English Test Case?

A member has applied to the Land Registry to have his covenants extinguished using their form RX3. Unfortunately this has been unsuccessful due to lack of case law in England and Wales (Scottish case doesn’t count here). What is needed is a successful English/Welsh case and he is exploring this with a solicitor. Is anyone else interested? It may be a case of getting together to choose the “best” set of deeds to go with, and then we would all need to be willing to chip in towards the insurance if it is done on a “no win no fee basis”, as in Scotland.
Email, comment or post on FaceBook if you want to join this effort.


Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

8 Replies to “English Test Case?”

  1. I’m definitely interested and be willing to chip in. I know my deeds do not identify the area Greenbelt manages although this is just a small part of our argument and a small group of us on our estate are in the process of approaching a solicitor to see if we have a case.

    1. Yes me too – keep us posted. I’ll chip in. It is starting to look like smaller estates which are more well established are more likely to be able to get together for action. I will do what I can here on Newcastle Great Park, but it is very big and won’t be finished until about 2030. Split into separate cells with different management companies (all owned by TW and Persimmon jointly). People seem to need time to realise the fix they are in.

  2. If its any consolation we now have proof a monopoly exists which is against consumer law.

    Greenbelt are not maintaining the land on our estate as it is no longer economically viable as our burdens were ruled invalid.

    While residents would now like to appoint another maintenance company of their choosing we are unable to due to Greenbelt owning the land.

    While the argument with regards an illegal monopoly in the Scottish case was split the court opted to protect the business model and agree the situation did not create a monopoly by a majority of 2 to 1. However the argument over the monopoly is still very valid and if argued out of a land court the outcome may be very different.

    All residents want is a fair and just system where they have some say in what they are paying for.

    1. Mike, very disappointed with your case. All the way through you sought donations to help your “test” case however it has done nothing for other estates in Scotland and you have now taken down your site. Reading the judgement it was a lucky win at best. I think while your intentions might have been good at the start you have taken donations from people and the result was specific to your estate position and provided little general help to those who suffer the continued problem of Greenbelt etc.

      1. David – if you are a genuine freeholder, and I suspect you are not, then you must have realised that the law is a gamble and outcomes are always based on “technicalities”. I am certain that the Greenbelt Action Group will not have promised you a certain outcome when you chipped in for the test case. The money raised was for the insurance premium, and this model will be a good way forward for any future test cases. We should all be grateful for the hard work and determination of the group in bringing the case, the benefits for all of us are not yet apparent, as it takes a long time for legal precedent to take effect.

        Their web site has NOT been taken down, and helpful information for all of us following the test case is still published at http://www.spanglefish.com/westmyertonresidents/

        Your comment has not been deleted because it demonstrates what we are up against, but any further negative or defamatory comments concerning Greenbelt Action Group will not be allowed. Legitimate discussion about what we can learn from the case will be published.We can only learn from the Scottish case – it was a limited win and demonstrates that any future cases should be under contract,consumer and competition laws.

      2. ‘David’, by the tone and content of your comment it is easy to see that you are from of a land owning maintenance company. The West Myerton Residents website is still up and running and contains extensive information for other estates. As this website shows, other individuals across the UK are now using this case to shape their own thinking, and already this month (as you’ll know because you’re from a land owning land maintenance company) the verdict has been cited by another estate in a Scottish tribunal.

        As the judgement in the test case shows, the two legal minds on the panel were divided on the issue of whether a monopoly existed. If the third person on the panel – a surveyor – had fallen the other way, the tribunal would have found the land owning land maintenance model illegal. All of the QC’s thoughts are outlined in the judgement.

        You say a lucky win? I’d say a decisive win on the fact that the burdens were set up improperly (something that will almost certainly apply on many estates across the UK) and a very near miss on the monopoly argument.

        Round one to West Myerton Residents, and by the sounds of it, round two on the monopoly argument is on the way…

        By the way, for anyone reading this who doesn’t know about the test case, it was conducted on a no win no fee basis by raising an insurance premium – this is the way to fight these companies, any decent solicitor will tell you more about how can be done.

  3. I support your cause and think a Test Case is the only way forward.
    Willing to help in whatever way I can.

Leave a Reply to Cathy Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

20 − thirteen =

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.