Landowners are ruled liable for future repairs to church

Banbury Cake: St James’ in Beauchamp Lane, Cowley Buy this photo St James’ in Beauchamp Lane, Cowley

LANDOWNERS in Oxfordshire could be forced to pay for church repairs under ancient laws.

Six churches in the county have registered 26 plots of land under the policy known as chancel repair liability after being asked to do so by the Land Registry Office.

It means churches could ask the owners of the land or homeowners to pay for future building repairs.

One landowner – Oxford University’s Corpus Christi College – has been revealed. But the identities of the other landowers have not been made public.

Church rectors say they are unlikely to activate the law but opponents believe it could affect property values.

Banbury Cake:

  • The Rev Howard Thornton

The Bishop of Oxford, the Rt Rev John Pritchard said he felt sorry for landowners who had become “caught up” in what he said was a “remarkable and somewhat bizarre law.”

He said: “I sympathise also with churches that are often faced with huge responsibilities in small communities so it seems to me to be a no-win situation and one which I look to the law-makers and lawyers to sort out.”

Holy Trinity Church, in West Hendred, registered four plots of land belonging to Oxford University’s Corpus Christi College.

Related links

Rector the Rev Elizabeth Birch said: “The church is caught in a catch-22 situation. If the chancel needed repair and you don’t register it, from a legal point of view the parochial church council (PCC) can be found negligent for not having done that.

Banbury Cake:

Holy Trinity at West Hendred

“It’s a delicate thing and we’ve been as careful as we cannot to take action that’s going to inflict on individuals.”

Church warden Hugh Rees said future trustees of the church could sue current trustees if they did not register the land under charity law. But he said: “We wouldn’t anticipate enacting the chancel repair liability process.”

Banbury Cake:

  • St Olave's at Fritwell

Corpus Christi College bursar John Harrison said: “The college is acutely aware of this controversial law and of the precise nature of the liability that falls from it.”

Figures obtained from the Land Registry under the Freedom of Information Act showed that St Olave’s Church in Fritwell registered 11 plots of land. There were also six plots registered by St James’ in Cowley, two plots by St Mary’s in Weston on the Green, two plots by St Mary’s in Steeple Barton and one plot by St Mary’s in Wootton, near Woodstock.

Banbury Cake:

  • St Mary's at Weston on the Green

The Rev Howard Thornton, rector of St James’, said: “I know it’s a contentious issue and is part of ancient English heritage, which is quite amazing.”

The Rev Graeme Arthur, rector of St Mary’s in Steeple Barton, said it was the trustees’ duty to register the land but he did not know which plots were involved.

Banbury Cake:

  • St Mary's at Steeple Barton

Oxford Diocese spokeswoman Jo Duckles said: “Whether to register chancel repair liability is a decision for each PCC. Many PCCs don’t register chancel repair liabilities and many of those that have, have registered them against large, institutional landowners.”

Factfile

A chancel repair liability is a landowner’s requirement to pay for repairs to an Anglican parish church’s chancel – the part containing the altar.

In the past, monasteries often had responsibility for paying chancel repair costs when they acquired land and rectors would pay for them using money the land produced.

When Henry VIII sold the monasteries’ land, the liability to pay for chancel repair costs remained with the land sold.

Banbury Cake:

  • St Mary’s at Wooton, nr Woodstock

Churches had to register land by October 13, 2013 for liability to still be enforceable against landowners. If the land wasn’t registered then the current owner would still be liable but future owners would be freed from it.

Six sites across county are registered

Number of plots of land registered by Oxfordshire churches:

St Mary’s, Steeple Barton – 2

St Olave’s, Fritwell – 11

St James’, Cowley – 6

St Mary’s, Weston on the Green – 2

St Mary’s, Wootton (near Woodstock) – 1

Holy Trinity, West Hendred – 4

Comments (17)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:20am Tue 25 Mar 14

Milkbutnosugarplease says...

Those are beautiful photos, especially the last one of Wootton church. Wootton with a double 't' is correct, I think, so the caption is wrong.
Those are beautiful photos, especially the last one of Wootton church. Wootton with a double 't' is correct, I think, so the caption is wrong. Milkbutnosugarplease
  • Score: 1

11:09am Tue 25 Mar 14

Madi50n says...

My solicitor recommended we take out chancel insurance in our recent house purchase, it was really cheap and lasts as long as we own the property.
My solicitor recommended we take out chancel insurance in our recent house purchase, it was really cheap and lasts as long as we own the property. Madi50n
  • Score: 3

11:09am Tue 25 Mar 14

wales01man says...

Did the possibility of this happening come up on the searches when those now affected purchased the Properties?
Seems that we have many ancient laws that come back to bite
Did the possibility of this happening come up on the searches when those now affected purchased the Properties? Seems that we have many ancient laws that come back to bite wales01man
  • Score: 1

11:19am Tue 25 Mar 14

snert says...

When I bought this house and my last one a £20 chancel repair fee was added to my final bill despite my telling the solicitor not to add it to the bill but then the solicitor I used was rubbish and I shall not be using them again. The £20 cost exists as insurance against such a thing and exists for the entire time I live at this property. Next time I move house I will instruct the solicitoor to again, not pay it. We'll see if this one listens.
When I bought this house and my last one a £20 chancel repair fee was added to my final bill despite my telling the solicitor not to add it to the bill but then the solicitor I used was rubbish and I shall not be using them again. The £20 cost exists as insurance against such a thing and exists for the entire time I live at this property. Next time I move house I will instruct the solicitoor to again, not pay it. We'll see if this one listens. snert
  • Score: -4

12:58pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Dilligaf2010 says...

Well, it's not as if the church as a whole, has enough money tucked away to end world poverty is it?
I suppose this is just another way of adding to the pots of gold.
Well, it's not as if the church as a whole, has enough money tucked away to end world poverty is it? I suppose this is just another way of adding to the pots of gold. Dilligaf2010
  • Score: 2

2:09pm Tue 25 Mar 14

timacheson says...

Victims of chancel repair liability MUST contact their local MP and ask him/her to push for immediate and full implementation of the recommendations of the definitive Law Commission report on the problem (Law Com. 152).

Only new legislation, as recommended by the Law Commission, and ideally also repealing the Chancel Repairs Act 1923, can end the medieval madness of village church councils persecuting their own neighbours in this way. PCCs tend to be small village cliques and CRL is giving them too much power over people's lives.

The entire legal basis for CRL is open to challenge. Perhaps CRL was extinguished by the land being exchanged in lieu of tithes. Also, tithes can only be transferred by an explicit deed, therefore CRL may not have transferred to successive owners. Henry VIII had no legal right to take the property and rights of the Catholic Church and give them to his new Church of England. The judgement on the case of Aston Cantlow PCC v Wallbank (2001) provides information on the legal issues which are essential knowledge for those affected and their solicitors.

No parish church needed to do this. It was entirely avoidable. Members of church councils who voted to register CRL were covering their own backs against the misinformed belief that they might otherwise themselves be held personally liable. Sacrificing their own neighbours to save themselves. Not very Christian.

A coordinated national campaign is needed to correct the current situation which is clearly unacceptable both legally and morally.

Sign the NSS petition:

http://change.org/en
-GB/petitions/the-rt
-hon-chris-grayling-
mp-abolish-chancel-r
epair-liability-2

Another victim has set up a Facebook page:

https://www.facebook
.com/chancelrepairli
ability

Contact me on Twitter and I'll do my best to help:

@timacheson
Victims of chancel repair liability MUST contact their local MP and ask him/her to push for immediate and full implementation of the recommendations of the definitive Law Commission report on the problem (Law Com. 152). Only new legislation, as recommended by the Law Commission, and ideally also repealing the Chancel Repairs Act 1923, can end the medieval madness of village church councils persecuting their own neighbours in this way. PCCs tend to be small village cliques and CRL is giving them too much power over people's lives. The entire legal basis for CRL is open to challenge. Perhaps CRL was extinguished by the land being exchanged in lieu of tithes. Also, tithes can only be transferred by an explicit deed, therefore CRL may not have transferred to successive owners. Henry VIII had no legal right to take the property and rights of the Catholic Church and give them to his new Church of England. The judgement on the case of Aston Cantlow PCC v Wallbank (2001) provides information on the legal issues which are essential knowledge for those affected and their solicitors. No parish church needed to do this. It was entirely avoidable. Members of church councils who voted to register CRL were covering their own backs against the misinformed belief that they might otherwise themselves be held personally liable. Sacrificing their own neighbours to save themselves. Not very Christian. A coordinated national campaign is needed to correct the current situation which is clearly unacceptable both legally and morally. Sign the NSS petition: http://change.org/en -GB/petitions/the-rt -hon-chris-grayling- mp-abolish-chancel-r epair-liability-2 Another victim has set up a Facebook page: https://www.facebook .com/chancelrepairli ability Contact me on Twitter and I'll do my best to help: @timacheson timacheson
  • Score: 3

2:14pm Tue 25 Mar 14

timacheson says...

The Church and individual PCCs have handled this fiasco extremely badly, resulting in a postcode lottery of liability and a pattern of mistakes and deliberate misinformation during attempts to play down the damage being done to victims. These people have shown that they and their institution are not equipped and not suitable to wield this much responsibility and power over the lives of so many ordinary people.

Most people who are legally liable right now probably don't even know it. Registration was the tip of the iceberg. Most liable land was not registered or the owners not notified (e.g. unregistered land), but the owners/tennants are still legally liable regardless of registration. You may not know it until you try to sell your house and the buyer pulls out at the last minute and you realise that your house is worthless and unsellable.
The Church and individual PCCs have handled this fiasco extremely badly, resulting in a postcode lottery of liability and a pattern of mistakes and deliberate misinformation during attempts to play down the damage being done to victims. These people have shown that they and their institution are not equipped and not suitable to wield this much responsibility and power over the lives of so many ordinary people. Most people who are legally liable right now probably don't even know it. Registration was the tip of the iceberg. Most liable land was not registered or the owners not notified (e.g. unregistered land), but the owners/tennants are still legally liable regardless of registration. You may not know it until you try to sell your house and the buyer pulls out at the last minute and you realise that your house is worthless and unsellable. timacheson
  • Score: 1

2:18pm Tue 25 Mar 14

timacheson says...

"Six churches in the county have registered 26 plots of land under the policy known as chancel repair liability after being asked to do so by the Land Registry Office."

That is incorrect. Let's be clear:

No parish church was asked to do this by the Land Registry. Every parish church had the legal option of doing it. The Land Registry let them do it for free before 13 Oct 2013. No parish church needed to do this. Registering CRL against ordinary people is totally unnecessary in most cases.
"Six churches in the county have registered 26 plots of land under the policy known as chancel repair liability after being asked to do so by the Land Registry Office." That is incorrect. Let's be clear: No parish church was asked to do this by the Land Registry. Every parish church had the legal option of doing it. The Land Registry let them do it for free before 13 Oct 2013. No parish church needed to do this. Registering CRL against ordinary people is totally unnecessary in most cases. timacheson
  • Score: 3

2:21pm Tue 25 Mar 14

timacheson says...

“It’s a delicate thing and we’ve been as careful as we cannot to take action that’s going to inflict on individuals.”

No. The Church has done what it thinks it can get away with in PR terms. By uncovering and effectively activating CRL here, it has put ordinary people at risk. People on liable land are still liable even though they do not know it.
“It’s a delicate thing and we’ve been as careful as we cannot to take action that’s going to inflict on individuals.” No. The Church has done what it thinks it can get away with in PR terms. By uncovering and effectively activating CRL here, it has put ordinary people at risk. People on liable land are still liable even though they do not know it. timacheson
  • Score: 3

2:27pm Tue 25 Mar 14

timacheson says...

"Church warden Hugh Rees said future trustees of the church could sue current trustees if they did not register the land under charity law."

No, that is not true. Parish churches have proved themselves very good at making excuses and blaming others. But in reality the Charities Commission made it very clear that churches can opt NOT to register CRL and even set out a clear process for doing so prudently. Most parish churches faced with the option chose not to register or did so very selectively. Registering CRL was the quick and easy option to cover their own backs.

“We wouldn’t anticipate enacting the chancel repair liability process.”

That is meaningless nonsense. PCC members change, and nobody knows what future PCCs will decide. If it was not going to be used, you should not have registered it! Very obviously it can and probably will be used.
"Church warden Hugh Rees said future trustees of the church could sue current trustees if they did not register the land under charity law." No, that is not true. Parish churches have proved themselves very good at making excuses and blaming others. But in reality the Charities Commission made it very clear that churches can opt NOT to register CRL and even set out a clear process for doing so prudently. Most parish churches faced with the option chose not to register or did so very selectively. Registering CRL was the quick and easy option to cover their own backs. “We wouldn’t anticipate enacting the chancel repair liability process.” That is meaningless nonsense. PCC members change, and nobody knows what future PCCs will decide. If it was not going to be used, you should not have registered it! Very obviously it can and probably will be used. timacheson
  • Score: 3

2:28pm Tue 25 Mar 14

timacheson says...

Parish churches which uncovered long forgotten liability cannot be sure that, just because the liability exists, it was later removed and those documents not archived -- as has been proven to be the case in at least one place. It is an unacceptably messy and uncertain situation, putting ordinary people in the position of being guilty unless they can prove themselves innocent which is complex and could be impossible.
Parish churches which uncovered long forgotten liability cannot be sure that, just because the liability exists, it was later removed and those documents not archived -- as has been proven to be the case in at least one place. It is an unacceptably messy and uncertain situation, putting ordinary people in the position of being guilty unless they can prove themselves innocent which is complex and could be impossible. timacheson
  • Score: 3

3:58pm Tue 25 Mar 14

onemorething says...

timacheson wrote:
Victims of chancel repair liability MUST contact their local MP and ask him/her to push for immediate and full implementation of the recommendations of the definitive Law Commission report on the problem (Law Com. 152).

Only new legislation, as recommended by the Law Commission, and ideally also repealing the Chancel Repairs Act 1923, can end the medieval madness of village church councils persecuting their own neighbours in this way. PCCs tend to be small village cliques and CRL is giving them too much power over people's lives.

The entire legal basis for CRL is open to challenge. Perhaps CRL was extinguished by the land being exchanged in lieu of tithes. Also, tithes can only be transferred by an explicit deed, therefore CRL may not have transferred to successive owners. Henry VIII had no legal right to take the property and rights of the Catholic Church and give them to his new Church of England. The judgement on the case of Aston Cantlow PCC v Wallbank (2001) provides information on the legal issues which are essential knowledge for those affected and their solicitors.

No parish church needed to do this. It was entirely avoidable. Members of church councils who voted to register CRL were covering their own backs against the misinformed belief that they might otherwise themselves be held personally liable. Sacrificing their own neighbours to save themselves. Not very Christian.

A coordinated national campaign is needed to correct the current situation which is clearly unacceptable both legally and morally.

Sign the NSS petition:

http://change.org/en

-GB/petitions/the-rt

-hon-chris-grayling-

mp-abolish-chancel-r

epair-liability-2

Another victim has set up a Facebook page:

https://www.facebook

.com/chancelrepairli

ability

Contact me on Twitter and I'll do my best to help:

@timacheson
Such strong feeling and righteousness. I see nothing wrong with buying a property that has a liability attached, and then honouring that liability. Does not make me a 'victim'. Just as if I bought a property with rights attached (such as grazing on a specific common) I'd expect to enjoy those rights.
Archaic maybe, but then again, so are the thousands of barely used old churches around the country.
As for Henry VIII having no legal right to take the churches and monasteries in the first place... that would make for an entertaining court case! (I suspect William the Conqueror was not too bothered by legalities either, so can we have all our lands back, please?)
[quote][p][bold]timacheson[/bold] wrote: Victims of chancel repair liability MUST contact their local MP and ask him/her to push for immediate and full implementation of the recommendations of the definitive Law Commission report on the problem (Law Com. 152). Only new legislation, as recommended by the Law Commission, and ideally also repealing the Chancel Repairs Act 1923, can end the medieval madness of village church councils persecuting their own neighbours in this way. PCCs tend to be small village cliques and CRL is giving them too much power over people's lives. The entire legal basis for CRL is open to challenge. Perhaps CRL was extinguished by the land being exchanged in lieu of tithes. Also, tithes can only be transferred by an explicit deed, therefore CRL may not have transferred to successive owners. Henry VIII had no legal right to take the property and rights of the Catholic Church and give them to his new Church of England. The judgement on the case of Aston Cantlow PCC v Wallbank (2001) provides information on the legal issues which are essential knowledge for those affected and their solicitors. No parish church needed to do this. It was entirely avoidable. Members of church councils who voted to register CRL were covering their own backs against the misinformed belief that they might otherwise themselves be held personally liable. Sacrificing their own neighbours to save themselves. Not very Christian. A coordinated national campaign is needed to correct the current situation which is clearly unacceptable both legally and morally. Sign the NSS petition: http://change.org/en -GB/petitions/the-rt -hon-chris-grayling- mp-abolish-chancel-r epair-liability-2 Another victim has set up a Facebook page: https://www.facebook .com/chancelrepairli ability Contact me on Twitter and I'll do my best to help: @timacheson[/p][/quote]Such strong feeling and righteousness. I see nothing wrong with buying a property that has a liability attached, and then honouring that liability. Does not make me a 'victim'. Just as if I bought a property with rights attached (such as grazing on a specific common) I'd expect to enjoy those rights. Archaic maybe, but then again, so are the thousands of barely used old churches around the country. As for Henry VIII having no legal right to take the churches and monasteries in the first place... that would make for an entertaining court case! (I suspect William the Conqueror was not too bothered by legalities either, so can we have all our lands back, please?) onemorething
  • Score: -1

4:10pm Tue 25 Mar 14

timacheson says...

onemorething wrote:
timacheson wrote:
Victims of chancel repair liability MUST contact their local MP and ask him/her to push for immediate and full implementation of the recommendations of the definitive Law Commission report on the problem (Law Com. 152).

Only new legislation, as recommended by the Law Commission, and ideally also repealing the Chancel Repairs Act 1923, can end the medieval madness of village church councils persecuting their own neighbours in this way. PCCs tend to be small village cliques and CRL is giving them too much power over people's lives.

The entire legal basis for CRL is open to challenge. Perhaps CRL was extinguished by the land being exchanged in lieu of tithes. Also, tithes can only be transferred by an explicit deed, therefore CRL may not have transferred to successive owners. Henry VIII had no legal right to take the property and rights of the Catholic Church and give them to his new Church of England. The judgement on the case of Aston Cantlow PCC v Wallbank (2001) provides information on the legal issues which are essential knowledge for those affected and their solicitors.

No parish church needed to do this. It was entirely avoidable. Members of church councils who voted to register CRL were covering their own backs against the misinformed belief that they might otherwise themselves be held personally liable. Sacrificing their own neighbours to save themselves. Not very Christian.

A coordinated national campaign is needed to correct the current situation which is clearly unacceptable both legally and morally.

Sign the NSS petition:

http://change.org/en


-GB/petitions/the-rt


-hon-chris-grayling-


mp-abolish-chancel-r


epair-liability-2

Another victim has set up a Facebook page:

https://www.facebook


.com/chancelrepairli


ability

Contact me on Twitter and I'll do my best to help:

@timacheson
Such strong feeling and righteousness. I see nothing wrong with buying a property that has a liability attached, and then honouring that liability. Does not make me a 'victim'. Just as if I bought a property with rights attached (such as grazing on a specific common) I'd expect to enjoy those rights.
Archaic maybe, but then again, so are the thousands of barely used old churches around the country.
As for Henry VIII having no legal right to take the churches and monasteries in the first place... that would make for an entertaining court case! (I suspect William the Conqueror was not too bothered by legalities either, so can we have all our lands back, please?)
No, you missed the point, but it appears that was deliberate.

This is absolutely NOT about people who bought a property knowing the liability existed. In those cases it was reflected in the price.

This is, very obviously, about the large number of people caught totally unaware and out of the blue by the tsunami of new registrations by parish churches around 13 Oct. Most of these people had never heard of CRL.

The Law Commission reviewed this and found that the law is highly flawed. The law needs to change. See Law Com. 152. I can forgive your ignorance, but not your lack of humanity.

You make it too obvious that you are involved with the church. Are you a PCC member who voted to cause huge problems for your own neighbours to get yourself off the hook?

As is characteristic of trolls and online defenders of the Church, this dude hides behind an anonymous usernames so he can say whatever he likes, even blatantly lie and mislead, without risk to his personal reputation.

You have no sympathy for the victims of this, who through no fault of their own have in some cases lost a lifetime's worth of hard work and investment. It would be natural justice if you find that you yourself lose everything one day.
[quote][p][bold]onemorething[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]timacheson[/bold] wrote: Victims of chancel repair liability MUST contact their local MP and ask him/her to push for immediate and full implementation of the recommendations of the definitive Law Commission report on the problem (Law Com. 152). Only new legislation, as recommended by the Law Commission, and ideally also repealing the Chancel Repairs Act 1923, can end the medieval madness of village church councils persecuting their own neighbours in this way. PCCs tend to be small village cliques and CRL is giving them too much power over people's lives. The entire legal basis for CRL is open to challenge. Perhaps CRL was extinguished by the land being exchanged in lieu of tithes. Also, tithes can only be transferred by an explicit deed, therefore CRL may not have transferred to successive owners. Henry VIII had no legal right to take the property and rights of the Catholic Church and give them to his new Church of England. The judgement on the case of Aston Cantlow PCC v Wallbank (2001) provides information on the legal issues which are essential knowledge for those affected and their solicitors. No parish church needed to do this. It was entirely avoidable. Members of church councils who voted to register CRL were covering their own backs against the misinformed belief that they might otherwise themselves be held personally liable. Sacrificing their own neighbours to save themselves. Not very Christian. A coordinated national campaign is needed to correct the current situation which is clearly unacceptable both legally and morally. Sign the NSS petition: http://change.org/en -GB/petitions/the-rt -hon-chris-grayling- mp-abolish-chancel-r epair-liability-2 Another victim has set up a Facebook page: https://www.facebook .com/chancelrepairli ability Contact me on Twitter and I'll do my best to help: @timacheson[/p][/quote]Such strong feeling and righteousness. I see nothing wrong with buying a property that has a liability attached, and then honouring that liability. Does not make me a 'victim'. Just as if I bought a property with rights attached (such as grazing on a specific common) I'd expect to enjoy those rights. Archaic maybe, but then again, so are the thousands of barely used old churches around the country. As for Henry VIII having no legal right to take the churches and monasteries in the first place... that would make for an entertaining court case! (I suspect William the Conqueror was not too bothered by legalities either, so can we have all our lands back, please?)[/p][/quote]No, you missed the point, but it appears that was deliberate. This is absolutely NOT about people who bought a property knowing the liability existed. In those cases it was reflected in the price. This is, very obviously, about the large number of people caught totally unaware and out of the blue by the tsunami of new registrations by parish churches around 13 Oct. Most of these people had never heard of CRL. The Law Commission reviewed this and found that the law is highly flawed. The law needs to change. See Law Com. 152. I can forgive your ignorance, but not your lack of humanity. You make it too obvious that you are involved with the church. Are you a PCC member who voted to cause huge problems for your own neighbours to get yourself off the hook? As is characteristic of trolls and online defenders of the Church, this dude hides behind an anonymous usernames so he can say whatever he likes, even blatantly lie and mislead, without risk to his personal reputation. You have no sympathy for the victims of this, who through no fault of their own have in some cases lost a lifetime's worth of hard work and investment. It would be natural justice if you find that you yourself lose everything one day. timacheson
  • Score: 3

5:45pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Greg Yerbury says...

Hi Tim it is unclear to me from the 6 churches mentioned how many of them involve people who knew about the liability and who didn't.
The only organisation who is known is Corpus Christi College and without a doubt their wealth came from in part from the tithes which was converted into land which now bears the liability. For them it might be a historical anomaly but then the origin of their wealth is tied up with it.

For the other churches it is hard to know As far as I can ascertain the majority of the original owners of the land were another college and some landed gentry whose descendants may still own the land.

It is possible that some innocent unknowing people are amongst those registrations and that would be extremely concerning but I do not have enough information to know one way or another.
Hi Tim it is unclear to me from the 6 churches mentioned how many of them involve people who knew about the liability and who didn't. The only organisation who is known is Corpus Christi College and without a doubt their wealth came from in part from the tithes which was converted into land which now bears the liability. For them it might be a historical anomaly but then the origin of their wealth is tied up with it. For the other churches it is hard to know As far as I can ascertain the majority of the original owners of the land were another college and some landed gentry whose descendants may still own the land. It is possible that some innocent unknowing people are amongst those registrations and that would be extremely concerning but I do not have enough information to know one way or another. Greg Yerbury
  • Score: -1

10:29am Thu 27 Mar 14

timacheson says...

Greg Yerbury wrote:
Hi Tim it is unclear to me from the 6 churches mentioned how many of them involve people who knew about the liability and who didn't.
The only organisation who is known is Corpus Christi College and without a doubt their wealth came from in part from the tithes which was converted into land which now bears the liability. For them it might be a historical anomaly but then the origin of their wealth is tied up with it.

For the other churches it is hard to know As far as I can ascertain the majority of the original owners of the land were another college and some landed gentry whose descendants may still own the land.

It is possible that some innocent unknowing people are amongst those registrations and that would be extremely concerning but I do not have enough information to know one way or another.
Greg, you have been one of the few voices of reason throughout all of this! My own interest in the issue is limited to people who were hit by this out of the blue around 13 Oct.
[quote][p][bold]Greg Yerbury[/bold] wrote: Hi Tim it is unclear to me from the 6 churches mentioned how many of them involve people who knew about the liability and who didn't. The only organisation who is known is Corpus Christi College and without a doubt their wealth came from in part from the tithes which was converted into land which now bears the liability. For them it might be a historical anomaly but then the origin of their wealth is tied up with it. For the other churches it is hard to know As far as I can ascertain the majority of the original owners of the land were another college and some landed gentry whose descendants may still own the land. It is possible that some innocent unknowing people are amongst those registrations and that would be extremely concerning but I do not have enough information to know one way or another.[/p][/quote]Greg, you have been one of the few voices of reason throughout all of this! My own interest in the issue is limited to people who were hit by this out of the blue around 13 Oct. timacheson
  • Score: 2

11:33am Thu 27 Mar 14

Greg Yerbury says...

I am guessing, Tim, out of the 6 places 4 of the owners were quite aware of the liability or probably should have been, From own my files, which are not perfect, I would not have expected any liability in Wootton and I have suspicion a mistake may have been made but without a copy of the enclosure award it is impossible to verify.
I am guessing, Tim, out of the 6 places 4 of the owners were quite aware of the liability or probably should have been, From own my files, which are not perfect, I would not have expected any liability in Wootton and I have suspicion a mistake may have been made but without a copy of the enclosure award it is impossible to verify. Greg Yerbury
  • Score: 1

3:28am Sat 29 Mar 14

The New Private Eye says...

wales01man wrote:
Did the possibility of this happening come up on the searches when those now affected purchased the Properties?
Seems that we have many ancient laws that come back to bite
I like the one about killing Scotsmen within the city walls of York with a bow and Arrow. Might come in useful again after the vote for independence.
[quote][p][bold]wales01man[/bold] wrote: Did the possibility of this happening come up on the searches when those now affected purchased the Properties? Seems that we have many ancient laws that come back to bite[/p][/quote]I like the one about killing Scotsmen within the city walls of York with a bow and Arrow. Might come in useful again after the vote for independence. The New Private Eye
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree