Repairs to the Chancel of a Church - Who is Responsible?

The liability for people in certain parishes to contribute to the maintenance of the Chancel of Medieval Churches still exists. This is the part reserved for the clergy and the choir and usually separated from the rest of the church by a screen or steps.

Prior to 2002 this obligation was known as an “overriding interest” and is now more pithily called “a burden” The modernisation of the wording should not however fool anyone. The system is archaic.

Are You Liable?

The Church is entitled to claim a contribution to any works to Chancels from certain homeowners even though this liability is not registered against their titles. These properties do not even have to be close to the Church so house buyers can buy without being aware of their potential liabilities. This very much goes against the current preference for transparency so it has been agreed that the system will continue as it is until October 2013 and thereafter the Church can only claim money if its right to do so has been protected by registration.

Inevitably the Church is doing what it can before then to trace people and properties which have this liability and enforce its rights and the case that has struck fear into our hearts is Aston Cantelo Parish Council v Wallbank.

Mr and Mrs Wallbank inherited a 70 acre farm in Warwickshire and thus became without their knowledge lay rectors of the 13th century St John’s Church where ironically they were married. (As incidentally, some centuries before were Mary Arden and John Shakespeare). The land including the Church was originally part of the local Monastery but after the Reformation it passed into private ownership with a caveat that the owner of the land would automatically become a “lay rector” and thus have an obligation to repair the Chancel.

Several hundred years later repairs needed to be done. The Church initially demanded some £6,000 from the startled Wallbanks who refused to pay. With the passing of time and ensuing litigation, the figure ballooned to some £95,000..

The Church won at the first instance. Then some strenuous arguments on Human Rights issues including the demanding of arbitrary taxes persuaded the Court of Appeal to reverse this but the House of Lords was made of sterner stuff. While their judgements contained such judicially inflammatory words as “arcane and unsatisfactory” “capricious” and “anomalous” they found for the Church and of course by this time the costs were immense.

Following this verdict, a letter was dispatched by Winckworth Sherwood solicitors to all Incumbents, Priests-in-Charge and Churchwardens urging them to identify any possible liabilities they would wish to enforce and to obtain advice on how these should be protected before the cut off time of October 2013

So the gloves are now off and Chancel Searches must be made or appropriate insurance taken out.

The contents of this article are intended for general information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or constitute legal advice. Piper Smith Watton cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article.