Freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the Despot, Common Law principle, The right to due process, Freedom of movement, Tax and Duty regulation, some women's rights, proportionate punishment, fines and levies, the right of an owner to be paid for services or goods, protection from accusations based on the word of a single person, to name but a few 'dark age' laws that form the basis of our modern justice system and legislature. Perhaps they all belong in the dark ages also?
Chancel Liability... wtf?
- Thread starter Haggisman
- Start date
Freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the Despot, Common Law principle, The right to due process, Freedom of movement, Tax and Duty regulation, some women's rights, proportionate punishment, fines and levies, the right of an owner to be paid for services or goods, protection from accusations based on the word of a single person, to name but a few 'dark age' laws that form the basis of our modern justice system and legislature. Perhaps they all belong in the dark ages also?
I'm not religious at all, but don't see any problem in paying a fairly small amount for the up keep of historical buildings. You aren't one of these people who would bulldozer all churches/cathedrals/Buckingham palace are you?
I do agree it should be stipulated upfront though.
I do agree it should be stipulated upfront though.
Last edited:
This is a pretty relevant point. Whilst I do think it is a bit cheap and archaic I would question how many people who pay this (and it is a small amount really) actually chose the location they buy the house in partly because the church adds a degree of "quaintness" to the locale.
But I still hold the church should not be (as appears to be the case) asking for the money as it has enough in its coffers and if we argue that we want to preserve these buildings from a cultural/historical point of view maybe the National Trust could buy them. Which would surely be desirable to them being converted into posh flats which is the case more and more now.
Bit of a straw man argument
Completely aside from the religious element, chancel liability in this day and age is silly.
Why has the liability remained? If they still owned the land then you could understand it, but for the liability to remain hundreds of years later after the ownership has long passed and leave unsuspecting householders open to potentially unlimited liability is ridiculous.
From reading it seems that not all Chancel Repair Liabilities are even listed on the deeds. That has to be the definition of an unfair contract.
Have you missed the part where a couple was forced to pay £180,000?
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 28 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 52,812
- Location
- Tamworth, UK
How does an unwillingness to contribute to the upkeep of religious historic buildings automatically result in a desire for their demise?
Your logic is baffling. Charities exist for such matters.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,560
- Location
- Warwickshire
Why are you getting so menstrual about this? I'm guessing you're a supporter of the law, but I'd say unethical is exactly what it is.
Castiel, the bit where you list loads of other laws (off the top of your head of course) that originated in the dark ages then ask if they should also be confined to history was A grade straw man. Well done. The thing you're apparently missing though, is that just because one ancient law has no relevance in today's society, it doesn't logically follow that none of them do.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,763
- Location
- Auckland
I think you're missing a word there.
Actually is was demonstration that not all laws that originated in the Dark Ages should have stayed there as the respondent suggested. It isn't a straw-man, it is an illustration that while some laws are anachronistic, not all are and things like the Chancel Liability helped form the basis of contract law and common law in England (and throughout the world). I would point out that many of those laws I listed are actually repealed laws and are part of an evolution of law in this country and that is the point it was illustrating, perhaps the Chancel Liabilities in Contracts needs to be reformed and replaced (although the elected legislature disagree) like many of those that I listed, however the respondent made a sweeping statement which required some clarification, which was why I illustrated it thusly.
Chancel Liability does serve a purpose, as the building it helps support are a part of our history and heritage and it really doesn't have anything to do with religion, but our surroundings and heritage, also the cost is minimal if some simple precautions are made.
Last edited:
Bit of a straw man argument
Completely aside from the religious element, chancel liability in this day and age is silly.
I have explained why it isn't a strawman. (Which seems to be a stock reply for disagreement these days)
I don't agree it is silly either, it serves a purpose. It may be antiquated and perhaps replaced with something else, but successive Govt's disagree so we are left with the responsibility to insure against the risk. It may be unfair, but its not silly.
The liability still remains however, the church is still there. There are other ancient contractual charters in society that also still have power under the law, chartered markets are a good example.
You shouldn't be unsuspecting either, a part of buying any property includes the responsibility to make sure the relevant searches are done, a Chancel Liability search is simply one of them, also insurance against such liability is very cheap and in many cases is perpetual so the property may already be covered. It is a part of the costs associated with buying a property in certain parishes. If you disagree with such liabilities, don't sign the contract.
Perhaps, however this will be dealt with later this year as all Chancel Liabilities must be registered or they are not enforceable.
They neglected to conduct the necessary searches on their property. There are all kinds of liabilities on different properties, it is the responsibility of the property owner to make sure they are aware of and are covered for any liabilities associated with their property.
Last edited:
So why can't the National Trust etc step in as they do with the other heritage sites and then form an arrangement with the church if the church actually has a significant population to actually warrant using the building. Surely a heritage site that is often (as in the cases of villages) used by a dwindling population is no-ones best interest.
No, registration only applies if you buy a new property after the registration date. If you already own the property and it is not on the register then you could still be liable for a chancel liability that you were completely unaware of.
You will be surprised just what impact a building has, even if congregations are small, the building itself adds to the environment and it has a desirable effect for some people......they have historical significance outside of their purpose and as many of them are Grade 1 Listed there is a legal responsibilty to their upkeep.
The National Trust could step in, but then we would all be liable through the local and central Govt grants and funding that they supply to the National Trust, currently as long as an individual is sensible and does the required checks (something that will be very straightforward later this year when it becomes law for registration of such liabilities on the deeds and land registry) and gets the insurance (which is hardly onerous) then the liabilty is covered at very little cost to either the individual or the taxpayer. English Heritage are currently the agency that supports Church repair, although they often insist that any CRL is pursued prior to offering grants or funding themselves, even when PCCs do not wish to, either due to the nature of their community or because it puts too much of the expense on too few people. This will change next month when the Heritage Lottery Fund takes control from English Heritage, they will no longer force PCCs to enforce CRL on their local communities in order to gain funding.
Also the liability is often very small, in a Parochial Parish there may be a hundred or more properties with such a liability, and its only the Chancel of a church not the whole church that forms the liabilty so the costs to the individual, even without insurance can be very small. (I understand they may not be also, but that is the exception rather than the rule). Also the law that enforces this in the civil courts is not as old as people think, it is covered by the Chancel Repairs Act 1932.
There are reforms coming in this year to avoid the liabilty being missed and I don't know whether the liabilty is unfair or not, I don't mind paying it as it costs so little, others may feel differently, but that is the choices we make when we sign a contract.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 11,701
- Location
- Cheshire
Which was what I said earlier. But if we appreciate them for that reason then surely they should be placed into the hands of a more appropriate custodian. It should not matter as it is just a structure and surely the church is the people not the buildings they congregate in. I am sure most of those old dears would appreciate somewhere a tad warmer than an old stone building!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,560
- Location
- Warwickshire
To infer that the couple in question were careless in not performing chancel repair searches when they purchased the land is misrepresenting the situation and a gross over-simplification.
Chancel searches only became a matter of course after the Wallbank case.
Tbh most of your replies, ever, would be equally well and more quickly served by linking to whatever web page you stripped them from.
I have owned in my house since 1996, and did the relevant searches. I understand that the wellbanks had reason to believe that the CPL on their deed was not enforceable, but it is not the case that they could not know as it was stipulated on their deed. I think that they were treated unfairly as one of the previous owners had been told that the the liability was not enforceable in current law, but it is also incumbent on anyone, including the Wellbanks to check for themselves exactly what the liabilities are especially a couple of decades after the original statement of the PCC.
Hmm, I don't know. I do know that our local church is pretty well used and does a lot for the local community. I don't mind paying the insurance (it works out at less than £1 a year, less as time goes on) although I do agree that it should be easier and more transparent to potential property owners that is a contractual requirement.
Maybe if the old dears moved out of their gloomy CofE buildings they would be a bit less morose and more like the happyclappy lot I see in the local community centre. Change of environment may do them good!
Our local community centre is in the Church, partially funded by the diocese and the people that use it, from the old dears to the kids all seem pretty happy when they are there.
One day I think it would be interesting if you could explain what your interest is in the church and religion to defend it so strongly and to devote so much study to it when I think you don't have what one would consider a "conventional" belief system. I think that would be rather interesting. However, I suspect you could easily counter than many clergy don't believe as such and see it as a humanitarian calling and only derive satisfaction from their pastoral work.