Fair Allotment Rent

[donnakebab]

GO YOU GUYS !

If I was a cheer leader I'd be waving my pom poms at you despite a bit of a limp in one leg!

Our site is self managed so there aren't any admin costs. Well that's the theory.

[VirginVegGrower]

Alison, if the reasonable rent is set, it is unreasonble to seek an extra payment to cover admin. The admin cost come out of the reasonable rent. I think you will find reasonable to be a synonym of fair. I'm presently fighting a court case about this and have made it my business to find out. I may be fighting under different allotments legislation but the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations don't stop at the border and they do apply to allotments leases. A landlord is held to be a supplier and the tenant a consumer for the purposes of these regulations.

It's ludicrous to think that in VVg's case she could pay £56 for two half plots and someone else just pay £35 for a full sized plot. i'e the same area of ground

Quite AP and as for admin, that constitutes writing a letter once a year requesting payment, writing down a name, paying in a cheque and that's it. We get s*d all else from them. I could understand it if it was an allotment association but this is a parish council clerk dealing with everything else PC related and paid 6.45 per hour for seven hours a week.
They are so out of skew with all these allotment costs. It's crackers!

[VirginVegGrower]

VVG, my bill is in the post

Ta luvvy xxx you're worth every penny

[VirginVegGrower]

But her post says that it's "£28 for a less than full size plot and £35 for a full one" which is what I said seemed reasonable, where does £56 come into it? Don't know if the £28 is half sized or more but even if it's half sized that seems fine.

"Her post" would state £56 if I had two half plots. There is practically no administration involved with "my" plot lease - see last post. I don't see the sense in your argument I'm afraid.

[Dom2599]

Hi All,

I have had an email back from Mr Mullins, he is away for a couple of days but will try and help when he gets back, thjngs are now moving a bit

[Aberdeenplotter]

But her post says that it's "£28 for a less than full size plot and £35 for a full one" which is what I said seemed reasonable, where does £56 come into it? Don't know if the £28 is half sized or more but even if it's half sized that seems fine.

A half plot is less than a full sized plot. Twice times a half is a whole.

[Alison]

"Her post" would state £56 if I had two half plots. There is practically no administration involved with "my" plot lease - see last post. I don't see the sense in your argument I'm afraid.

A half plot is less than a full sized plot. Twice times a half is a whole.

Didn't realise that you had two plots as was just quoting your comments about the price for the different sizes. I still stand by my comments that dealing with two separate people is more work than dealing with one person in the same way that I don't have a problem with a single room costing more than half a double room (again, within reason!) but have made my point already so there's no point going over it again and again so will leave it now.

[Dom2599]

Hi All,

Just had a response back from my council;

Councillor X,

I confirm that the legal team have looked into the two challenges which you have mentioned, and I have attached a short note on both of these cases in case you face any queries on them.

Essentially, both challenges were successful because the allotment holders were able to prove that the councils rent increases were unreasonable. The increases in question were a 60% and a 300% increase in rent within one year.

Redcar & Cleveland Council are proposing to increase allotment rents based upon the actual size of the allotment by way of a sliding cost/area scale. I understand that this years increases have not yet been approved but that letters have been sent out to allotment holders informing them that there will be an increase, and that the level of increase will be notified to them in April 2012.

What we will be able to say in relation to the increases is that they will be reasonable increases, and not in the region of the 60% or the 300% as in the two legal cases which you have mentioned.

Regards,

Principal Legal Officer
Legal & Governance Dept.


I have advised them that i think they have totally missed the point of the judgements in question, this is not just about the size of the increase, in my case, 18% last year and 20.99%, but it being reasonable with regards to other leisure activities. They state in their attchement, 'Many Councils are trying to increase allotment rents well beyond the rate of inflation' Now in my eyes 20.99% is way beyond the rate of inflation.

They also state;

Rule 16 of Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council’s (‘RCBC’) allotment rules reads:

“The Council may, by at least three months written notice served on the tenant, revise the yearly rent of an allotment garden and such revised rent shall become payable in respect of the next year of the tenancy after the date of the notice and in respect of subsequent years until revised in accordance with this paragraph”

The Allotments Act 1950 says that an allotment must be let at a rent that a tenant may be reasonably expected to pay.

RCBC charges tenant’s rent based upon the actual size of the allotment that they rent from the Council.

So, in their eyes, they can up the rent however they want, they then go on to shoot themselves in the foot by stating;

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 makes it automatically unfair for the landlord to impose an arbitrary increase in rent. Guidance by the Office of Fair Trading on unfair terms in tenancy agreements indicates that unless increases are linked to such external factors as the RPI or evaluated by an objective person independent of the landlord they may be deemed to be unfair.

I'm just waiting for some more FOI info to come through, then i'm going to seek legal advice to see if i have a case...

[Aberdeenplotter]

Dom, the following is the actual wording from the judgement in the Harwood case. Send it to your \Council. tell them about Mr Mullins being successful in the County Court in Southampton recently BBC News - Eastleigh allotment-holder wins legal battle over rents. Tell them that unless they reverse the increases they have already made you will be taking the same Action that Mr Mullins did. Send them a toilet roll as well .

Held (2)
That, bearing in mind that the evidence showed that allotment gardening was a recreational
facility and should be subsidised as other recreational activities were, the defendant, when it was
considering the rent payable, failed to take into account the purpose for which it was providing
allotment gardens and it should have regarded it as a recreational facility which did not have to
be self-supportive; that the right approach for the defendant was not to discriminate against the
recreational *337 activity in the instant case as compared with other recreational activities and
unless there were some very special circumstances requiring a higher charge, that charge should
be in line with the increases in respect of the other recreational facilities; and that, accordingly,
the plaintiff was entitled to the declaration sought.

Mr Vivian Price, Q.C.(sitting as a deputy High Court Judge)
In the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division.


edit note. The full transcript of the judgement can be seen here http://bucksburnallotments.co.uk/Rel...ourtCases.aspx

[Aberdeenplotter]

p.s. No reasonable person will pay an unlawful increase. Point that out to them. The parents of these people were clearly never married.

[Dom2599]

Hi AP

It was exactley the response i was expecting from them, they have obviously not read the judgement, something i have pointed out to them, i am just waiting for some more FOI info, then i'm off to see a solicitor to see if i have a case, if i do, then game on. I also seem to be drumming up some support across the other sites, i have been in touch with a person on another site, he said he called the council about the rent increase and was told 'someone(me) at another site had raised some legal issues and they are waiting the outcome before the rents are agreed'. Now i know these have already been agreed last monday....

They seemed to use a lot of quotes from the allotments act that suited their argument, however they missed out this bit

(2) Not more than a quarter’s rent for land let by a council as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section shall be required to be paid in advance:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply where the yearly rent is twenty-five shillings or less.

Our council demands it all in one go...

[Aberdeenplotter]

You think you have no frills HH?! We have no toilet, no fence, no shop, no fences, no sheds, greenhouses or polytunnels allowed. I have a 10m x 10m plot for which I pay £30 something. We have a tap in the corner of our plot that is for everyone to share...currently about 30-40 of us.

VVG, that is the same situation we have, absolutely no services or facilities.

We have an unfenced piece of ground on which we are restricted to growing vegetables( and we are not entitled to sell any surplus). Our Council also seeks to prevent us from keeping poultry.


Where can we find a comparison to judge whether our rents are fair? A tenant farmer takes property that his landlord does not provide the fencing for. He takes the fencing over at valuation from the outgoing tenant when he takes possession of the land. He uses the land for production of food as we do so I think we should be able to fairly compare the rent.


I found details of a case heard in the Scottish Land Court fairly recently where the Court determined the fair rent for a farm. It's now referred to as the Moonzie Case(presumably because of the name of the farm).

The tenant has a 4 bedroom house, he has a range of farm buildings, he will have hot and cold water and toilet facilities, there are two cottages which are let and he has a source of income from that which reduces his outlay, he has the benefits of bulk buying and can sell any surplus produce and he also has the Single Payment farm subsidy which is not insubstantial.

What did the Scottish land Court set as the average rent per acre for that farm? The princely sum of £30.

What does our Council charge per acre (16 full sized plots at £77 with more increases planned next year) ? £1232 and we have none of the benefits or subsidies mentioned. That must tell it's own tale.

[Aberdeenplotter]

Hi All,

I have had an email back from Mr Mullins, he is away for a couple of days but will try and help when he gets back, thjngs are now moving a bit

Dom, try to get a copy of the writ he presented to the Court. You will be able to do it all yourself if you have that or if you are not confident, you will at least reduce your own solicitors costs.

[Dom2599]

I had another email from the cojncil this morning, they have asked their legal dept to take another look at the harwood case as i old them yesterday that they had totally misread the judgement in this case, they state that as our rents are only going up 20.99% then the judgement dosent affect them as the harwood amd mullins cases were raised at 60% and 300%, and these people call themselves a legal team....

[Aberdeenplotter]

Keep sticking it to them. If their increase is a single percentage point more than the increases applied to the users of their other recreational facilities, they must reduce it.