Chancel Liability... wtf?

Haggisman

Haggisman

Haggisman

Soldato
Joined
6 Oct 2004
Posts
19,481
Location
Birmingham
Had a letter from the solicitor handling our conveyancing this morning. Apparently the property we're in the process of buying is potentially liable for chancel repair costs - will cost us £150 to find out for sure, or £45 for 25 years insurance. Now obviously the insurance is a no brainer, but honestly, what the hell gives the church the right to demand payments from people who have absolutely no affiliation with them, and in fact vehemently disagree with their unethical practices.

I was previously happy to leave religion to it's own devices, thinking it similar to the eccentric but essentially harmless loony uncle that everyone has, but it's becoming evident that there's a far more malevolent side to it. Dirty thieving scum!

Tempted to use the argument that it's illegal to provide money to criminal organisations (e.g. paedophile rings), but can't help but think it's probably not worth the effort!

Just a rant really, but has anyone else experienced this, and how do they feel about it/how did you deal with it?
 
Robbie G said:
We bought it when we moved in December and went for the shortest term possible, because in October '13 I believe that any properties still not registered by the local chancel authority thing are not valid. So we'll check in October and depending on whether or not we've been lined up for a future bum loving, will either renew or cease.

The law is archaic and ridiculous. But that's religion for you.
Click to expand...

Although, from what I can tell, in October when you find out for definite either way, it'll either be a case of being in the clear, or being liable - at which point you will not be able to re-insure the property, potentially making your house unsaleable.

I absolutely detest religion. :mad:
 
RDM said:
Worse than that I am afraid. If you are currently in the property then you are still liable even if it is not registered in October 2013, it is only if you buy the property after than and it is not in the register that you are not liable.
Click to expand...

So even if the property isn't registered by the date that it legally has to be, it doesn't take effect until the deeds are refreshed (i.e. the house is sold)? Indeed Robbie, **** the church!

As if buying and moving house wasn't stressful enough without having to deal with this absurdity.
 
Last edited:
Xordium said:
It would be if the factor was getting you to fix their office for a business venture you had no interest in whatsoever because it was associated with scam schemes, misinformation and systematic abuse.
Click to expand...

Now where's the "like" button? :p

Honestly, I've no problem with religion if they keep to themselves, but when they start trying to screw me over due to not having enough donations because people are getting smart enough to see through their lies and fairytales, it starts to become a bit of a drag...
 
Biohazard said:
I must have missed something.
Click to expand...

Basically it means you're legally obliged to pay for repairs to your local church, despite having no interest in it, or even if you morally and ethically oppose it. Purely because of something that was agreed several hundred years ago. Oh, and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.

Edit: actually, you can get insurance for it - although it isn't competitively priced, since as far as I can tell only one company actually offers it. Scam much?
 
Mickie said:
why move there if you dont agree with the chancel repair bill ? what type of person are you ? deal with it or do one...
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it's entirely possible that anywhere within the area we need to live is covered by this, so it's either rent forever or "deal with it" as you so eloquently put it. Anyone who comes knocking asking for money to uphold a violent and sadistic religion will however be told politely to "do one".

Biohazard said:
That reminds me of my council tax and City of Edinburgh Council strangely enough.

I sympathise.
Click to expand...

At least with council tax you (theoretically) get something in return for the extortion.
 
The_Abyss said:
The law on this is archaic but unless you feel comfortable with being a successful test case then you should just pay the relatively small insurance and carry on. Lenders may not advance your money unless you do and it may also create complications if and when you come to sell.
Click to expand...

I will be paying the insurance, however I have to pay for the perpetual successor insurance, since if in October the house is registered as being liable, it will become uninsurable and therefore essentially unsaleable. So much like the choirboys, I'm being bent over and ****** up the **** thanks to a bunch of people who still believe in santa claus. Ok, so it's still a small amount in comparison to the house purchase, but it's the principle. Pretty sure the church wouldn't be making a contribution if I needed my guttering done... I guess at least this way I'm paying money to the insurance company rather than an organisation that stands for systematic abuse and persecution.

The_Abyss said:
Haggisman - you do get something in return for council tax. Whether or not it is good value is the real question...
Click to expand...

I know, that's what I said.
 
LOAM said:
If it means that much to you buy elsewhere. Covenants are everywhere on buildings and land.
Click to expand...

Except as I already stated, chances are that almost anywhere within the area we need to live is going to have the same issue

LOAM said:
As stated several times, religion has nothing to do with it other than your rabid hatered of it.
Click to expand...

And like I've already stated, I have no problem with religion as long as they keep to themselves. The "rabid hatered" is due to the fact that it's costing me money and making my life harder at what's already quite a stressful time. Would you be happy if you were forced to pay upkeep for a scientology building? ;)
 
platypus said:
Would you be up in arms so much about contributing to the upkeep of, say, a museum?
Click to expand...

If I was forced to then yes. However a museum I would be far more likely to contribute to, either through donation or visiting & paying an entrance fee, as (depending on what it was a museum for) I would actually see some value in it.

It's not the fact it's a church that bothers me, it's the fact I've got no choice about supporting them, however I can't think of any other case (other than royalty, as pointed out earlier) who would get such special treatment.

Surely the fact that the church has to resort these unethical methods of fundraising shows that their product is no longer relevant? If it was, then their customers would provide adequate funding. Their business model simply doesn't work anymore and so they should either modernise or disappear.
 
Last edited:
platypus said:
You're being unnecessarily facetious and clearly have no desire to actually have a talk about this. Enjoy.
Click to expand...

So explain to me exactly how it is ethical?

It's not a term that appears in any contract you sign, it's not a term that can be negotiated. It's based on a law that was conceived hundreds of years ago, and has zero relevance today.

I fail to see any reason why it still exists?

Dolph said:
You appear to be missing the contract issue. The actual position is 'Honour the contract you agreed to when you took ownership of the land, or we will get the court to enforce it'.
Click to expand...

Except it doesn't appear in the contracts, if it did it wouldn't be so much of an issue, because you would a) know if you were liable or not, and b) potentially be able to negotiate it.
 
Last edited:
Amazing. Just had some people at the door try to offer me a leaflet with christian propaganda on it. Told her she was having a laugh - I think the look on my face made it clear she should make herself scarce, as she practically ran down the drive! XD
 
Castiel, I do agree with the majority of your statements, and I'm sure there are some instances where the church has had some benefits (that's not to say the same benefits couldn't have come from a non-religious source), however:

Castiel said:
we should as a society allow people to have the freedom to practice their beliefs as they wish as long as they do not harm others, when they do harm others then we need to address that, as do the institutions responsible.
Click to expand...

Forcing people out of their homes to the point of bankruptcy is certainly something I would class as "harming others" and yet it seems that some find it perfectly acceptable.

I have to have home insurance to protect against damage, and pay for any maintenance repairs myself, as do all other home-owners and the majority of organisations. Why do the church get special treatment (other than the fact it's "historical")?

Now I wonder if the liability insurance has an exclusion for "acts of god" :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom