Asked to pay for use of church when selling?

RichyRich

This used to be very common. It's pretty much obsolete in modern terms, but still within the law, and stems from when the church owned loads more land than it does now.

It is legal because land is different to any other commodity in terms of the law (the distinction between realty and personalty). Chancel repair is an obligation that is said to "run with the land". So, when the church first sold that particular plot of land to someone else (some baron or whatever) it will have been sold on the condition that the new owner paid for repairs to the chancel. And every successor in title will be bound by the same.

In response to iwanttosave's comment, about why should someone be bound by something they never knew about, think about it this way. Say a landowner owns a massive piece of land, across which a right of way passes. If subsequent owners shouldn't be bound by the actions of previous owners, or the obligations engrained in the land, then it would be very easy to get around the obligation to maintain the right of way, by selling the land to a family member and thus extinguishing the obligation. Thus benefits and burdens (rights and obligations) to do with land are attached to the land rather than the owner.

That said, I don't agree with the church's ability to levy chancel repair dues on landowners in this day and age of widespread atheism. Aside from it being the law, forcing someone to become bankrupt to save a crumbling old church that nobody visits any more is hardly very christian is it?

Rich

Graham_Devon

Parents have lived there roughly 8 years.

No repairs to the church are needed. The land and property is freehold.

So it seems its just they get money when someone moves to add to their ever increasing stash of cash?

The solicitor explained it as 'you have use of the church, and live on the land the church once owned, therefore are required to pay regardless of whether repairs are needed'.

Whether his explanation is right or not I do not know!

RichyRich

The tenure of the land is not relevant. If this is levied only when people move I can't think what it would be. Maybe you could consult another solicitor? Or ask your current solicitor on which (legal) grounds or authority the church is purporting to levy this charge? Ask for a more technical explanation than 'you have use of the church, and live on the land the church once owned, therefore are required to pay regardless of whether repairs are needed', cos with all due respect, his explanation ain't that helpful!

If you have the time, get a Land Law book out of your local library and read the section on Conveyancing. It might shed some light on it.

Rich

Graham_Devon

RichyRich wrote: »

That said, I don't agree with the church's ability to levy chancel repair dues on landowners in this day and age of widespread atheism. Aside from it being the law, forcing someone to become bankrupt to save a crumbling old church that nobody visits any more is hardly very christian is it?

Rich

The whole church is a totally corrupt, money grabbing, lying, donation mad organisation. Some of the stuff it does is simply unbelievable. Such as the story above. But also asking for donations of 10% of peoples wages and giving it to a fat pocket minister!?

Complete load of money making rubbish and I feel sorry for people who's lives have been brainwashed with it.

However, those are my views. Regardless of whetehr I believe or not, I still don't see how they can charge people who own their property for land I used to own.

If thats the case, surely my mum and dad could make the new owners pay for their new house decorations, as they used to own the land the new onwers now own.

Graham_Devon

RichyRich wrote: »

The tenure of the land is not relevant. If this is levied only when people move I can't think what it would be. Maybe you could consult another solicitor? Or ask your current solicitor on which (legal) grounds or authority the church is purporting to levy this charge? Ask for a more technical explanation than 'you have use of the church, and live on the land the church once owned, therefore are required to pay regardless of whether repairs are needed', cos with all due respect, his explanation ain't that helpful!

If you have the time, get a Land Law book out of your local library and read the section on Conveyancing. It might shed some light on it.

Rich

He will do a consultation with them if they want to appeal. However, that will cost far more in solicitors time than just shutting it and paying the money would!!

The new owners have the same solicitors. They have been offered to pay £85 insurance which is valid for 2 years. It basically pays £250,000 should the church put a bill through the door (as per the news story above). But they will also have to pay on selling and leaving the house.

It seems anyone in that area could just be presented with a bill should the church need repairs?

How would anyone else know if they have this liability if there is no central register??

Hermione54

giving it to a fat pocket minister!?


As it happens, ministers are the lowest paid professional people in the country.

iwanttosave_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Parents have lived there roughly 8 years.
No repairs to the church are needed. The land and property is freehold.

So it seems its just they get money when someone moves to add to their ever increasing stash of cash?

The solicitor explained it as 'you have use of the church, and live on the land the church once owned, therefore are required to pay regardless of whether repairs are needed'.

Whether his explanation is right or not I do not know!

I can't belive the previous owners never said anything about it, or it never came up on the searches (or what ever they are that look for those things) Mind I expect they were worried they would lose a buyer.

I wonder if this would make it harder to sell?

Graham_Devon

Well non of the neighbours knew about it. Which is why I asked about the 2002 references to the land registry in that article. They are all responsible.

Debt_Free_Chick

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well non of the neighbours knew about it. Which is why I asked about the 2002 references to the land registry in that article. They are all responsible.

I rather suspect that the payment is the premium for an indemnity insurance policy - so that if a bill for repairs is presented in the future, the insurance will pay out.

Get the solicitor to explain - and if your parents don't understand, get the solicitor to keep explaining until they do (that's what they pay a solicitor for!).

RichyRich

As it happens, ministers are the lowest paid professional people in the country.

If you call espousing nonsensical fairy stories professional then I might be inclined to agree.

Well non of the neighbours knew about it. Which is why I asked about the 2002 references to the land registry in that article. They are all responsible.

The 2002 reference is in relation to the coming into force of the Land Registration Act 2002. This increased the number of circumstances under which land transactions needed to be registered. The article says that chancel repair obligations are an "overriding interest" until 2012: what this means is that after 2012 for them to be enforceable they will need to be registered; prior to 2012 they "override" the registration system; that is, they are binding upon a purchaser for value (and, incidentally, an aquirer of the land for no value).