Battle on allotment rent increase - The result

well done!

(...and a very interesting read...thanks for that)

Glad you got a good result!

We've just found out that our council are planning on increasing the rent from £6.70 a rod to £20 a rod.

Your happy ending has given me some hope. Thank you.

Confused, that's not on. Send JohnMac and the boys round to sort it

My fingers are still trembling, but I've just managed to send this email to the senior councillor responsible for allotments, as they are having their Cabinet meeting tonight, when they will agree our rent increase, alongside a lot of other savings. I'm not convinced that it will do any good, but if it helps anyone else out there then please borrow as you wish (with many thanks to JohnMac for his v helpful website)


Hello again Cllr X

Thank you for agreeing to talk to me last night. As you asked I have listed below some of the issues I mentioned, and I would ask you again not to vote through such a disproportionate rent increase.

I am also sending this to my MP, Y Y , as well as copying in the other cabinet members and my local councillors, as very concerned that with such a short amount of time until the decision this evening, this matter will be ignored otherwise. I would be grateful if you could send any responses to this and also my personal email account

The National Society of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners advise that "The average rent for a 10 pole plot in England & Wales is £25-£35 per year " and point out that "Section 10 of the Allotments Act 1950 speaks of allotment rents being that which “...a tenant may reasonably expect to pay....”. So £67 for a standard plot is already not just high locally, but double the national average.

Many of the most committed and long term allotmenteers on our plot are retired, or on low incomes, and look after up to 2 full size plots. Allotment tending is not only good exercise, and good for a healthy diet, and is proven therapy for a wide range of mental health problems. The Kidbrooke Park Allotments are self managed, and so as most of the work involved is done by a committee of volunteers, they are already significantly cheaper to LBG than other sites. Are you planning to impose this increase in charges on KPAA and the 2 other self-managed sites in the borough?

Although I appreciate that in the current financial climate, local government, especially in urban areas such as LBG need to find huge savings, I think that this price increase is not going to actually raise very much money, and is very disproportionate to other increases in charges and has not taken into account that it will have the most negative impact on vulnerable groups such as the elderly, low paid and those with mental health concerns.

http://committees.greenwich.gov.uk/m....aspx?ID=12516 From my initial searches through just this one of the budget documents this increase seems disproportionately high in relation to other charges. e.g. Parking, Highways, Building Control, Waste Services, Cemetery Charges. These all appear to range between 10% and 100%, and I would estimate the median increase is between 20-40%. The highest increases were to bring charges in line with the highest of LBGs 3 neighbouring boroughs, whereas for allotments, you are proposing an increase at standard rate of 199%, which would be over times higher than the highest neighbour. Why are the allotment charges being treated so differently to other services?
Could you please confirm if a similar increase is being imposed on any other recreational activities, such as sports, evening classes and library charges?

I also found a couple of other examples of charges being increased (For example Appendix B4 Play Provision ref 8450001), and in both cases the argument was that which you gave me last night i.e. to attempt to make the service self funding. But in these cases the benefits of the service, and the impact on the community were considered. This doesn't seem to have been the case with allotments where the savings document is basically saying that as there is a large waiting list, we can afford to raise the prices as high as we can.

Regarding the outsourcing you mentioned - this raises a number of further questions - will it apply to self managed allotments, as we already manage ourselves, so how again, how would this save LBG money? Will there be a consultation process when this happens?

Obviously, given the lack of open consultation, there has been very little time for me or any other allotment holders to research this but I have found that there is some case law, on this website (
Allotment Heaven: Increase in allotment rents ) which states that such a disproportionate increase would not be legal.

I have pasted some text for you below, but please feel free to follow these links and find the original case history and documents.

A Mr Harwood successfully challenged Reigate & Banstead Borough Council in the High Court Chancery Division when his allotment rent was increased by 300%. His argument was that the increase was not reasonable, and the judgement was that a Council could charge what it liked for allotment rental but as allotments are a recreational amenity, the rent increases must be in line with increases applied to other recreational amenities provided by the council. The Council cannot by law raise rents of allotment holders in isolation of other recreational amenities. This is discriminatory practice and is unlawful. The full transcript can be read here.

Bolton Council backed down from imposing increases of up to 700% on allotment holders in the light of the above decision. You can read the decision of the Borough Solicitor of Bolton here.

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 makes it automatically unfair for the landlord to impose an arbitrary increase in rent. Guidance by the OFT on unfair terms in tenancy agreements indicates that unless increases are linked to such external factors as the RPI or evaluated by an objective person independent of the landlord they may be deemed to be unfair. The guidance under section 3.102 can be read here.

I would ask you and your fellow cabinet members to take these issues and questions into account at tonight's meeting, and further I would ask you not to apply such an unreasonable price increase to allotment holders across the borough.

I too have used the Harwood v Reigate and Banstead case in an email sent to our local council today and also referred to the The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999. Anyone interested can see the full email on our website. Home

A great big thanks to Johnmac for making this case known. It is hugely important and sets out that councils cannot discriminate against allotment holders by charging them higher increases than users of other council leisure facilities.

Greenwich Borough Allotment Holders Fighting Council Rent Increases

Press Release

15th January 2011

Greenwich Borough Allotment Holders Fighting Council Rent Increases

Anger as proposed rents are forecast to more than double

Allotment holders across the Borough are engaged in a major campaign against Greenwich Council which is proposing a substantial increase in rents. At present allotment holders in the Borough pay £67 per annum for a full plot. Under the new proposals of the Council, the rent will rise from £67 to £200 with some allotment holders facing even steeper rises. In addition further increases are planned for subsequent years.

The allotment holders feel that they are unfairly paying the price for the current squeeze on local authority budgets. Indeed many feel that the Council is seeking to raise funds through indirect taxes such as rises in allotment rents rather than implement cost savings and efficiencies.

There is also anger that such rent increases were proposed without sufficient consultation. However the Council is now aware that the proposed increases will not be quietly accepted! Angry allotment holders are increasingly raising their concerns at Council meetings and the issue is receiving extensive coverage in the national press.

In addition the legal basis for the increases has been brought into question. The Land Act 1950 states that local authorities have a legal obligation to let land for use as allotments at such rent as a tenant may reasonably be expected to pay. It is likely that this will become the focus of a legal argument and allotment holders may challenge the rises on this basis.

A spokesperson for the allotment holders explained “Councils should be actively widening and encouraging the use of allotments. In an age where people are increasingly concerned about the quality of their diets, obesity and climate change, allotments offer the ability to provide pure and healthy produce. In addition, allotments benefit the members' physical and mental heath and allow children to learn about their food. Allotments foster a sense of community among diverse nationalities and income groups. They should not be priced to appeal only to the rich. They help keep older people healthier and happier - thus probably saving money on the Council's social services budget. I guess that the extra revenue raised by the proposed rent increase would be more than eliminated by the cost of having to provide social care for one extra person. The Council is sending out the wrong message”.

Note to Editors
A meeting to discuss the issue is scheduled to take place at Woolwich Town hall on 20th February at 6.30pm. Representatives from all 18 allotment site in Greenwich have been invited to attend.


Ends

The Times mentioned last week that councils are really hiking up prices for services such as allotments. Our rent went from £17 to £26 last year and is going up again next month

Rosemary,

make sure that the Harwood v Bastead and Reigate District Council case is brought to their notice.

That case confirms that it is not lawful for a local authority to discriminate against allotment holders by applying bigger increase in charges to them than they apply to users of other council owned leisure facilities.




Also the provisions of the The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 makes it automatically unfair for the landlord to impose an arbitrary increase in rent. Guidance by the OFT on unfair terms in tenancy agreements indicates that unless increases are linked to such external factors as the RPI or evaluated by an objective person independent of the landlord they may be deemed to be unfair.


Don't sit back and wait for the increases to be made before you protest. Do your protesting beforehand and make sure all of your local Councillors are aware of these issues before they are asked to make a decision.

Good luck and do let us know how you get on.

Rosemary - I'm in Greenwich too - have you been sending that out to the papers? Wow!

And thank you Aberdeenplotter - our rents are going to triple so I'm going to take your advice and get in contact with all the councillors!

BTW i went to the Cabinet meeting in December with some of my allotment neighbours, and the Cabinet did agree to "consult" on the allotment part of their budget, so we have the meeting tomorrow night which Rosemary mentions. But they haven't told anyone why there is a meeting, and the councils didn't minute the meetings decision not to increase allotment charges either. Methinks I smell a big dirty rat....

Maybe see you tonight Rosemary?

Rosemary/Rhubarb. A copy of the judgement of in the Harwood case can be seen at http://www.baf.me.uk/harwood.pdf. It's 25 pages long but make sure you take it with you to the meeting. Stress to those holding the meeting that it has been established in the 1981 case of Dennis John Harwood v The Borough of Reigate and Banstead in the Chancery Division of the High Court that it was unlawful for a local authority to discriminate against allotment holders by applying bigger increase in charges to them than they apply to users of other council owned leisure facilities.

Finally, the thanks are really due to Jhnmac27 who'se posts in another thread alerted me to the existence of the Harwood case.

The most telling bits from that judgement are contained in the following. In the judgement, Mr Vivian Price QC made the following observation "What does seem to me to be the right approach for the defendants to take is not to discriminate against this recreational activity as compared with other recreational activities" he goes on to say " in the ordinary case, if there is to be an increase in the rent charged, then it should be in line with the other increases that have been charged for the use of the other recreational facilities". He concludes by saying that the stance taken By Reigate and Banstead Council "has resulted, in this particular case in an unfair and excessive charge being imposed upon the allotment holders"

I am also in Greenwich and only just found out about this. I will write a letter too.

Mr Potato Head,

do encourage other plot holders to contact the council but another crucial point came out of the Harwood case. It doesn't matter if all the allotment holders have accepted the increase except the one who brought the Court Action. If the increases are discriminatory and unfair, they are discriminatory and unfair and therefore unlawful.