allotment rent increase 2011

Aberdeenplotter

Lottie, I've given you the ammuntion to defend this. If you have an Allotments Association, give them the info. Also contact your local Councillors and your MP's. No other users of Council owned recreational facilities will have had such increases and it is blatant discrimination.

AlexAllot

Hello

You might be interested to know that there is a way to combat rent rises.

In a recent case (17 Feb 2012) in Southampton County Court, a case only started in November 2011 over rent rises in Oct 2010, the Court ruled against the Council rise of 60%.

The Court was not concerned with value but with rent rise percentages. This case cost £50.00 to go to a Hearing.

In essence, the Judge ruled:
Councils could not increase rents to lower costs.
Councils should equate increases in Allotments to Swimming Pool, Tennis Courts and Bowling Green rent increases.
Councils should accept that Allotments are a subsidised activity, and therefore loss making.

The Judge also relied on the ‘Harwood’ case but basically ruled that the Council could not raise rents for allotments without due regard to rises in other facilities offered by a Council. He was particularly unimpressed with the Council witness stating that rents were raised to ‘reduce costs’.

The Judgment made it clear that the rulings made in the Harwood case were now established and that an Allotment rent rise should be similar to a rise imposed in all other recreational facilities offered by a Council.

The Judge accepted that the Allotments system is the only recreational activity governed by statute and as such all involved must abide by those laws including Councillors.

To see our web site and BBC and Press just enter 'eastleigh allotments' in Google

From this web site there are links to TV and Press reports

Sincerely

Alex Mullins
Chairman
Eastleigh & District Allotments

wellused

But you're also doing a great service for ecology cutting down on carbon emissions, and promoting a healthy lifestyle. Should qualify for a 50% reduction by government subsidy.:T

radiohelen

I'm in Leicester too Linda :hello:

I just paid £25 for my lottie - I was late and got no discounts except for having water collection on site, a perk that's going next year. I think if you pay early and go to the AGM then you can get it for £20.

I'd say a four fold rise in rent is excessive and you should fight it as described above! I couldn't afford mine if it was £100 a year. As it is I put money in a jar each month to pay for all my lottie needs. It adds up and sure as hell ain't cheap. I've got to buy shed paint now!

tired_dad

Unfortunately in the current climate I suspect councils will look to squeeze any service that seems cheap.
That will be before they start reducing the number of >£100K "directors of nothing important". Our council has a line of reserved car park places with plaques for each director (and there are a whole stack of them). Each one gets a 10-4 job, kids in private school, 4-5bd room detached lifestyle etc etc.

Makes me sick.

Aberdeenplotter

kittie wrote: »

but why should joe public be subsidising allotment holders?

Because it has been established in Court that they should. There was a 1981 case heard in the Chancery division of the High Court - Harwood v Reigate and Banstead Council , in which this very issue was explored. The Judge, Mr Vivian Price QC concluded that not only were Councils expected to subsidise allotments but that they were expected to subsidise them heavily.

Aberdeenplotter

AlexAllot wrote: »

Hello

You might be interested to know that there is a way to combat rent rises.

In a recent case (17 Feb 2012) in Southampton County Court, a case only started in November 2011 over rent rises in Oct 2010, the Court ruled against the Council rise of 60%.

The Court was not concerned with value but with rent rise percentages. This case cost £50.00 to go to a Hearing.

In essence, the Judge ruled:
Councils could not increase rents to lower costs.
Councils should equate increases in Allotments to Swimming Pool, Tennis Courts and Bowling Green rent increases.
Councils should accept that Allotments are a subsidised activity, and therefore loss making.

The Judge also relied on the ‘Harwood’ case but basically ruled that the Council could not raise rents for allotments without due regard to rises in other facilities offered by a Council. He was particularly unimpressed with the Council witness stating that rents were raised to ‘reduce costs’.

The Judgment made it clear that the rulings made in the Harwood case were now established and that an Allotment rent rise should be similar to a rise imposed in all other recreational facilities offered by a Council.

The Judge accepted that the Allotments system is the only recreational activity governed by statute and as such all involved must abide by those laws including Councillors.

To see our web site and BBC and Press just enter 'eastleigh allotments' in Google

From this web site there are links to TV and Press reports

Sincerely

Alex Mullins
Chairman
Eastleigh & District Allotments

Mr Mullins,

Congratulations for having the courage to challenge your local authority and indeed for winning. You say it cost £50 to go to a hearing and I assume that this sum and your other legal expenses will now have to be reimbursed by your local Council.


All you other tenants of allotments owned and let by English Local authorities note that if your Council has already imposed rent increases that are higher in percentage terms than the increases applied to other users of Council owned recreational facilities, you are certain to have the excess amounts charged refunded. The priciples established in the Harwood case are now enshrined in Allotments law as much as the statutory legislation. You may have heard of case law, this is an excellent example.

Mr Mullin's victory should now provide a very clear signal to local authorities that there is a limit to what they can charge but of course they should already have taken cognisance of the Harwood case. The plotters can now stop any such proposed excessive increases in their tracks.

:TOnce again, Mr Mullins, my congratulations. :T . I wish my own problems with my local authority were so easily solved. Unfortunately Scottish Courts are not in any way bound by decisions in Courts South of the border (although they may look at them if there is no domestic precedent). I am defending a Court Action raised against me by my own local Council but I won't detract from your thread by giving the details here.

Aberdeenplotter

radiohelen wrote: »

I'd say a four fold rise in rent is excessive and you should fight it as described above! I couldn't afford mine if it was £100 a year. As it is I put money in a jar each month to pay for all my lottie needs. It adds up and sure as hell ain't cheap. I've got to buy shed paint now!

If finding the money to pay your allotment rent in a lump sum is a problem, there is something else you may well not be aware of and this applies on both sides of the border.

Local authorities are not entitled to seek payment of more than 25% of allotment rents in advance if the annual rent is more than £1 (Section 10 of the 1950 English and Scottish Allotments Acts)

Edit note : it's actually £1.25 in England

floss2

My site charge for 2010/11 was £0.17/sq metre, including water.

This year they are going up by about 3% but water will be an extra, as our allotments are going self-managed rather than Council-run. The council will still provide a budget for each site to spend and will maintain the infrastructure - fencing, roads, security etc but each site will do the rest on their funds.

Aberdeenplotter

Floss, I think that may well be the road most Council's will have to go down but of course the plotters are the ones who have to agree to that. The Council's are obliged by law to provide allotments where there is demand and staffing costs for the admin side of things is undoubtedly a problem for local authorities but they simply cannot hike plot rents in an arbitrary fashion