INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.

For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

We are not accepting any new registrations.

Chancel repair liability

For topics that are more about faith, religion and religious organisations than anything else.
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Chancel repair liability

#1 Post by Alan H » October 25th, 2012, 10:23 am

Chancel repair liability may not sound that bad, but this is pure Church of England evil:
Chancel repair liability - is the end in sight?

Magdalene Haywood

Few people had heard of chancel repair liability before 2003, when Andrew and Gail Wallbank owners of Glebe Farm, hit the headlines. They had been ordered to pay nearly £187,000 for repairs to the church in which they had married to the local Parochial Church Council (PCC) under a law dating back to mediaeval times when the church owned most of the land in England Wales.

Historic background

The rector of a parish church was responsible for maintaining the chancel (the eastern end of church containing the altar and choir stalls). In 855 King Ethelwulf authorised the rectors to receive payments or tithes from parishioners to be used for church repairs. Following the split from Rome in 1536, the debt ridden Tudor administration of Henry VIII seized church land and sold it to private landowners. In addition to taking ownership of former church land, the new owners (known as lay rectors) took over liability for the repair of pre-reformation church chancels.

Nearly four centuries later, about 5,200 parish churches still benefit from the right to demand financial assistance for church repairs from lay rectors, such as Andrew and Gail Wallbeck, despite the General Synod of the Church of England in 1982 favouring a phased withdrawal of the liability and in 1985 the Law Commission recommending its abolition.

To make matters worse, property owners do not necessarily know if their land is subject to the liability or not and finding out is not straightforward. Parish records are incomplete and records held at The National Archives in Kew are inconclusive. The physical location of a property does not assist. Some properties in Fulham on former monastic land are subject to the liability; so not just rural land near to mediaeval churches is at risk as one might expect. It is estimated that 3.5 million acres of land in England and Wales remain potentially subject to the liability.

Purchasing a property

When acquiring a property, your lawyer will normally make a search which shows, as best possible given the state of the historical information, whether it is within a parish where the potential for chancel repair liability still exists. If a positive result is returned, insurance against this liability can be obtained at a modest premium. Some lawyers recommend obtaining this type of insurance without even making a search.

The proposed solution

Significant reforms of the system of land registration in England and Wales were implemented in 2003 following the Land Registration Act 2002. One of the main objectives of these reforms was to create public registers of land which provide a complete record of interests affecting registered titles which can be viewed on-line.

PCCs, which are the bodies now benefiting from chancel repair rights, were given 10 years, until midnight on 12 October 2013, to register notices of these rights on titles to affected land or lose the rights forever.

PCC duties

With one year to go, there has been little activity in the way of mass registration reported so far.

However, on 31 July 2012 The Telegraph reported under the headline 'Thousands of families could be caught by church bills as archaic rights revived':

"…..The issue has reached a head in the 12th Century Cotswold parish of St Eadburgha, Glos, where 30 villagers, many of them elderly, have received letters from the Land Registry warning them of their unexpected legal obligations and giving them just two weeks to lodge a legal objection". The action of the PCC in Broadway in seeking to register chancel repair liability against these 30 properties was described by the local vicar as an "unchristian" burden on local people, but PCCs are in a difficult position.

As charity trustees, members of the PCC are regulated by the Charity Commission and are responsible for maximising and protecting the assets of their church. Chancel repair rights are an asset of the church. Any failure on the part of the PCC to safeguard a potential source of funding for church repairs (by registering chancel repair rights against affected properties before the deadline) could be construed as a breach of their duties as charity trustees and result in action by the Charity Commission.

Furthermore the policy of English Heritage, the current grant awarding body for repairs to listed buildings, is to refuse grant aid where other sources of financial assistance are available.

Fortunately for the 30 residents of the village of Broadway, Peter Luff MP for Mid Worcestershire, contacted the Heritage Lottery Fund (the Fund) which takes over funding for repairs to listed places of worship on 1 April 2013 to seek assurances. In response the Fund stated that:

"…we……will ensure we do not encourage the PCC to pursue Chancel Repair Liability where it is evidently unreasonable for them to do so". In parallel, the Charity Commissioners ruled that it was reasonable for the PCC of St. Easburgha, not to pursue the residents of Broadway.

The future

The combined effect of the ruling of the Charity Commissioners in the Broadway case and the assurances obtained by Peter Luff from the Fund may cause PCCs to think carefully before rushing to meet the deadline for registration. Last month the Charity Commission published guidance to PCCs in the form of a set of principles that should inform their decision-making when considering whether to register their rights, and it lists some relevant factors that are likely to have general application. PCCs will also be mindful that an application to the Land Registry is likely to provoke local and indeed national hostility and could alienate the very community the parish church seeks to serve. Either way, it is a difficult call.

The good news is that if you acquire a property for its full value on or after 13 October 2013 and chancel repair liability is not registered on its title that is an end of the matter. The bad news, for those already owning property on 13 October 2013, is that the PCC can still register chancel repair liability even after the deadline has passed until the affected property is next sold on the open market.

Existing owners should therefore check the chancel repair liability risk of their property with their lawyer (if they have not already done so) and consider obtaining insurance against any potential liability now. Once the church's rights have been registered, or an application has been made for registration, it is unlikely that the risk will be capable of being insured on the basis of the relatively cheap standard polices currently available in the market.

On any analysis, 13 October 2013 marks the beginning of the end of unexpected chancel repair liability. That however is no consolation to Mr and Mrs Wallbank. In October 2009 they were forced to sell Glebe Farm to discharge their liability to Aston Cantlaw PCC. With legal costs and interest their liability to the church cost them nearly £600,000 and 15 years of heartache.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3244
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: Chancel repair liability

#2 Post by Tetenterre » October 25th, 2012, 11:24 am

I did one of my rare blogs on this topic a few years ago:
http://tete-enterre.blogspot.co.uk/2010 ... t-you.html
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Chancel repair liability

#3 Post by Dave B » October 25th, 2012, 11:33 am

Yes, I remember being totally astonished at that. That any organisation, especially a church, could apply such an historical onus on private people just seemed totally mad.

But that's religion for you.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: Chancel repair liability

#4 Post by Altfish » October 25th, 2012, 5:57 pm

Is there no come back on your solicitor who carried out the searches during the conveyancing process?
I only ask that because all these house owners are expressing surprise.

Where I live in what used to be Cheshire and is now Trafford there is a thing called Chief Rent that is levied annually on a property; the figure was fixed and has now become fairly insignificant (typically £5-10). You can buy it out for a lump sum, which the previous owner of our house had done.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Chancel repair liability

#5 Post by Alan H » October 25th, 2012, 6:20 pm

Altfish wrote:Is there no come back on your solicitor who carried out the searches during the conveyancing process?
I only ask that because all these house owners are expressing surprise.
I assume that, after £600,000 and 15 years, someone would have asked and answered that!
Where I live in what used to be Cheshire and is now Trafford there is a thing called Chief Rent that is levied annually on a property; the figure was fixed and has now become fairly insignificant (typically £5-10). You can buy it out for a lump sum, which the previous owner of our house had done.
In Scotland, there used to be something called Feu Duty, payable to a Feu Superior for...absolutely nothing. Fortunately, it was completely abolished in 2000.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Chancel repair liability

#6 Post by Dave B » October 25th, 2012, 6:40 pm

From what I have heard locally searches by solicitors are a waste of money. An acquaintance cannot use the land he paid everything he had for because the solicitor did not notice that there was a wayleave problem. The council own the verge and are refusing him permission to cross that to get access to the land. It is virtually worthless without this permission.

There must be some sort of comeback for such incompetence without having the further expense of a civil case - but he has not had much sympathy from the Law Commission or Law Society so far it seems.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Chancel repair liability

#7 Post by Alan H » October 21st, 2013, 9:46 am

This anachronism was effectively ended last week: Count down for chancel repair liability
Perhaps chancel repair liability would have quietly slipped into history if it hadn’t been for the case of Mr and Mrs Wallbank, the details of which hit the headlines in 2007 when the couple had to pay £186,969 plus VAT for the repair of their local church’s chancel. The Wallbanks had fought for seven years against this liability but ultimately failed. The church, part of which was founded in the 13th Century, was in the parish of Aston Cantlow and the Wallbanks owned the adjoining farm and were ultimately found to be lay rectors. However, what was unusual about the case of the Wallbanks was that they had inherited the farm and the title deeds contained a clear liability for chancel repair. Unfortunately because of the clause there was no release from their liability. They had to sell the farm in order to pay for the repairs.
Presumably the Church of England chose to force the Wallbanks to pay...
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Chancel repair liability

#8 Post by Dave B » October 21st, 2013, 9:58 am

Presumably the Church of England chose to force the Wallbanks to pay...
Well, wasn't that so very Christian of them?"
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3244
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: Chancel repair liability

#9 Post by Tetenterre » October 21st, 2013, 11:27 am

Alan H wrote:Presumably the Church of England chose to force the Wallbanks to pay...
Indeed it did. They ended up nearly half a million out of pocket once you include legal fees. See here.

A very relevant part of the link Alan posted is:
What the changes do not mean is that after 12 October, chancel repair liability will fall away. It will only fall away after a property is sold for valuable consideration and the liability has not been registered. Until that sale, parish councils can still protect their right to collect chancel repair costs.
(I've blogged on this a few years back; see 2nd post in this thread)
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Chancel repair liability

#10 Post by Alan H » January 6th, 2014, 10:36 am

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Chancel repair liability

#11 Post by Alan H » April 26th, 2014, 10:42 am

Not very Christian: Rural communities in uproar as 250 Anglican churches use ancient rules to bill them for thousands in repairs

They should just pay up. After all, David 'call me Dave' Cameron told us this is a Christian country...
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Chancel repair liability

#12 Post by Dave B » April 26th, 2014, 11:19 am

Welcome to Money Grabbers Un-Ltd. (an arm of The Church of England Inc.)
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Chancel repair liability

#13 Post by Nick » April 26th, 2014, 7:14 pm

Alan H wrote:They should just pay up. After all, David 'call me Dave' Cameron told us this is a Christian country...
Religious idiots in other parties ae also available.... :wink:

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: Chancel repair liability

#14 Post by Altfish » April 26th, 2014, 7:38 pm

Do these liabilities not show up when solicitors do searches when you are buying a property.

If not, why not?
If yes, then why are these householders suing their solicitors?

It is crazy though when the largest landowner (IIRC) in the country is imposing costs on villagers.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Chancel repair liability

#15 Post by Alan H » April 26th, 2014, 7:42 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:They should just pay up. After all, David 'call me Dave' Cameron told us this is a Christian country...
Religious idiots in other parties ae also available.... :wink:
I'm sure there are. However, they are not leading this country and no one else told a bunch of religionist leaders last week that we are a xtian county. But nice to see you agree that David 'call me Dave' Cameron is a religious idiot.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3244
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: Chancel repair liability

#16 Post by Tetenterre » April 27th, 2014, 12:39 pm

Altfish wrote:Do these liabilities not show up when solicitors do searches when you are buying a property.

If not, why not?
If yes, then why are these householders suing their solicitors?
It's much more complicated than that. Our house is potentially liable for CRL; when we bought it, our solicitor advised us, correctly, that if we investigated and found out that it was liable, we could not insure against it. However, if we did not know whether or not it was liable, we could insure; he advised us to remain ignorant and to insure. We are still ignorant and insured. Crazy? Yes!

It is crazy though when the largest landowner (IIRC) in the country is imposing costs on villagers.
Indeed. See http://tete-enterre.blogspot.co.uk/2010 ... t-you.html
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Chancel repair liability

#17 Post by Alan H » April 28th, 2014, 4:57 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Chancel repair liability

#18 Post by Nick » April 28th, 2014, 5:07 pm

Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:They should just pay up. After all, David 'call me Dave' Cameron told us this is a Christian country...
Religious idiots in other parties ae also available.... :wink:
I'm sure there are. However, they are not leading this country and no one else told a bunch of religionist leaders last week that we are a xtian county. But nice to see you agree that David 'call me Dave' Cameron is a religious idiot.
I have no problem whatsoever in criticising Cameron about his stupid religious remarks. Why should I have? At least Blair had the feeling that if he acknowledged he had religious faith or, worse, it seems, Catholic faith, people would think he was "some kind of nut". But he still prayed with Dubya, and was (IIRC) PM for a while..... :wink:

IMO, Baroness Warsi is even worse.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Chancel repair liability

#19 Post by Alan H » April 28th, 2014, 5:17 pm

Nick wrote:IMO, Baroness Warsi is even worse.
Ah. Warsi. Minister for Faith and Communities. Why did Cameron ever think we needed a Minister for Faith?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: Chancel repair liability

#20 Post by Altfish » April 28th, 2014, 5:36 pm

Nick wrote: IMO, Baroness Warsi is even worse.
It's a toss-up between Warsi and Pickles for the biggest fruitcake.

Post Reply