Couple must pay £200k church bill

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by slim, Feb 11, 2007.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. That's extremely sad. I don't know what more I can say. Very, very sad. I don't suppose they can sell the church off for property development, or maybe to a rich American who likes the Shakespeare connection? Given that the Church of England doesn't want to take any responsibility for a building it wants to use, I wouldn't give it a second thought.
    I do generally believe in observation of the law, and accept that some of our laws are a bit odd to say the least. I do, however, also believe that common sense and good judgement should be applied to the law.
    If judgement stops playing a part, then what do we need judges for, other than occasional amusing newspaper stories?
     
  2. I believe the C of E are taking the Parable of the Rich Man wa too far!its disgusting,they are one of the largest landowners and extremly wealthy!!Where's good old christian charity when you need it?
     
  3. You cant pick and chose which statute you wish to believe in. The 1932 Act is a statute like any other.

    I think you will find that the original repair bill for the chance was very small, and the rest is legal bills.

    My oher point is when you move house - do a chancel search or get the appropriate indemnity. You don't but without a local search, why not a chancel search?
     
  4. The Government did when it chose to stop the bribes for sales to Saudi Arabia investigation which was met with, albeit unhappy, acceptance by this board so why should not this particular statute be ignored. Yes Judges are there to input some common sense when laws are questioned and as previously stated they fail miserably to do so.

    Perhaps a campaign like to road charging to stop and contributions to any Religious charity may bring the C of E to its senses.

    Nutty
     
  5. A small point in favour of the church; such clauses are shown up on searches before property is brought, and therefore this is reflected in the cost of the property. I don't know if this is the case here. But, it does seem an archaic law and a bit bizare.

    Right, I am off to catch up on my longbow practice as I am way out of date and don't want to fall foul of that law... :roll:
     
  6. I will move this to CA, seeing as it is fitting x
     
  7. It pays to always read the small print and get all the searches done before buying a property,the Law may be ancient but it is still in force.....Now I'm off to plant my hemp before the law catches me.
     
  8. They bought the land at a discount given the responsibility to maintain the church, the total repair bill is £250k they have spend £200k so far on legal bills. They are just gutted they didn't manage to buck the system and make a quick quid on their property speculation.

    What a pity.
     
  9. Please read the article. They did not buy the land, they inherited it. How would you like to inherit a debt?
    The church is wrong and the government should repeal this ancient law.
    Perhaps Rosie will correct me if I am wrong but I believe that it is still on the statute books that every person in England and Wales could be hit with a 10% Tithe by the Church of England. This is regardless of your faith.
    Still think they should shut up and pay up?
     
  10. The church is wrong and the government should repeal this ancient law.
    Perhaps Rosie will correct me if I am wrong but I believe that it is still on the statute books that every person in England and Wales could be hit with a 10% Tithe by the Church of England. This is regardless of your faith.
    Still think they should shut up and pay up?[/quote]

    IF ONLY!! Now that would be a good idea...! :smile: :smile: :smile:
     
  11. I'm in mixed feelings about this case.

    As a bit of a conservationist, I would like the church to be repaired, and as it seems to be a working parish then that makes it all the more worthwhile. Also, this isn't an 'archaic' or 'ancient' law. The 1932 Chancel Repair Act was passed through in the twentieth century. As lay rectors the Wallbanks should face that responsibility.

    However, the responsibilty was inherited, and the Wallbanks had no choice in the matter. So I begin to think that maybe the Church of England should accept that some responsibility as good tenants. Maybe even offering to purchase the property. The law could be reviewed and possibly repealed.

    But then again, when the property (and responsibilty) was inherited, the couple did not neccessarily have to accept the property. But they did, and ergo accepted the responsibility as well.

    It is unfortunate that the Church and the Wallbanks could not come to a suitable agreement.
     
  12. With HM QUEEN being head of C of E can she not spare a few coppers to help out. Buddy can you spare a dime!!!

    I will have to make sure that next time I am buying land :shock: in the UK there is no church nearby.
     
  13. Despite what I said earlier I think the congregation should pay to repair their own church. If they are too small in size to be able to do this then surely God is trying to tell them something: ie: sell the church (if poss) and move in with the next nearest church.

    It does seem morally dodgy to expect this couple to pay. Perhaps they could have come to a deal: ie sell the land and split it 50/50? Also if their relative had carried out their responsibilities in the past then it wouldn't need repairing now...
     
  14. Surely as the owners of the land are they are within their rights to bulldoze the church.

    As they own the land does this make the C of E tenants so to speak therefore could they not charge the C of E a handsome rent lets say £1000 per week...!!

    Would be interested if this would stand up legally!!
     

Share This Page