Are you liable to foot the bill for church repairs?

Purchasers of properties built on church land or with names like ‘Glebe House’ or ‘Tithe Barn’ could find that they have a surprise in store in the small print of their title deeds, which could result in them having to foot the bill for a portion of the cost of repairs to the local church.

This warning comes from commercial property specialist Underwoods which has supported the Law Society’s recent submission to the Government calling for the abolition of chancel repair liability and its replacement with a more sensible system for funding the maintenance of histories buildings.

Simon Toseland, a Partner and Head of Underwoods Wellingborough office says: “The history of chancel repair dates back to the 12th century and is linked to the old right to collect tithes. Although tithe liability has ceased and much of the land previously owned by the Church of England has been acquired by private individuals, the liability for repair to the parish church can remain attached to the owners of adjacent land and properties - both residential and commercial.”

He adds: “A review carried out by the Law Commission in 1985 called the situation a ‘relic of the past’ and then recommended its phased abolition. However, it still remains in place.”

In a recent high profile legal case (Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote with Billesley Parochial Church Council v Wallbank) a couple who had inherited a property called Glebe Farm in Warwickshire disputed a bill for £95,000 which had been presented to them by their local parish council for the cost of repairs to their local parish church. In this case, the couple were aware that they did have a liability from a clause in their deeds but they decided to go to court to contest the bill on the ground that the liability was a breach of their human rights. The judgement in their favour at the Court of Appeal was subsequently overturned by the House of Lords, after a long and ultimately costly process.

The House of Lords ruled that the parish council concerned was not bound by the Human Rights Act and that it was entitled to enforce the financial responsibility of the ‘lay rectors’ under the Chancel Repairs Act 1932. Although of no consolation to Mr & Mrs Wallbank, the House of Lords did concede that the case concerned ‘one of the more arcane and unsatisfactory areas of property law’.

The mains reasons for calling for an abolition of the liability are:

A landowner is liable even if the property was acquired in good faith and in complete ignorance of the liability.

The historical documents recording who is liable are irretrievably deficient.

Where liability is established, the effect on the value of the burdened property is detrimental if unpredictable, and may make the property unsaleable.

There is doubt whether or how the liability affects the owners of leasehold property. No known cases have been traced which decide is the liability is attached to leasehold land. It is however possible that the contractual terms of many leases would have the effect of transferring the burden of making payments from the freeholder/landlord to the tenant.

Simon Toseland concludes: “Anyone considering purchasing land or property that may once have been owned by the Church, or which contains obvious ecclestiastical references in its address, should pay particular attention to the property’s deeds, as they may find that there is an antiquated covenant which requires the owners to contribute towards the cost of the maintenance of the local church - as this can turn out to be extremely expensive.”