Tag Archives: Alien

Update on ‘alien’ owner-occupiers

Leave a Reply
Crofting Commission prepare to deal with the owner-occupier aliens

Crofting Commission prepare to deal with the owner-occupier ‘aliens’ on 6 August 2013

In my last post I promised an update on my earlier post about owners of croft land who are aliens to the Crofting Commission.

Well the ‘alien’ I made reference to in that post back on 22 May 2013 is not much further forward. The Crofting Commission have advised the ‘alien’ as follows:-

… the Crofting Commission agreed in December 2012 to adopt a policy that all decrofting and letting applications in respect of crofts with multiple owners must be submitted by all the owners in their capacity collectively as the “landlord” of the croft, even in these cases where the application related to a part of the croft held in title by only one of their number. The implementation of this policy gave rise to a number of queries, including whether a person in situation similar to your own may apply to the Commission for a decrofting Direction. The Crofting Commission has now received legal advice on this matter which, I understand, is to be considered at the Crofting Commission Board meeting to be held on 6 August 2013.  Once the Board has reached a view on this issue, we will then be in a position to update you on how your application may proceed.

Interesting that this policy was apparently adopted by the Crofting Commission in December 2012 as it was only made public by them on 18 February 2013. Before implementing this policy did it not occur to the crofting Commission that you could have a croft unit where part was held in tenancy and part was owner-occupied? Clearly not. Such issues have, it seems, only come to their attention since implementing the policy. Seven months later and they still don’t have a resolution to it. Eight months later and they just might depending upon what Commissioners decide on 6 August 2013.

I am also aware that the ‘alien’ in question is not alone. The crofting commission have ‘aliens’ to contend with. There is likely to be a good number of owner-occupiers who fall into this category. Indeed I highlighted in my last post that Donald and Elizabeth MacGillivray may well turn out to be ‘aliens’ too but their status is currently unknown.

I await the decision of the Crofting Commission on 6 August 2013 with interest but also with some trepidation.

Brian Inkster

[Picture Credit: Aliens – 20th Century Fox]

Lochaber Decrofting Application Rejected

2 Replies

Rejected Decrofting ApplicationThe Scottish Crofting Federation issued this press release today:-

The Scottish Crofting Federation has welcomed the Crofting Commission’s decision to reject as incompetent a controversial decrofting application in Lochaber that would have allowed ten houses to be built on a croft there. The SCF believes the decision is indicative of a strong new line against speculative development on croft land.

The application by Donald and Elizabeth MacGillivray to decroft part of their croft at Oldtown in North Ballachulish followed the couple’s successful planning application for the right to turn the majority of the croft there into a housing development. Their planning application was eventually passed on appeal by a single Scottish Government reporter based in the Lowlands, despite having first been rejected by Highland Council’s planning committee. It had been opposed by local crofters.

The MacGillivrays, who are long-term absentees from the croft, lodged their decrofting application before the new 2010 Crofting Act came into force. The 2010 Act granted new powers to the Commission to oppose speculative development on croft land. Because the MacGillivrays application was to be decided in terms of the pre-2010 legislation fears were raised that the Commission might therefore be forced to approve it.

However, after a hearing in Ballachulish earlier this summer, the Commission have now rejected the MacGillivrays’ decrofting application as incompetent and have returned it to the applicants after concluding from the evidence presented by the applicants’ legal agents that “the occupied extent of the croft and the owned extent do not coincide”.

Iain MacKinnon, who researched the Oldtown case on behalf of SCF, said: “Our understanding is that if the MacGillivrays now resubmit a decrofting proposal for their land at Oldtown they will have to do so under the terms of the 2010 Act, which has much stronger provisions against speculation. The SCF warmly welcomes the Crofting Commission’s decision at Oldtown and the broader policy shift we believe it represents. Although the Commission were not able to use their new powers against speculative development in this case, it seems clear to us that their decision here is indicative of a strong new line against speculation that, in future, will be supported by further powers.

“What is of even greater significance now is that this unwelcome proposal at Oldtown has shown that there is a desire to revitalise crofting in North Ballachulish. With such enthusiasm in the locality the different bodies with responsibility for crofting regulation and development now have the chance to turn a threat for crofting into an opportunity for crofting.”

It is interesting that the application has, in effect, been rejected on a technicality rather than following an exploration of the substantive issues involved. Readers of this blog will know that the Crofting Commission appear to like using technicalities when they can to put off the day that they will actually have to make a real decision on an application to decroft.

It is understood that the rejection of the MacGillivrays’ application as incompetent was in response to an apparently critical issue raised at the application hearing by a lawyer acting on behalf of the local grazings committee. He raised the question “as to whether the whole of the croft owned and/or tenanted is occupied by the applicants”.

In response the Crofting Commission concluded:

In the absence of any evidence that the applicants own the full extent of the land occupied by them as part of their croft (such as another disposition by the landlord) or any adequate explanation by the applicants, the Commission have assumed that part of the croft remains tenanted.

The Commission have returned the application to the applicant’s agent as incompetent on the basis that it is not clear from the plans provided whether part of the occupied croft extent (as shown by the Crofting Commission plan approved by the applicants) still remains in tenancy and how much of the croft is owned.

It is possible then that the MacGillvrays’ could now fall into the ‘alien’ category previously highlighted on this blog and, if so, their status would be presently unknown, in the eyes of the Crofting Commission, for the purposes of decrofting. Thus a fresh application to decroft would not be considered by Crofting Commission until such time as they resolve what that status actually is. More about what the Crofting Commission are doing (or perhaps not doing) with regard to ‘alien’ status will be discussed in my next blog post.

Brian Inkster

What happened to the six non owner-occupier crofters?

1 Reply

The six who are not owner-occupier croftersAt the stage 1 debate on the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill on 6 June 2013 Paul Wheelhouse MSP, Minister for Environment and Climate Change (with responsibility for crofting), stated:-

“There was of course a question over what to do with… the 44 applications that are currently held in abeyance. The observant will have noticed that the figures have changed slightly from the earlier announcement in Parliament on 28 March—the number of outstanding applications has reduced from 50 to 44 as a result of checks undertaken by the Crofting Commission at our request, which have verified that six of the outstanding applications did not in fact relate to owner-occupier crofters.”

What pray did those applications relate to if not owner-occupier crofters? Aliens perhaps 😉 There is no explanation that I can find in the Stage 1 debate and no MSP enquired as to the fate of the six involved. So I made my own enquiries of the Scottish Government and was advised that these were, as I suspected, owner-occupiers who were not owner-occupier crofters.

Thus, whilst on the face of it, Paul Wheelhouse’s announcement looks like the decrofting problems of some have been reduced the fact of the matter is it may only be beginning. Those owner occupiers are likely to be owners of part of what is technically classed by the Crofting Commission as one croft unit. Thus, given the Crofting Commission’s recent policy (apparently based on legal advice which as usual remains top secret), decrofting applications will only be considered by the Crofting Commission if all the distinct owners of that croft unit concur in the application. That could happen in all six cases but it may only happen in some or indeed none. If the latter you then have six people who simply cannot decroft land that they own. The six are therefore potentially in a worse position than they would have been if classed as owner-occupier crofters with a resolution in sight, by virtue of the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, possibly as soon as the end of this month.

Thus this latest spin actually hides a problem that the Scottish Government is at the moment continually sidestepping. Whilst they have indicated an intention to tackle the numerous other problems that exist in crofting legislation this is one that certainly needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. Remember… crofting is not a perfect world.

Brian Inkster

[Photo Credit: Nature’s number 6 by David M. Goehring]

6 out of 10 to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee

1 Reply

Strictly Come Dancing 2012The Summary by the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee on their Stage 1 Report formed the last post on this blog. I will now give my views on that Report.

10 Points

The Committee get 10 points out of 10 from me for acknowledging “the considerable body of opinion, particularly from the legal profession, expressing the view that the Bill as drafted is unnecessarily complex and, in places, requires amendment in order to avoid further difficulties in legal interpretation in the future.” This is something that Paul Wheelhouse MSP has, so far, failed to recognise. In the evidence gathering session by the Committee on 22 May he said:-

…the legal team has worked extremely hard to ensure that the bill is consistent with the measures in respect of tenant crofters. There are different ways to draft a bill, but we are not aware of any defects at this stage.

Many potential defects had, by that stage, been identified in the submissions made by myself, Sir Crispin Agnew QC, Derek Flyn and others. Paul Wheelhouse MSP may be turning a blind eye to these but it is good to see that the Committee is not. Indeed, the Committee went as far as to state that:-

…it strongly recommends that the Scottish Government carefully considers any amendments which may be required to the Bill at Stage 2 to allow for full scrutiny (seeking information, evidence and advice on any legal issues as appropriate) to ensure that the Bill is clear and competent and does not add further complexity to an already complex body of legislation, or have the potential to give rise to further unintended consequences.

Let’s hope that the amendments that do need to be made are indeed made at Stage 2.

Another 10 points for the Committee for highlighting that other problems exist with crofting law that need to be fixed. As they said:-

The Committee notes the significant number of other outstanding issues relating to crofting many believe require to be addressed by the Scottish Government following the conclusion of consideration of this Bill by Parliament.

With the Committee going on to ask:-

… the Scottish Government to identify how it intends to address the other issues within crofting law which were brought to the Committee’s attention during its scrutiny of the Bill and to inform the Committee of how it intends to proceed. The Committee recommends that the Scottish Government indicates how it intends to address the wider criticisms that have been made, particularly by the legal profession, of the current state of crofting law as a whole.

I, as I am sure other crofting lawyers do, look forward to hearing what the Scottish Government will be doing about the general crofting law mess.

5 out of 10

The Committee, to give them their due, highlight my point about there being no place for new law in the Bill by quoting a section of my submissions on this point:-

The proposed new section 24C(2) to the 1993 Act appears to be new law in that I cannot see why the existing section 25(1)(b) cannot equally apply as it stands to owner-occupied crofts. There should be no place for new law in the Bill rather than a necessary fix of existing legislation. Any new law requires careful consideration and should not be rushed through as part of this particular legislative process. Thus I would submit that the proposed new section 24C(2) should be removed from the Bill.

They go on to state:-

…the Committee notes that a number of issues have been raised regarding the drafting of this section of the Bill, particularly with regard to the definition of a “decrofting direction”; the new section 24(C) which the Bill would insert into the 1993 Act; and the protecting of access to crofting land. The Committee recommends that the Scottish Government gives careful consideration to these specific issues ahead of Stage 2.

This is good. But a general declaration that the Scottish Government should not be creating new crofting law by virtue of the Bill but simply fixing the perceived ‘flaw’ created by the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 would have been better. Furthermore, I made the same point in my submissions about the proposed new section 24D(3) to the 1993 Act. However, that seems to have been overlooked by the Committee.

Nul Points

Nul points for RACCE CommitteeThe Committee fell down, in my eyes, in certain areas where they achieve ‘nul points’. A number of submissions had raised the spectre of problems with decrofting by owner-occupiers who are not “owner-occupier crofters”. The Committee, to give them their due, did highlight the issue but unfortunately did not recognise the real significance of it. They said:-

The definition of what legally constitutes an owner-occupier crofter, and issues facing multiple owners of distinct parts of the same croft, seem, from the evidence submitted, to be the most pressing. However, the Committee is of the view that this Bill is not the appropriate place to seek to address such issues, given the urgency of the current problem, and the expedited process that is being sought to try and rectify the situation as soon as possible.

I would suggest, as I have previously, that leaving 700 owner-occupiers who are not “owner-occupier crofters” in decrofting limbo is a significant issue and one that could and should have been dealt with in the current Bill. There is also the ‘alien owner-occupier‘ issue that came to light after the date for receipt of submissions had closed. Notwithstanding that fact it was still brought to the attention of Committee members but unfortunately they did not consider it in their Stage 1 Report.

The impact of putting off dealing with these issues may only become fully apparent when the current Bill is enacted and it becomes clear that decrofting is still being prevented in situations where it simply should not be. Will we see, sooner rather than later, a Crofting (Amendment No. 2) (Scotland) Bill to resolve the plight of the 700 owner-occupiers who are being discriminated against by virtue of the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill?

Overall Score

So with some 10 points, 5 points and ‘nul points’ I would, on balance, give the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee 6 out of 10 for their Stage 1 Report. They could have done better. However, no doubt they could have done worse.

Brian Inkster

[Picture Credits: Strictly Come Dancing © BBC (Photographer: Guy Levy) and Engelbert Humperdinck – Eurovision Song Contest 2012 © BBC]

Owners of croft land who are aliens to the Crofting Commission

6 Replies
Some owners of croft land are aliens to the Crofting Commission

We are consulting with Ripley as to your crofting status.

It came to my attention today that there is yet another situation where the Crofting Commission are not currently processing decrofting applications. This one appears to have received no publicity as yet and no policy statement has been issued on it by the Crofting Commission (I assume because they have still to actually formulate one).

The situation is as follows:-

  • A croft house and garden ground is purchased by the crofting tenant without being decrofted.
  • That crofting tenant becomes the owner-occupier of the croft house and garden ground and remains the tenant of the surrounding croft.
  • The now owner-occupier sells the croft house and garden ground onto Mr. A and remains the tenant of the surrounding croft.
  • Mr. A’s solicitor does not pick up on the fact that the croft house and garden ground has not been decrofted.
  • Mr. A, many years later,is in the process of selling the croft house and garden ground to Mr. B. Unfortunately for Mr. A it is picked up by Mr. B’s solicitor that there is no decrofting direction.

The solution to the problem is, of course, for Mr. A to apply to the Crofting Commission for a decrofting direction. He immediately does so but receives this response from the Crofting Commission:-

As the croft house site has not previously been removed from crofting tenure, it remains part of the croft [name of croft given].  Unfortunately, where a croft is partly owned and partly tenanted, as in this case, the status of the owner is currently unclear.  We have sought legal guidance on this matter and are unable at present to determine whether you are entitled to lodge a decrofting application.  We will provide you with an update as soon as this guidance has been obtained.

Incredible! First we had owner-occupiers of a historically ‘divided’ croft not being able to apply for decrofting directions without the consent and concurrence of other owner-occupiers of that croft. Then we had owner-occupier crofters not being able to apply to decroft full stop. Now we have owner-occupiers of croft houses surrounded by tenanted croft land who cannot apply to decroft because “the status of the owner is currently unclear”. Where will this end? The Crofting Law Hydra is certainly in full flight and gaining heads by every turn.

The Scottish Government must seriously question what is going on at Great Glen House. The Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, as currently drafted, is clearly seriously deficient in dealing with the decrofting problems that are emerging by the day. The last post on this blog suggested that the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 is a mess. There would appear to be no doubt about that given the constant desire by the Crofting Commission to reinterpret it.

Brian Inkster

[Picture Credit: Alien – 20th Century Fox]