|
We do not generally dwell on feudal history.
However, given the furore surrounding chancel repair liability it may at
least be worth having a basic understanding of how it arises.
Before the Reformation, the chancel of the church (the part over the altar
where the service is celebrated), was the legal responsibility of the local
parish priest or rector, whilst the parishioners were responsible for the
remainder of the building. To help fund chancel repair, the rector was
endowed with ‘rectoral glebe’ land and given the right to receive tithes
(one-tenth of the product of the land). Those endowments were
collectively known as the ‘rectory’. In time, monasteries acquired most
rectories which meant that the tithes became part of their income, but in
return they provided vicars to serve the parishes. But, at the Reformation
the monasteries were dissolved and their rectories were taken by the
Crown. The King then gave (or sold) those rectories to individual laymen
and to other institutions. This meant that the rectoral glebe land, and the
right to take tithes (which originally had been intended for the use of the
rector), were then vested in a large number of ‘lay rectors’. Those lay
rectors who received tithes of the parish or glebe, also acquired the
rector’s liability to keep the chancel of the church in repair.
Tithes have long been abolished, but that leaves chancel repair liability
in existence. In summary, chancel repair liability benefits more than half
the pre-Reformation churches of the Church of England and the Church
in Wales; that is 5,200 churches, covering 3.7m acres. Accordingly, the
larger the area of land concerned, the greater the risk of chancel repair
liability. Likewise, there are common misconceptions that chancel repair
liability is confined to land that is close to a church, or to land which
appears to be known by the church in the past. It does not – it can attach
to any land of a ‘lay rector’ (ie someone who acquired one of the
rectorees).
It is all amazingly complex and slightly absurd. But, it is a major
conveyancing problem and there really does seem to be no solution
other than legislation. For a history lesson see [2007] 186 Property Law
Journal 23.
|
