Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2008
- Posts
- 11,114
You're doing a major disservice to Carpal Tunnel-suffering pen pushers with that attitude, boyo!
Chancel Liability... wtf?
- Thread starter Haggisman
- Start date
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.
I know, that's what I said.
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.
Your rather enthusiastically stated position aside, it's nothing to do with religion. In reality its a small amount to pay for something that could ultimately help save a bit of our heritage and history.
Your position is utterly, utterly, ridiculous. I'm surprised you've managed to last this long without a heart attack.
Where is that head into brick wall smiley when you need it. It dates back to the practice of buying rectorships, thereby assuming liability for the upkeep of them, which has passed down through history. You may argue that the legislation needs changing, but the Lords would seem to disagree (Wallbank, 2003).
What utter rubbish is this?
Lol actually the council provide hundreds more services than your simplistic view of police and fire services
Had the same issue 5 years ago but thought it wasn't worth the potential hassle in not paying it as the local church had the lead stolen from the roof 3 times over 12 months by the same ****** causing loads of damage to the structure of the building.
I'm sure that its been in the press about this and church stated that they wouldn't use their "legal right" to claim money from people within their parish.
I'm sure that its been in the press about this and church stated that they wouldn't use their "legal right" to claim money from people within their parish.
If you mean the position whereby I'm forced to contribute to a religion I disagree with then, yes, yes it is.
That's not a bad idea actually!
If it means that much to you buy elsewhere. Covenants are everywhere on buildings and land. We cant extend beyond a tree line of an orchard that no longer exists to protect the view of the covenant owner who's dead and who's house has been rebuilt with no view.
As stated several times, religion has nothing to do with it other than your rabid hatered of it. If you want someone to blame hunt down the family of the cheapskate original land purchaser and punch them in the brisket for not buying the land at market value at the time and accepting a 999 year dead clause or what ever it is in exchange for a cheap land buy.
Except as I already stated, chances are that almost anywhere within the area we need to live is going to have the same issue
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?
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2010
- Posts
- 18,461
- Location
- Sunny Sussex
Lol actually the council provide hundreds more services than your simplistic view of police and fire services
LOL that's how it's detailed on the bill
Would you be up in arms so much about contributing to the upkeep of, say, a museum?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,560
- Location
- Warwickshire
Platypus, perhaps you could help us understand how paying for a church, whose assets might as well be in a museum as an example for how stupid early man was, is comparable to paying for a museum that exists for scientific or cultural value? If we pay for the upkeep of a museum, we should therefore be delighted to pay for the upkeep of a church? No.
It's not in the deeds, for our property anyway. It came up in the searches that we were in an area of potential liability. And it might not be the current church's fault that this law exists.
What is the church's fault, however, is choosing to pursue unsuspecting families for chancel repair so that they can improve buildings that are used for religious reasons. The fact that someone received the land for cheap hundreds of years ago doesn't really help when you're sent a bill for 100k and are forced to sell your home to pay for it.
The law is unequitable and only religious apologists ever seem to see any sense in it.
It's not in the deeds, for our property anyway. It came up in the searches that we were in an area of potential liability. And it might not be the current church's fault that this law exists.
What is the church's fault, however, is choosing to pursue unsuspecting families for chancel repair so that they can improve buildings that are used for religious reasons. The fact that someone received the land for cheap hundreds of years ago doesn't really help when you're sent a bill for 100k and are forced to sell your home to pay for it.
The law is unequitable and only religious apologists ever seem to see any sense in it.
Last edited:
Would you be happy if you were forced to pay upkeep for a scientology building?
It wouldn't bother me in the slightest if I could indemnify myself against it. Most covenants are far more restrictive. It's a pittance that your getting your knickers in twist over. Lack of a building control certificate indemnity insurance which is very common costs 3 times as much, as does breach of covenant.
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:
Unfortunately, if you look at the Wallbank case, it's not that simple.