give 13 months notice of any rent increase was approved by Trading Standards and ratified by the Town Council on 26 July, but a senior source within the Council now tells me that the Agreement does not infact give 13 months notice.

This is what the Agreement says:

So how do you understand this? Notice of any increase will be given by 1 February, and any increase will take effect 1 April, one months after the rent for the year becomes due on 1 March. Can you understand this to mean anything other than an obligation to give 13 months notice?

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 29 2010, 02:48 PM

The way I read it is as follows:
Notice of increase given Feb 2011. Increase to take effect April 2011 one month after the rent for the year 2010 becomes due in March 2011.
Given that thr financial year runs March to April.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 29 2010, 03:08 PM

Simon, the agreement is ambiguous. It could mean 1 month or 13 months.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 29 2010, 03:35 PM

I agree it's not well drafted, but I can only construe it to mean 13 month's notice because it is explicit about when the increase takes effect - one month after the rent becomes due. As the rent is due at the prevailing rate the it won't be until the next year that the rent is due at the increased rate. Can you say how to read it to get one month?

Interestingly enough, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 has a clause about ambiguous terms: "If there is doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation which is most favourable to the consumer shall prevail".

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 29 2010, 03:38 PM

The rent is payable in advance, so rent for the year 2011/2012 is due 1 March 2011.

So how much notice do you understand it to give Bloggo, 1 month, or 13?

Posted by: Iommi Sep 29 2010, 03:58 PM

It could be read as Bloggo said.

Before the rent for the year is due in March, you are advised in February what the new rate will be. That new rate applies to April and on wards. I presume you pay rent in March for April 1st to March 31st. So in other words the rent for the new year is in effect due one month before the new rent year commences, but you are advised, one month before the rent is due.

It's definitely badly drafted and could be misconstrued.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 29 2010, 04:14 PM

It's a yearly periodic tenancy from 1 April to 31 March and the rent is due 1 March for the whole of the following period. It's a little unusual that the rent is due a month before the start of the period, but it's valid.

It doesn't matter when the period runs from, what matters is the rate on the day the rent falls due.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 29 2010, 05:22 PM

Falls?

You are advised on calendar month before you are due to pay for the new season.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 29 2010, 05:37 PM

Yes, that's right.

Sorry, I don't understand the query of "falls".

Posted by: Richard Garvie Sep 29 2010, 06:11 PM

Simon, what is the cost of rental for a year???

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 29 2010, 06:51 PM

Hi Richard. It depends how big the plot is. The rate is now £6.41 per pole and a pole is approximately 25m². A 10 pole plot used to be considered a full plot, and that's what I've got, but people have tended to want smaller plots and I think the average plot size in Newbury is now 4.3 poles. So in 2005 when the popularity of allotments really started to pick up a 4.3 pole plot cost £15.05 for the year, last year it cost £20.25, this year it cost £29.84, and next year it might cost 39.69. Cllr Johnson last year proposed a £25 per pole rate which would have made the cost of the average plot £107.50 and if all plots were let at that rate the Council would cover the cost of the service team's administration costs and that looks like their intention. To cover all of the allotment service's administration costs and overheads it would take a rate of £45.83 per pole, and the average plot would cost £197. My plot would cost £458.30 at that rate.

Local authorities routinely devolve management of their allotment service onto their tenant associations who then run the service voluntarily. I know some fairly expensive self-managed sites, Hungerford being the most expensive I know at £12 per pole, but typically self-managed sites are better run, and better resourced for rents around £3.50 per pole, and I know of some very successful self-managed sites charging around £25 for a ten pole plot. Newbury Town Council have refused to discuss self-management.

Cllr Johnson said in the summer at the West Mills tenants meeting that having reviewed the cost of other council's sites he had found the average cost to be in the region of £6 to £7 per pole, though it turns out the Council had sampled Thurrock and Enfield, which is an odd choice. They also claimed at the same meeting that thay have found self-managed council sites charging £100 per pole, though it turns out they were talking about Wyevale Garden Centre who let grow your own plots for that kind of money, though they are a commercial opperation, aren't council owned, are not self-managed, and aren't even allotments as you'd normally understand it. My own sample of 20 of Newbury's neighbouring boroughs suggests that the neighbourhood population average is in the range £3.00 to £4.00 per pole. Here's my sample. Newbury was the most expensive council I found at £6.94.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 29 2010, 06:52 PM

Richard, how do you understand the words of the Agreement. 1 month or 13?

Posted by: Iommi Sep 29 2010, 07:25 PM

Do you mean...

what matters is the rate on the day the rent is due.

or

what matters is the rate on the day the rent falls.

or

I simply am not sure what you mean.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Sep 29 2010, 07:36 PM

Hi Simon.

Thanks for the information, and it's a lot of information to take in!!! It does seem like a h eck of a rise over the past few years.

As for the wording of the agreement, from what you have posted I would say it means notification in February for the forthcoming year, payment in March for the forthcoming year, and occupation from the April to March. That's how it appears to me, and that's applying the common sense method. As has also been written on here, they could easily make out it means either!!!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 29 2010, 08:04 PM

My bad.

I meant falls as in becomes. So what matters is the rate on the day the rent is due.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 29 2010, 08:11 PM

I thought it did, but it seemed a bit odd.

The easiest way to look at it, is to temporally ignore the rent due date. You are advised of the new rent in February and it comes in to play in April. The only thing in contention is have you been given 30 (odd) day notice of the new rate before it is due. One month seems rather harsh as I would imagine a lot of work goes into preparation, that could be a waste on one's behalf, if one decides to jack it in because of the rent increase.

It would seem more reasonable to give, say, 6 months notice of new rent.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Sep 29 2010, 08:24 PM

Simon, could you email a copy of the full agreement over??? Do you have one??? I'll have it looked over for you. richard.garvie@googlemail.com

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 29 2010, 09:47 PM

I argue that an allotment tenant needs at least 12 months notice to be able to wrap things up and quit with a minimum of loss. Say the rent announced 1 February is too much and I need to quit: I ordered the season's seeds four months before, and the seed potatoes the month before, so if I want to quit I have to write them off. Then there's the leeks and parsnips sitting in the ground, and the onions, garlic and broad beans that I planted in the Autumn that won't crop until late spring, I'd have to write them all off too. And there's my rhubarb, asparagus, blackcurrants, daffodils and shrubbery which I don't have room for anywhere else. And there's my fruit cage and shed too. With enough notice I could avoid the unnecessary expenditure and make an effort to lift the permanant plants at the right time of year and potentially find a buyer for them and the shed and stuff. And of course I'd probably save myself all the autumn digging.

Point is this Agreement was approved by Trading Standards as a solution to my complaint, and as the meaning is obvious to me it's reasonable to assume that it was obvious to Trading Standards too, and so the Council's undertaking was on the basis of that understanding. The Agreement was also ratified by the dozen or so town councillors who sit on the Community Services Committee and it's inconceivable that each and every one of them who voted to ratify it was similarly mistaken over the wording, especially as it had been knocked back from a previous meeting for a specially convened working group of councillors to paw over.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 29 2010, 09:54 PM

Often in these matters, verdicts depend on what is normal. Is there such thing as an 'industry' norm?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Sep 30 2010, 04:14 AM

Have you consulted with Trading Standards since the compromise was put in place???

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 30 2010, 07:15 AM

Custom and practice might apply in the absence of a contractural term, but here there is an explicit term so the issues are 1. what is the most natural interpretation of the term, and 2. is that term fair.

As it is the National Sociaty of Allotmant and Leisure Gardeners' position is that a rent increase needs 12 month's notice. The Allotments Act 1950 extended the period of notice that a council was obliged to give to terminate a tenancy from six months to 12 months so there is some precedence for a 12 months period of notice.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 30 2010, 07:16 AM

I have been in contact, but I haven't yet raised this issue with them.

Thanks for the offer to look at the agreement. e-mail sent.

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 30 2010, 07:50 AM

The statement implies notice of 1 month in my view but I agree it could be crafted to mean 13 months but it would be highly unlikely for anyone to give a notice period of 13 months.
Sorry.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 30 2010, 07:56 AM

The term fair is what I'm getting at. If the vast majority of allotment agreements have a minimum of 12 months notice, then you have a complaint in my humble opinion.

It would to me, sound reasonable, considering the nature of allotmenteering, and the points you have made, that a 12 month notice be given of a change in the circumstances for the provision of an allotment.

It also seems to me, ignorant and stubborn of the council not to realise yours and others concerns.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 30 2010, 08:28 AM

My Tenancy Agreement in the good old days of Newbury District Council didn't have a rent review term and so to increase the rent the Council would have to serve 12 months notice to terminate the Agreement and offer a new Agreement at the new rate. The problem has arisen because the Town Council included a rent review term in their Agreement that imposed a unilateral rent increase without notice, and the tenant was also contracturally obliged to give 12 months notice to quit and so was unable to escape the increase. Such a rent review term is unfair under the Unfair terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and thus any increase imposed under the term is unenforceable. This is why I refused to pay the increase this year, and it is why despite their considerable bluster the Town Council are unable to evict me.

The new Agreement is somewhat more fair in that tenants have 13 months notice of any increase, because without that they would inevitably suffer loss should they not want to continue their tenancy at the increased rate.

The Council's position, explicitly given to me, was that they don't want me meddling in their business and telling them what they can and can't do and that if I persisted I would "lose support at the Council". They said that, Regulations or not, if people paid the increase then they consented to it, which is strictly true - tenants have no right to recover any of the £5000 they paid under the unfair increase. The Council were reluctant to introduce the new Agreement because it would be obvious to tenants that they had conceded the unfairness of the rent review term to Trading Standards, and this is why the Councillors vacillated over the ratification of the Agreement. As it is they managed to suppress any organised protest from the site associations and no one other than me was prepared to risk their tenancy and refuse to pay, and by calling me vexatious they've quite effectively silenced me. It's only the difference of £20 rent for me, but the principle is important. I don't believe the state should behave this arrogantly.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 3 2010, 08:36 PM

I have asked a solicitor to clarify what the term means.

They said:


So that's a comprehensive 13 month's. I'm clarifying with Trading Standards what their understanding was.

So as it stands 250 tenants have signed up to the new Trading Standards-approved agreement and it's not unreasonable to suppose that both tenants and TS thought they were getting 13 months notice of any rent increase, and Newbury Town Council do not intend to honour it.

I'd ask, but they won't talk to me, so would anyone else care to ask the Town Council how they intend to resolve this new snafu?

Posted by: Iommi Oct 3 2010, 08:44 PM

Why do you see it as a comprehensive 13 months. I don't 'get it'?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 3 2010, 09:10 PM

It's like the solicitor said, the agreement says explicitly that the increase doesn't take effect until 1 April and so the increase doesn't apply in March.

I think the difficulty comes in if you think about the rent accruing daily at whatever rate applies on each day, and paying in advance on 1 March is just a convenience for paying every day at that day's rate. But rent in advance isn't like that (though I believe rent in arrears is). The whole of the period's rent becomes due on the rent day - at the rate that applies on the rent day. Technically it's called http://www.crippslink.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=175:apportionment-of-rent&catid=32:property-disputes&Itemid=537 but it's intuitive when you think about the situation when the rent goes up in the middle of a rent period when you didn't know in advance, because you wouldn't expect an extra bill having already paid the rent for the period. It's like if you buy a toaster that's advertised at £30 and you're told it goes up to £40 in a couple of weeks - you pay £30 for it because that's how much it is now.

So it's 13 month's notice. 1 February you're told what the new rent will be, 1 March you pay at the existing rate, next time round you pay at the increased rate - 13 months' notice.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 3 2010, 10:44 PM

Yes, I understand put like that, but why is the payment on 1 March at old rate? (In my humble opinion) I read it as the agreement says that the rate is announced in Feb, payable 1 March but the payment is for forth-coming 1 April to 31 March rent period.

I don't see where the solicitor can claim that just because the rate is for the next rent period (1 April to 31 march), that you don't pay that new rate (in advance) in March.

IOW - the key issue is what tells you whether the rent due in March, is at the new or old rate? Is there something that states that rent is to be paid in advance or in arrears anywhere?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 4 2010, 06:40 AM

The Agreement says

So that tells you the rent is payable in advance on 1 March.

It's payable at the pre-increase rate because the increase is effective 1 April, but the rent is due 1 March - one month before the increase takes affect. Rent in advance is due at the rate effective on the due date - so you pay at the 1 March rate.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 4 2010, 07:24 AM

OK, I understand the logic, but is the statement in bold text correct? Again this is essence of the issue, isn't it. Can rent only legally be chargeable at the rate that is in effect on the due date?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 4 2010, 09:13 PM

I've made it sound more complicated than it is. You need to know two things: How much is the rent, and when to pay it.

The Agreement is clear about when: The rent is due 1 March.

It's the how much that is causing the confusion. The Agreement says that any price change will take effect from the 1st April, and so the rent due on 1 March is whatever it is before the increase.

By common law rent is an entire obligation, the whole of the rent becomes due on the rent day and there is no apportionment with time of rent in advance. So however much the rent is on the rent day, that's how much you owe.

So the rent is due 1 March, you're told 1 February if the rent is going up, and the new rent takes effect 1 April, and that's what you pay next time round. So you get 13 months notice of any rent increase.

The question is will the Town Council be honest about their mistake and not impose the 33% rent increase this year, or will they do exactly what they did this year and impose an unenforceable rent increase and hope no one makes a fuss.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 4 2010, 10:21 PM

Like I said, I fully understand the argument. It was just unclear to me that one doesn't pay rent in advance. If that is a fact then I understand your 13 month argument. In other words: If you pay rent annually, you pay the equivalent of 12 x 1 months rent, all at the same rate of the month in which it is due - I did not know that is statutorily true that one doesn't pay rent in advance, and that is what I was pressing you to explain.

Posted by: Newbury Expat Oct 5 2010, 12:12 AM

Regarding the size of the increase - this seems to be excessive considering another recent whopping increase. I thought your research into neighbouring councils was good Simon, hopefully it will be of use. It may not be a lot of money to some, but any time you have net increases of 96% over two years (the compound effect of 33% and 47%) it stings.

Regarding the interpretation of the times, I have to say I agree with Iommi. It appears to be mentioning the same cluster of months.

• The rent you pay is in respect of April 1 2011 through March 31, 2012.
• It is payable on March 1, 2011 (so you're paying 12 months in advance, one month in advance of the period beginning)
• The amount of rent is, in this case, notified on February 1, 2011.

So they are in effect giving you one months notice of the annual rent which is itself payable one month ahead of the date at which it becomes effective. The wording isn't great as they use March and April almost interchangably but that seems to me to be the intent. More so because councils set their budgets one year ahead (or for the upcoming year, whichever phrase works for you) rather than two years ahead so the 13 month interpretation doesn't seem to fly.

As to the fairness of being stuck with an increased rent because you have to give 12 months notice, I'm not sure, but it doesn't seem to be fair. For those who find the new rent unaffordable, if they simply decide not to renew and 'shut down' their plot by April, is there any penalty in practice or in theory (the two often being mutually exclusive)?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 5 2010, 06:40 PM

I don't think I've explained this well. It's more correct to say that the amount due on the rent day is whatever the rent is, and the tenancy agreement will say what that is.

With a simple tenancy the rent will be fixed and will never change. There is no implied rent review term and so if the Agreement doesn't say anything then the rent is fixed, though it can still change if landlord and tenant agree. When there is a rent review term there's no limit to how complicated the algorithm can be, so when I said "rent in advance is due at the rate effective on the due date" that wasn't very general, and it also undermined the idea that rent is an entire obligation, so I'm sorry about that.

So anywho, the question then is how is the rent calculated in the allotment Tenancy Agreement?

It says:



1. The Council decide the rent.
2. Any price change will take effect from 1 April. So it isn't effective until the following 1 March.
3. The rent day is 1 March, one month in advance of the start of the period.

I think I understand how this is being misunderstood: if it said:



then yes, the implication then is that the price change is effective on rent day. But that's not what it says.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 5 2010, 07:24 PM

I'm sorry Simon Kirby, with every reply you make I get more confused and for me you are making this ever more confusing. In my view I have seen nothing that entitles you to think that you have 13 months before you pay the new rate; UNLESS there is something in statute that says you do not pay a revised rate in advance.

Sorry, to me it all seems simple but you seem to be complicating it. What is without doubt is that the contract is poor in that it is ambiguous. Well to me it is not ambiguous; it is only when you start explaining things do I get confused. To me, the two quoted examples you posted mean the same thing.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 5 2010, 08:33 PM

Alright, do this one: You go into a bed shop to buy a bed. It's £30, but there's a £10 price rise effective next week. You buy the bed today before the price rise takes affect. How much do you pay?

Posted by: Iommi Oct 5 2010, 09:13 PM

£30, but I don't see this as a suitable analogy.

Again, how I see it is: the council are advising you in February (year 1), that if you want to use the allotment between April (year 1) and March (year 2) inclusive, then you will have to pay the rate advised in February (year 1), in March (year 1).

In February (year2), you are advised of the rent for the period from April (year 2) to March (year3), and you will be required to pay that rate in March (year2); incidentally, a month that you have already paid for in March (year1).


It is a bit like buying a season ticket for football.

I buy a season ticket in May for the season football season from August this year, to May the following year. During the early part of the following year we would be advised of the new season ticket price before the old season is finished and so we pay that in readiness for the new season.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 5 2010, 10:02 PM

Yes, the football season ticket is very like it.

Suppose the club put the price of the ticket up. 1 April they tell you that the price for the forthcoming season is £1000, that the ticket goes on sale 1 May, and that there'll be a £250 price rise which will take effect from 1 June.

You buy your ticket 1 May. How much do you have to pay.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 5 2010, 11:04 PM

Yes, I can see your argument, and it is fact that the contract is ambiguous and should be made clearer. I am surprised that this contract should be 'approved' as it is cobblers. It is the term 'effective from' that throws the contract in doubt.

You and I (the council) are 'interpreting' the contract; both of us could be right, and that throws doubt on the veracity of the contract. It is both illogical and contradictory.

Taking your view of the contract; it would seem illogical to have an effective date so early. It may as well be effective the following year in March, as it would make no difference in the amount the council receives from you. It is for this reason I am not totally convinced by your view of this contract: it would be illogical to have an 'effective from' date for so many months that couldn't affect the money the council would receive.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 6 2010, 06:50 AM

The question now is how will the Town Council respond. Will they be honest about their mistake and honour the 13 months notice, or will they tough it out and hope no one complains when the rents go up another 33% this March.

Posted by: Newbury Expat Oct 6 2010, 05:33 PM

Did you get a clarification from the legal source your quoted as to whether they concurred with the 13 month interpretation? Based on what you had posted, it still seemed to imply a one month notice period (ie still equally ambiguous as there were no years included as I tried to set out in my reading of what was being discussed).

Did Richard get back to you? I saw you had sent him the documentation for review.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 6 2010, 09:14 PM

No, all I got from the solicitor was what I posted, but they were quite clear about the meaning - the price rise doesn't take effect until 1 April - and so that makes it 13 month's notice.

Richard took advice from another similar council who said it meant one month's notice.

I imagine the Town Council will do a Humpty Dumpty: “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 6 2010, 10:20 PM

So where do you go from here? Do you have an ombudsman for this type of thing? What is the normal notice period for allotmentiers in other towns?

Posted by: Newbury Expat Oct 7 2010, 12:16 AM

Well, good luck. I hope you get the outcome you're looking for.

How's the shed by the way? Still one of the best in Britain?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 7 2010, 07:59 AM

There's no ombudsman for a town council, your only avenue of appeal against a town council's decision is a judicial review, which is prohibitively expensive. With a town council you rely on the the councillors chosing to do the right thing, and being exposed as tyrants when they don't.

The Council have offered this new contract to the other 499 tenants, but not to me because they still want to make an example out of me for opposing the fairness of this year's rent rise. Actually they have offered me the contract, but pre-evicted! None of the councillors will talk to me and my questions to committees are ignored so I have no direct way of challenging this.

The most effective challenge would be if the site associations were to oppose it, but the Council operates a no-criticism policy with the site associations so that won't happen any time soon. Individual tenants, as a rule, don't see it their business to question what the Town Council decides, and those that complain get very snotty letters. The Council's official position is if you don't like it you're welcome to leave.

What it would take is for someone to refuse to pay the increased rent just as I have this year, and then eventually it would get to court where the judge would decide the increase was unenforceable, but I can tell you from personal experience that that route is challenging, and you have to believe very strongly in the allotment movement and the rights of your fellow allotmenteers, none of whom will believe in you.

The most effective protest is to expose what the Council are up to and give people the belief that they can do something about it. So lots of exposeure in the NWN would be good.

12 months notice is usual, and that's the position of the National Society. There's a statutory requirement to give a minimum of 12 months notice to end the Agreement and often rent increases are imposed through that route.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 7 2010, 08:05 AM

I get the feeling you are a victim of the Newbury disease: timid constituents.

I wonder if Richard Garvie could lend a hand in this matter (he seems to be itching for a fight), because on the face of it, it does seem unfair and the council seem to be behaving unreasonably. What about Benyon, what does he say? Could you not complain about unreasonable behaviour to him?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 7 2010, 08:08 AM

I still get shed-envy from the Town Council. I defied their ruling that flying my St. George Flag higher than the regulation 8 feet was an evictable breach of the rules and they thought better of following that up. I'm planning a clock-tower extension.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 7 2010, 08:27 AM

I agree. Some are timid and intimidated by the Council, but I think a lot are overly deferential and don't see it as any of their business. Very few Newburians are on the bread line and an extra £20 for their allotment is not a challenge for them, and sad to say I don't think many people give much thought for other people. Quite frankly allotmenteers are appalled that I should be criticising the council.

Richard has already been kind enough to offer to help but for the life of me I don't know what to do. It needs the allotmenteers themselves to become indignant, but my experience is that their deference is too strong.

I've had a meeting with Richard Benyon because I wanted to get his support for self-management, and he spoke to the Chief Executive for me. He also spoke to the councillors, and it would be fair to say their support for self-management is not as enthusiastic as their Big Society policy would suggest it should be.

I have a business plan for self-management all ready to roll which will see the sites run by their site association, improve facilities, keep the rents at last year's level, have a significant discount for those less able to pay, and save the town £100k a year, but the Town Council will grind it into the dust and I just don't know how to take it forward.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 7 2010, 09:11 AM

Regretably, I think you have to way up the pros and cons. Is the fight really worth it, considering the opnions of concensus? With out a sizable amount of people to back you up, it would be a real struggle.

If it were me, I'd campaign for more notice given than the actual rise in cost. I would also compaining about the lack of interest in the Big Society that you described from the local council; who should be endorsing such initiatives.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 7 2010, 10:30 AM

That's it in a nutshell. If there was enough resentment amoungst the allotmenteers then an organised campaign might build, but this is Newbury and that's unlikely to happen, though the Council are increadibly arrogant and they my yet push the allotmenteers too far.

What I take on faith is that if the site associations were offered the chance to manage their own capital budget and organise their own maintenance and administration then people would come forward to join in. It happens just like that all over the country on self-managed allotment sites and it works very well, so I see no reason why it wouldn't work just as well in Newbury given the opportunity, support, and encouragement.

The difficulty is that the Town Council strongly oppose self-management because they'll lose a £120k turnover business, and with the Council's opposition there will never be popular support. So my plan is to transition to self-management without any support. I'll form a not-for-profit management trust that in the short term will contract out the maintenance just as it is right now and I'll manage the administration myself and if I need I'll contract some of that out too. From discussions with other allotment managers I know that's about a day's work per week and I'm perfectly happy to put that amount of effort in, but from day-one I'll encourage the site associations to start taking responsibility and like that I'd expect to transition to full self-management in two years.

The Council will have none of it, but then their hipocrosy and self-interest will be exposed. Well, even more exposed than it is now. To be honest I don't quite understand how they can defend spending £100k per year of public money without anyone else kicking off, but that's Newbury.

I believe in the allotment movement, and I believed in the Big Society way before it became the latest thing.

Posted by: JeffG Oct 7 2010, 02:10 PM

Will there be bells? Westminster chimes would be my preference.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 7 2010, 02:29 PM

Oh no, nothing pretentious. Just quarter chimes.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 24 2010, 11:30 AM

I posted a notice on the allotment society notice board (I'm a member, and members have always been free to post what they want) to the effect that the Council did not intend to honour the 13 month notice period under the new tenancy agreement and that a 33% rent increase was likely for non-pensioners. The Council gave the society an ultimatum either to take the notice down or they'd remove the notice board. I'm told the Council are incensed about its content. The society complied, and there's now a padlock on the notice board to keep me from posting anything else.

So much for freedom of speech.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 24 2010, 11:38 AM

You have freedom to go to the press. The freedom of speech principle is an often mis-understood and mis-represented.

Isn't there a national allotment organisation that can help you in this dispute? If what you say is true, the council are being extremely vindictive.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 24 2010, 04:09 PM

that route is challenging, and you have to believe very strongly in the allotment movement and the rights of your fellow allotmenteers, none of whom will believe in you.

Quite frankly allotmenteers are appalled that I should be criticising the council.

If there was enough resentment amoungst the allotmenteers

It needs the allotmenteers themselves to become indignant, but my experience is that their deference is too strong.

I'd pay up or give up your allotment.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 24 2010, 04:14 PM

That is the sensible thing to do, but that is tantamount to agreeing to what is wrong with the agreement... and seemingly giving in to the apparent ahssoles in Market St.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 24 2010, 04:28 PM

Yet he is the only one with a problem with the rent increase. Is every other allotment holder either blindly paying something they don't need to or just ignoring it?

Seems to me that SK does not want to pay what he sees is a large increase & has spent hours trawling the tennancy agreement to find a technicality on which to not pay.

Problem is, with a waiting list there will be plently of folk eagr to pay up & take his plot.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 24 2010, 04:40 PM

I understand that, but for me, and taking what SK has said in good faith, I think the council are behaving in a Machiavellian way, or even worse, and it is that which steers my opinion. I agree though, while there is a substantial waiting list, and while Newburians are historically timid, paying up seems the sensible option.

The principles of allotmenteering is that it financially should be affordable to all. The way the price has risen under the council's stewardship, it would seem that should it continue in that direction, it soon won't be.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 24 2010, 04:48 PM

So it soon won't be popular & the council can justify selling off the land due to underuse. Trebles all round.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 24 2010, 04:50 PM

It would be that attitude within the council that I would despise and maybe what the constituency should be protected against.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 24 2010, 08:38 PM

I started the allotment society at Wash Common in 2007 in part because I was unhappy about the high-handed way the Council were behaving towards the allotmenteers. In my capacity as chair of the society I raised the issue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts 1999 last summer with the Council's Chief Executive because the society members are entitled to the protection of the Regulations. I raised the issue again with the Chief Executive in December, and I wrote to the Chair of Community Services, the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council. This was all before the Council set the 47% rent increase.

It didn't much matter how big the increase was, the point of principle is that the Council can't chose to ignore statutory Regulations. It's this arrogance that pervades everything they do, and it's wrong. The Council would not discuss the issue so I had no choice but to withold payment of the increase to show that it was indeed unenforceable.

As you know I reported the matter to Trading Standards who upheld my complaint and the Council cooperated and ammended the Tenancy Agreement to give 13 months notice of any rent increase. The period of notice is important because it is that which now makes the rent review term fair. And this is why I'm protesting that the Council now do not intend to honour the 13 months notice and why I have taken the matter back to Trading Standards.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 24 2010, 08:45 PM

Good on you and all the best with your venture*.




*Venture, noun [ven-cher]

An undertaking involving uncertainty as to the outcome, esp. a risky or dangerous one.