It appears that we have wrongly been cursing the church for bringing hardship to those who live on Glebe land by expecting them to pay for the upkeep of the local church.......When our wrath should be directed at English Heritage.

Many church's are of course listed buildings & when the church make a grant application the response of English Heritage, before they will even consider funding, is to demand of the church that they make enquiry to discover if there are any lay rectors who can be made to pay for the reapairs.

So once again a publicly funded agency filled with goverment cronies is causing extreme hardship to others whilst keeping their heads below the parapit & letting the church take the flack for what is of their doing

Hopefully there will soon be legislation to abolish chancel repair liability. The General Synod of the Church said it wanted this 20 years ago but it requires legislation. Unfortunately the Government has instead revived it by requiring the rights of the Church to be registered by 2013.

The Transitional Provisions Order that was signed by the Lord Chancellor arguably was beyond his powers as there was nothing in the Land Registration Act 2002 about chancel repair liability. This was because the Court of Appeal had decided it was against human rights law and Parliament was happy with this decision, but then the House of Lords judicial committee decided otherwise. The Government then brought in Transitional Provisions making the rights registrable, but this done several months was AFTER the Act had been passed, and Parliament had not debated it at all!!

You can read more on the Wallbanks' website:

Church of England Bankrupts Family - Home

You can also sign the petition on the No 10 Downing Street website:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Chancel-Repair

I am an atheist with no connection to the C of E but I have no doubt that these buildings with their historical and cultural heritage are worth preserving. The C of E is no longer the financial power it once was and it is my veiw that they should be relieved of this burden and that the cost should fall to all of us. I for one would welcome the small amount of extra tax I would have to pay rather than bear the cost of insurance.

The people and the C of E want out of this ludicrous situation but the goverment will not play ball. Why not?

I am sure that Joncris is right that if chancel repair liabiity was abolished then the cost to repair these heritage churches would fall on English Heritage and hence the government. Rather than pay up the government with their tansitional provision order has made it almost inevitable that insurance against this risk is necessary. So a very large number of people have to fork out for insurance where a high proportion (about 8o%) of the premiums goes into administration and profits rather into the C of England coffers.

These premiums are a stealth tax and a very inefficient one at that. The chancellor at the time was Gordon Brown.

The Church of England I am sure is not pleased how things have turned out. They have wanted for years to give up their chancel repair interest simply because it interferes so obviously with their mission and pastoral duties. Our present government will do nothing and are urging people to insure. The threat is that the C of E may register all properties before 2013 and so that chancel repair liabilities are retained.

If enough people insure then the C Of E can get their repair bills paid by insurance companies and will not then be so reviled but until then it would appear that they are blackmailing us into insurance when it is our government who is to blame for the situation .

Incidentally there are many aspects of the Wallbank case that suggest to me that this was a test case not only to clarify human rights issues but to put pressure on the government to see sense. Has the PPC involved actually enforced the court judgement?

I am an atheist with no connection to the C of E but I have no doubt that these buildings with their historical and cultural heritage are worth preserving. The C of E is no longer the financial power it once was and it is my veiw that they should be relieved of this burden and that the cost should fall to all of us. I for one would welcome the small amount of extra tax I would have to pay rather than bear the cost of insurance.

This idea would be contrary to the principle of religious freedom. The Church has not always, but certainly in recent history, been financially independent of the state, relying on voluntary contributions rather than taxation. Exceptions obviously were the systems of tithe and church rates, but these were abolished some years ago and would not be acceptable today. So far as I am aware, the only support the Church receives is some quite small grants from English Heritage for building maintenance.

The people and the C of E want out of this ludicrous situation but the goverment will not play ball. Why not?

Lord Irvine who was the Labour Lord Chancellor said in 1996 that he would not implement the recommendation for abolition made by the Law Commission (in 1985), as it might be to interfere with the human rights of the Church (Article 1 of the 1st Protocol protects property rights). Gordon Brown said that he did not see chancel repair liability as a problem because insurance was available cheaply. The present Government has not yet expressed a view on this issue. No doubt petitions will be issued again and letters written to MPs and a private members bill could be proposed, but unfortunately it is unlikely that the Government will see this as an issue meriting legislation. The proposed "bonfire of regulations", which was promised by the Libdems, and which is being implemented, could and should include a reform of chancel repair liability. The Church is not objecting to such reforms, and does seem to be embarrassed by the public response to the Aston Cantlow case, but has said that this is a civil matter for Parliament not something it can leglisate about through the General Synod at the moment. It is likely however that after 12 October 2013, when I think there will be very few registrations of chancel repair liability, there will be a Synod debate to drive forward its 1982 resolution in favour of abolition (which was then called 'phasing-out', but the registration system will have given PCCs an ample opportunity to register their claims, and if they have missed it, there will be no good reason then for the Church to object to abolition which it itself suggested and agreed to, 1982.

I am sure that Joncris is right that if chancel repair liabiity was abolished then the cost to repair these heritage churches would fall on English Heritage and hence the government. Rather than pay up the government with their tansitional provision order has made it almost inevitable that insurance against this risk is necessary. So a very large number of people have to fork out for insurance where a high proportion (about 8o%) of the premiums goes into administration and profits rather into the C of England coffers.

 

The liability will fall on Parochial Church Councils which probably already carry out over 99% of repairs to churches. The Church does not receive any insurance money, it does not run the insurance companies, and it would only receive insurance money if it made a claim against an insured person, which as far as anyone can tell, it has never done. The insurance premiums are really money for old rope as far as the insurers are concerned.

 

These premiums are a stealth tax and a very inefficient one at that. The chancellor at the time was Gordon Brown.

 

The Church of England I am sure is not pleased how things have turned out. They have wanted for years to give up their chancel repair interest simply because it interferes so obviously with their mission and pastoral duties. Our present government will do nothing and are urging people to insure. The threat is that the C of E may register all properties before 2013 and so that chancel repair liabilities are retained.

 

PCCs are choosing to ignore chancel repair liability. I am sure it would be reported in the papers if it had actually started making claims. I have written on the subject on the Law Society's Gazette blog and asked for examples of actual claims, but there were none reported. A letter I wrote to the Gazette a few weeks ago was published but produced virtually no response. I am sure if solicitors over the country knew of actual claims they would have said so.

 

 

If enough people insure then the C Of E can get their repair bills paid by insurance companies and will not then be so reviled but until then it would appear that they are blackmailing us into insurance when it is our government who is to blame for the situation .

 

Not quite clear who you think is blackmailing whom. No-one has to take out the insurance. I think its a waste of money.

 

Incidentally there are many aspects of the Wallbank case that suggest to me that this was a test case not only to clarify human rights issues but to put pressure on the government to see sense. Has the PPC involved actually enforced the court judgement?

Yes, the PCC obtained an order from the High Court in 2007 assessing the amount to be paid, which was duly paid, after the Wallbanks had sold their farm at Aston Cantlow, and they had also to pay for the liability to be commuted (capitalised) so that the land is no longer subject to the liability. The information on the website I referred to in my 2007 posting is way out of date. They have not been bankrupted, they are continuing to live on their farm in Wales.

The present Government has not yet expressed a view on this issue

Thankyou for the correction - they have not yet had time to receive and reply to petitioms.

The liability will fall on Parochial Church Councils

Absolutely. If these councils cannot raise the funds for chancel repair then they can and have asked English Heritage for help to repair these listed buildings. Up to now English Heritage have declined to help whilst there are lay rectors who have liability to pay.

This idea would be contrary to the principle of religious freedom.

Do we then have to wait until the religion no longer owns and uses these buildings? If the owners/users cannot preserve them would it not be sensible to so do so before they are in ruins? I used to subscribe to English heritage but now no longer do so because most of the religious buildings (e.g. Stonehenge, abbeys and monasteries) are ruins and are of less interest to me. Freedom of religion does not depend on buildings and one wonders why the C of E does not erect cheap ( and comfortable!) 'huts' alongside the expensive to maintain ancient church which Emglish heritage could look after when it is ruined.

Not quite clear who you think is blackmailing whom.

Blackmail is probably not the legal term to use but you know exactly what I mean. The blaclmailed are those landowners who have perceived a threat to their financial security. There is certainly a threat ( you think threat is minimal) and this threat has been increased by actions both the C of E and the government. There is a risk which has attracted insurance companies who have reason to maximise the threat.

So the blackmailers are the government, the C of E and the insurers in any order or proportion you care to suggest. In my veiw as abolishing chancel repair liability requres legislation our government is the principal culprit.

They have not been bankrupted, they are continuing to live on their farm in Wales

Curiouser and curiouser !!

I am a serving priest in the Church of England and I will publicly state that I am ASHAMED to be a member of a Church that even CONSIDERS using that piece of medieval highway-robbery, Chancel Repair Liability. That is has been used is WICKEDNESS, and has ruined the lives of many people. This is NOT the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Church could probably not have thought of a worse way to alienate the very people it has a sacred mission to serve. My own parish is considering registering its ability to enforce the liability and you may be assured that I will fight it all the way. Legal opinion states that individual churches have a legal right not to enforce liability (see the Diocese of Gloucester's homepage) so the only reason any church would do so is GREED and desperation. If we cannot keep churches up and running without recourse to this, then we deserve to be closed down.

Fr Andrew Thank you. I am sorry not to have replied before but have only just seen your post. I have created a blog and a submission which I have sent to the Law Commission and to the Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice (Lord Tom McNally) to try to get some progress. This is the link if I am allowed to put it here: http://michaeljameshall.wordpress.com

The Law Commission is expected to announce its 11th programme of law reform later this year and I hope peole will use this material to lobby for legislation either through the Law Commission, General Synod or Parliament.