From Mr Alan Bartley
Sir, - Given that "The right to enforce [the lay rector's]
chancel repair liability therefore effectively represents an asset
of the PCC" (guidance note quoted,
News, 3 August), is this not a property right, and, under the
Human Rights Act, can it be this easily extinguished?
When ownership rights were being lost,
owing to adverse usage, it was held, after the introduction of the
Human Rights Act, that this pre-existing law was valid, but
incompatible with human rights, and the Government was obliged to
compensate the owner for their loss. The legislation was amended to
require the Land Registry to notify the owner of the potential
loss, to which he was deemed to consent, should he not object.
Given the way in which the Human
Rights Act works, may not this post-Human Rights Act proposal to
extinguish these chancel-repair liabilities actually be void at
law? And, if not, may the process nevertheless be legally flawed by
requiring no notice to the property-right owner of an impending
loss, and thus leave the Government responsible for the
liability?
Is it reasonable for the Government to
deem the PCC to have notice, and for time to be running against it,
while the PCC is in fact in ignorance of the existence of such
ancient rights?
ALAN BARTLEY
17 Francis Road, Greenford UB6 7AD