West Myerton Residents | West Myerton Estate

Latest news...

The playpark of Rowan Crescent is now for sale by Future Property Auctions for £10,000. I bet Greenbelt fail to inform future owners that there is an obligation to maintain this land as a public open space the intent is quite clear but misleading where Greenbelt indicate the play equipment cand be removed by a future owner.

Council Planning have been informed.

Greenbelt tried to disrupt a sale of a property on the West Myerton estate by placing a Notce of Potential Liability on the property. While this cant stop the sale of your property it can put off potential buyers.

This was challenged and then removed by the Registers of Scotland on highlighting the court case.

If you are in a similar position you have the right to challenge the NOPL with the ROS.

Greenbelts childish behaviour...

Greenbelt Group has built a wall of Heras fencing on our estate and has shut off a play park and a public right of way. The council is currently investigating this as it is a breach of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.

Greenbelt are claiming they have closed it due to antisocial behavior yet no one has been on the park in 3 weeks and NOTHING has been reported to the police.

There is NO factual evidence to support Greenbelts claim.

Greenbelt have admited to a resident there has been no anti social behaviour

Here's Greenbelt Group's explanation...

COURT SUMMONS

It appears some residents have received a court summons from Greenbelt for non payment under the guise that you signed a contract.

When you purchased you home, your solicitor would have signed the deeds which contains the maintenenace burden that links residents to Greenbelt. This is the ONLY LEGAL agreement there is. AS WE UNDERSTAND IT THE BURDEN IS THE ONLY CONTRACT - AND AS THE COURT CASE SHOWS THIS BURDEN IS FAULTY AND UNENFORCEABLE AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN AS IT HAS BEEN SET UP INCORRECTLY - AND IF GREENBELT GROUP ARGUES ANY KIND OF OTHER CONTRACT IS IN PLACE, YOU CAN ARGUE THAT THIS CONTRACT IS UNFAIR AND IS THEREFORE UNENFORCEABLE UNDER THE UNFAIR TERMS IN CONSUMER CONTRACTS REGULATIONS 1999

If you wish to defend then here is what to do.

1. As we understand it, the only legal contract binding residents to Greenbelt is the burden in your title deeds. A court of law has deemed those burdens INVALID AND UNENFORCEABLE. Download a copy of the judgement and submit this as your defence, as this applies to every household at Menstrie.

2. The Registers of Scotland have been rectifying everyones deeds in line with the judgement, I am not sure if this is complete yet but it would be worth getting a copy of your deeds from Registers of Scotland, and if they have been rectified then there will be an update included stating these burdens have been found invalid and unenforceable.

3. Debt is time barred. That means debt which is 5 years old and over cannot be legally collected. Greenbelt are submitting a total figure to the court with no intication of how old the debt is.

IMPORTANT INFORMATION.

Due to the success of our court case the Registers of Scotland is in the process of rectifying the title deeds of every houshold on our estate i.e. removing our obligation to pay Greenbelt Group. Section D26 Note 2 states the burdens are NOT VALID REAL BURDENS AND ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE REAL BURDENS.

Despite Greenbelt's claim that only a small minority supported the test case, a total of 251 housholds signed a petition supporting the removal of Greenbelt Group.

AS OF TODAY 23-08-2016 GREENBELT HAS SAID IT WILL NO LONGER MAINTAIN THE ESTATE DESPITE THE FACT THAT ITS OBLIGATION TO MAINTAIN ITS OWN LAND IS STILL WITHIN ITS DEEDS AND ARE ENSHRINED IN THE UNDERLYING PLANNING PERMISSIONS.

We are now left with a situation which demonstrates the UNSUSTAINABILITY of the land-owning land maintenance model. As soon as the burdens are deemed unenforceable in a single set of deeds, the whole arrangement collapses and we have no power to appoint another provider.

As shown on our estate, Greenbelt still owns the land and residents have no power or say in appointing anyone else without permission and approval from Greenbelt. This clearly reminds me of a popular board game.

In our case, the land owning land maintenance model PUT IN PLACE BY THE DEVELOPER was not sustainable and fit for purpose as a long-term way of maintaining the open spaces on our estate.

I will be speaking to the planning department and suggesting this goes back to planning as the situation the developer has put us in has FAILED.

I would suggest other people contact local Counsellors, MSPs and MPs as well.

Mr Middleton continues to bombard me with unwanted emails at both my personal and work accounts. Evidence is being collected to submit to the Police.

This website will continue as an information only site. However another person in England is taking over from where we have left off so please support them if you wish.

www.homeownersrights.net

We are an estate of 300 homes. Due to a situation where we had minimal and shoddy work being carried out and spiralling bills, we raised a petition to remove Greenbelt as was our right under the TCSA 2003. We got 251 signatures all wanting to remove Greenbelt.

Greenbelt chose to ignore the wishes of residents and stated we could not remove them, so we took it through the courts AND WON.

Reasons for this ruling was THE OPEN SPACES WERE NOT CLEARLY DEFINED WITHIN THE DEEDS. Just sending a plan with vague details in is NOT good enough as ALL the information must be contained within the deeds at the point of sale.

Our case judged the burdens/contract on our estate invalid but suprise suprise Greenbelt now says there is a contract in addition to the burden. The burden IS the contract and the burden has been extinguished (voided / cancelled) for every home of the estate as it was not set up correctly and was therefore invalid. Furthermore, a contract must be fair - and if it doesn't contain the right information, it can't be fair can it? Just like our former burdens. Stands to reason.

SaveSave