Talk:Chancel repair liability

External links

I have removed the link to the Wallbank website, since is no explanation of the context for the link in the article - and since it is clearly a partial presentation a balancing view and analysis would be required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.111.168.25 (talk) 00:35, 3 September 2007

Clarify

"Thereafter chancel repair liability will only bind new owners of registered land if it is protected by an entry in the land register. " Could this sentence be clarified please? What is 'it'? - 77.197.235.240 (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The liability. I have rewritten the sentence. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Resource that might be useful

[1]

This is a document sent out by James Hall on the topic giving advice to PPCs on what to do about this topic. From the Norwich Diocesan Registry, he is noted as: "James Hall at Birketts LLP in Ipswich is very knowledgeable on ecclesiastical and charity law matters. He has been the Diocesan Registrar for the Diocese of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich for over 12 years.", and so presumably his opinion on the matter is fairly notable.

Generally it seems to suggest that in most cases the liability will be known if it is going to be used (as it was in the case that sparked it all off - it was on their title deed, and the farm was bought relatively cheaply probably based on that known liability) - quite a number of liabilities have ended up with various universities and colleges, church commissioners, or known properties - often a major landowner, and thus more likely to end up attached to a stately home or the like rather than a random house in the middle of a town, although there is no absolute guarantees due to the vagaries of time (it could have been attached to a farm or similar, which later got broken up into a housing estate). In these sorts of cases the PPC is likely to find records of repairs, who paid for them, and then just double check that is all in order to ensure the title deed of whoever has been previously paying for them has the liability marked on it, otherwise the law change would mean if the property changed hands they would lose this income.

The more widespread issue is with parishes that don't have a known benefactor, but are listed in the record of ascertainments - this will mean that the PPC will known some bits of land in the general area will have liability, the locations will be tougher to establish. Hence James Hall has suggested that all PPCs do all of the above steps as they only cost £15 and a bit of rummaging around in the parish records up to that point, but that the next two steps of identifying the land in question (matching up the medieval parish maps with modern OS maps) and then applying it are not necessarily required legally for the PPC to protect themselves, it depends on the situation (remembering that if the PPC don't follow up on this to a "reasonable" degree, they could personally become liable for the repairs via their negligence).

His advice at this points seems to be 1) if someone has been paying for it in the past then go for it (although not sure how long ago they would look back). 2) even if no costs have been previously claimed, if the land is likely to be easily identified and mapped and still only has one owner, to apply it then - presumably this would be like Glebe Farm (if it wasn't already in the title deed anyway) - because of the name, and that it is still a farm, and hadn't been split up much (from the reports maybe one or two extra houses had be built on parts of the old farm land over time), this means it would be relatively easy to prove it was the land in question 3) if the registration of a property/properties or the claiming of the liability is considered likely to damage the church's mission/reputation in the local community, then he thinks it is entitled not to act.

It seems like with a bit of common sense, and in some cases briefly looking up the history of the area in local history books and the like if looking at a "high risk" property (old farms, manor houses, and maybe things like converted barns) within any medieval parishes and the vast majority of houses could be largely ruled out of being liable for this. --86.161.74.71 (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I incorporated the point numbered (3) above into the article, and used that document as a citation. – Fayenatic London 18:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Wallbank case query

I was reading http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200203/ldjudgmt/jd030626/aston-1.htm as linked from the article and was confused by one element. I'm aware that the basis for the case was a Human Rights Act one, but this line confused me. As Wynn-Parry J explained in Chivers & Sons Ltd v Air Ministry [1955] 1 Ch 585, 593, it rests on the maxim, which has long been recognised, that he who has the profits of the benefice should bear the burden I take this to mean that Lay Rectors should bear the burden as they have the profits of the benefice of tythes. However as they haven't had tythes for many a year, the whole maxim contradicts the case that they should bear the burden. Am I missing something? Talltim (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I could make a guess, but instead I suggest you raise this at the forum given under "External Links". – Fayenatic London 18:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Good call, but the forum seems to have been dead for at least a year. (I'm aware that here isn't the place either)Talltim (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Good point. The other content of the site http://www.chancel.org.uk does not seem to be WP:RS anyway, nor to add to the usefulness of this article (see WP:EL), so I have removed the link. – Fayenatic London 17:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Briefly, as for the maxim, I think the point was that the predecessor landowners had both the profit and the burden, so the burden was originally fair and binding. The point of the case, brought in Human Rights law, was whether it was still binding. – Fayenatic London 17:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Clarity of article

This is one of the least well-written articles I have read on Wikipedia. It is virtually incomprehensible. Could it be marked as in need of a significant overhaul by somebody with the skills to translate legalese into plain English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.44.29.108 (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

@212.44.29.108: I have tried to improve it, at least in the opening section. After that it does need to be specific; the various technical terms can be understood by following the internal links. – Fayenatic London 21:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

A) B) C) D)

What are these headings referred to in the article? Can you provide links? 87.112.9.121 (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chancel repair liability. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120525123718/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200203/ldjudgmt/jd030626/aston-1.htm to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200203/ldjudgmt/jd030626/aston-1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011145902/http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20032431.htm to http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20032431.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)