Chancel Repair Liability

[pommymike]

The e-petition on the 10 Downing Street web site has now closed, and it will be interesting to see what response it gets from the Prime Minister.

 

Incidentally the ChancelCheck search is not run by the Church.

 

ChancelCheck searches do not reveal liability based on old enclosure awards (when the church was awarded common land as glebe in return for giving up collecting tithes from the farming community of the parish).

 

ChancelCheck only reveals liability established by the Tithe Redemption Commission in 1936 (when tithe rentcharges were converted to tithe redemption annuities by the Tithe Act 1936).

 

The Church Commissioners were in some cases given Treasury stock as compensation for the extinguishment of tithe rentcharges and the chancel repair liability was then transferred to the Parochial Church Council of the parish.

 

Chancel repair liability is quite rare and it is practically never enforced.

 

Generally it only applies where the land was common land enclosed as glebe land (usually in the 1700s or 1800s), in lieu of tithes (as happened in Aston Cantlow) or in 1936 the tithe rentcharges were owned by the same person as owned the land out of which they were payable. The tithe rentcharges were not necessarily payable to the Church but to "lay rectors" or "improprietors" who had purchased them after the dissolution of the monasteries in the time of Henry VIII.

 

I have seen examples of tithe maps which are very inaccurate and the fields have all been built over so the field boundaries have disappeared. There are odd fields dotted about the parish which were supposedly "tithe fields" and subject to chancel repair liability but whether any particular house is affected is often impossible to ascertain due to the inaccuracy of the maps.

 

No one realistically has an obligation to register a liability against their own property on the basis of such inaccurate information.

 

A full chancel repair search does not necessarily reveal whether liability exists, but only the researcher's guess at what the maps show.

 

If the Church were to try to enforce liabilities there would be strong arguments that the rights have been lost through the neglect to claim, for many years, under the Limitation Act.

 

Also some members of the House of Lords indicated that the case of Wickhambrook PCC v Croxford (High Court - Kings Bench Division Vol 2 page 417 of 1935) was probably wrongly decided. In this case it was decided that the ladies who collected the tithe rentcharges had not received enough money to cover the liability, but were nevertheless liable for the chancel repairs.

 

Under the Chancel Repairs Act 1932 the Court had to decide whether they would have been "liable to be admonished" by an Ecclesiastical Court for being contumeleous in refusing to do their religious duty as lay rectors of repairing the chancel.

 

The Ecclesiastical Court would never have admonished someone who had received no tithes at all, and was never even entitled to collect tithes.

So the correct decision would have been that they were not "liable to be admonished."

 

The House of Lords could declare Wickhambrook wrongly decided and this would be effective to abolish chancel repair liability, except for the liability of the Church Commissioners and certain colleges, cathedrals etc, which chose in 1936 to receive Government stock in lieu of tithe rentcharges and to retain the liability.

[pommymike]

JonCris you may be right but I don't think anyone really knows. There seems to be a news blackout on this and the information on the Church website is years out of date.

 

I can't say it's not happening but I have never heard of anyone who actually has had this registered against them at the Land Registry (yet).

 

I think the first time this actually happens and the Church stops people selling their property there will be even more of an outcry.

 

While there are only rumours that the Church is employing people to register claims etc, probably most people will still not quite believe it will ever happen to them.

 

I think the plan in the mind of the William Fittal, Secretary General of the General Synod must be to try to force the Government to pay the Church compensation for abolishing it, or at least to stop reducing grants from English Heritage because there is a poor devil who is supposed to pay.

 

I don't think the Government will ever pay compensation but it should tell English Heritage to ignore the liability (no longer to stop repair grants because of it) and this would then remove the need for the Church to make claims and it would then be possible for Mr William Fittal to save face and agree to abolition. It is Mr Fittal who has been stopping the Synod abolishing it even though bishops such as the Bishops of Rochester and Coventry are not against abolition.

 

I think anyone like me who feels that Chancel Repair Liability is a cruel extortionate medieval tax that should have been abolished along with bear bating and the pillory should write to their MPs and perhaps something will be done. At the moment I don't think many MPs are even aware of this issue.

 

If Parliament won't act there is plenty of scope for the lawyers to challenge this medieval tax in Court and I for one would be delighted to have the opportunity of doing so.

[pommymike]

The Land Registry Practice Guide 66 : http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/assets/library/documents/lrpg066.pdf

states that the Land Registry may either register a "unilateral notice" without evidence of the liability or an "agreed notice" with evidence filed.

In either case notice of the application will be given to the registered proprietor. If it is a unilateral notice the registered proprietor can have it cancelled as of right. If it is an "agreed notice" which only means the Registrar has agreed it seems right, he can apply for cancellation.

The Land Registry Guide accepts as others have pointed out that a "right in respect of the repair of a church chancel" is not an interest in land (and therefore the Land Registry has no right to register it as such.)

It is a personal claim against a lay rector for breach of a religous duty and not a claim against his property.

[pommymike]

I don't know that Church House in Westminster (i.e. the National Institutions of the Church) are employing people to do registrations but they are employing lawyers to give advice to Dioceses. They intend to leave it to Dioceses and Parishes to take advice from local lawyers about whether actually to apply to register the rights they may try to claim. They have a Legal Advisory Commission which has accepted that PCCs can "take into account non-financial matters, including the church's mission in the parish, subject to obtaining advice and provided they act in the best interests of the charity."

 

This advice is rightly playing down the erroneous idea that members of PCCs have "fiduciary duty" to enforce all its financial claims. They must of course taken into account the disproportionate cost in many cases of employing lawyers to attempt registrations which would be disputed and lead to bad feeling and clearly run counter to the religion's ethical teaching, i.e. "love thy neighbour" (apart from the adverse publicity for the church's legal advisors).

 

There is a suggestion that the Charity Commission would need to approve any decision not to register or enforce claims, which I don't believe to be correct - the Charity Commission does not nowadays in practice interfere in the financial affairs of Church of England and there is no mention at all of the Church on its web site.

 

In the distant past it was otherwise. In an 1899 case In Re the Alms Corn Charity: Charity Commissioners v Bode and another [Chancery Division 1899 A 1422] the Charity Commissioners brought an action against Jane Bode under the Charitable Trusts (Recovery) Act 1891. Ms Bode had purchased 278 acres from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. There was evidence that since time immemorial the Rector of the Parish had made an annual payment of corn for the poor of the Parish. This custom was regarded as a legally enforceable charitable obligation. Mr Justice Stirling commented that it was much like chancel repair liability.

 

This was not disclosed by the Church at the time of the sale which was stated to be "free from incumbrances", but the conveyancers included the phrase "subject to all tithe rentcharge, and other payments and outgoings charged upon or payable out of the lands conveyed".

 

The buyer was deemed to know about it because of a tablet in the Parish Church which mentioned that these "corn payments" were made out of the great tithes of the Parish. The Rector later had the land allocated to him in lieu of tithe under the Inclosure Acts.

 

This case shows how biased the Courts were in favour of established institutions and against the individual. This is no longer the case and I think a challenge to any claim would be far more likely to succeed and the Human Rights aspects have still not be fully explored.

 

There is a new book by John Burgess published by Word Power Books - "Chancel Repair Liability: The Church of England and the Strang Case of the PCC of Aston Cantlow v Wallbank : A Continuing Crisis for the Church of England?" - which I have read and would recommend.

[pommymike]

You might be interested in a report of the Pastoral Committee of the Church of England :

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/churchcommissioners/pastoral/pastcom/reporttoboard.doc

This shows that in 2006 the Church Commissioners who are responsible for chancel repairs to about 1000 churches only spent about £400 per church during the year on chancel repairs.

If you have chancel repair liability the chances are that it has been apportioned so that you are only liable for a small percentage and it is unlikely that anyone in the church would want to bother you over it.

Probably the chancel does not need repairing anyway.

[pommymike]

I suggest you look at the chancel check website:

Welcome to ChancelCheck®

I think they will allow you to take out the insurance if you register with them. It does not matter that you have already bought the property, as long as you have not done a full chancel repair search (of the National Archive Records of Ascertainments). They will also do a screening search to check whether your property falls in a tithe district in which there is potential chancel repair liability.

 

The normal practice is not to take out the insurance if that screening search produces a negative result. However the screening search will not reveal whether there is an Enclosure Award which alloted land to a rector in lieu of tithe, as happened in the Aston Cantlow case.

 

The type of liability revealed by the screening search is where a claim could be made by the Church under section 31 of the Tithe Act 1936 because the tithe owner who was liable for chancel repairs acquired land out of which tithe rentcharges were payable before they were extinguished as a result of the 1936 Act. The tithe rentcharges are said to have "merged" in the land.

 

It is possible to obtain from the National Archives on a DVD a copy of the Record of Ascertainments for your parish if there is one, and it will describe the land affected by reference to the field numbers. TNA will also supply on DVD copies of any revised tithe apportionments and if there is an M with a number opposite it means the tithe rentcharges merged in the land referred to so that it is affected by chancel repair liability. You can obtain on DVD a copy of the tithe maps and revised tithe apportionment maps for your parish. Not all parishes had tithes and those with parish churches whose incumbants were rectors were relieved of liability by the Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Measure 1923.

 

Of course in respect of most of the land out of which tithe rentcharges were payable the diocese received compensation for the extinguishment of the rentcharges and the liability passed to the PCC. It is only where the tithe owner also owned the land out of which the tithe rentcharges were payable that the liability came to affect the land itself.

 

The reason for this was that the tithe owner did not have to pay the tithe rentcharges to himself so he instead had to pay the same amount to the church for chancel repairs if required. The tithe rentcharges are mostly very small amounts, like a pound or two each year, for several acres of land.

 

What the church lawyers don't accept but it is clear from reading the actual statutes, the liability cannot be more than the amount of the tithe rentcharge. However it is not stated how many years tithe rentcharge you have to save up or how this would work in practice. This is because there is no case at all on the subject - i.e. no case since 1936 where a claim has been made by the Church under section 31 of the Tithe Act 1936 which has been disputed in Court.

 

Perhaps this gives you a better idea of the level of risk in not taking out this insurance.

 

YOu can read the legislation yourself in the Statute Law Database Home - Statute Law Database

 

Look at the Tithe Act 1936 section 31 which refers to section 1 of the Tithe Act 1839, and section 21 of the 1936 Act (which was actually repealed in 2004 by the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 2004 on the advice of the Law Commission). Section 1 of the 1839 Act refers to the "extent of the said tithe or rentcharge" which is the crucial phrase often overlooked and disregarded.

[pommymike]

I would try Google and search with the name of your County and Inclosure Awards or Enclosure Awards, try both spellings. This would reveal whether there are Enclosure Awards in your County.

 

If Common Land has been built on this may be because it ceased to be Common Land when an Enclosure Award was made.

 

Tithes could have been payable out of the Common Land until the Inclosure Commissioners awarded it to the lay rector (the person who collected the tithes) in lieu of tithe.

 

After that the income from corn, rents or whatever received from land allotted in lieu of tithe was supposed to be used by the lay rector to pay for the chancel repairs.

 

Enclosure Awards can be looked at in the County Archives at your County Council Offices or may be available on Archeological Societies' websites, or copies obtained from the National Archives.

[pommymike]

In reply to Stuart's posting of 17 May, the 92 acres of glebe (and one rood - quarter of an acre) could be subject to chancel repair liability.

The tithes were commuted to an annual payment of £520 means they were converted into a tithe rentcharge - a fixed amount rather than one based on the value of each year's crop of corn. The Tithe Acts 1836 and 1839 provided for tithes to be converted into rentcharges throughout England and Wales.

James Derriman in his book explains the different types of glebe and the history from which it is clear that most former glebe land was sold by a clergyman who was relieved of liability by the 1923 or 1976 Measures, so there is no liability.

As the law is so uncertain, no-one can be expected to declare that your land is subject to liability.

If there is liability under section 31 of the Tithe Act 1936 because tithe rentcharges merged in the land out of which they were payable, the Land Registry will, if requested, note on the register the apportioned amount of the tithe rentcharge which was payable out of the land (as the chancel repair liability is limited to that amount).

(Patrick Milne of the Land Registry headquarters has confirmed this to me). Hopefully this should then mean the registration has no effect on your property value, as it is like any other very small rentcharge - insignficant.

[pommymike]

After 12 October 2013 chancel repair liability will no longer be an overriding interest, which will mean it will not affect a buyer if it is not registered by that date. Chancel repair liability will still be capable of being registered against your title and it will affect you if you purchased before 13 October 2013. However I presume the Land Registry will cancel the entry when the property is sold after 12 October 2013 if the entry was not made before 13 October 2013.

[pommymike]

As I think has been mentioned before in other similar threads, the insurers do not not pay out if your property loses value because a notice of chancel repair liability is registered at the Land Registry. They only have to pay out if the church actually claims money needed for chancel repairs. However in that situation I would expect the insurers to try to compound the liability - under paragraph 52 of the Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Measure 1923 - to agree a final capital payment to discharge the liability in full and for ever, so that the notice can be cancelled. This is because once the PCC actually claims money, the insurers have to pay out for the loss of capital value as well as the cost of repairs for which you become liable.

 

As I have said before in various postings, no one seems to know of any actual claims made against individuals, apart from Andrew and Gail Wallbank. I know there are cathedrals and colleges which received compensation stock as they agreed to accept the continuing liability in 1936, when the tithe rentcharges were extinguished, instead of agreeing to the compensation stock being passed to the diocesan boards of finance, and they are regularly paying for repairs out of the funds allotted to them by the Government. Enquiries made by Mr Dennis Cameron, a Vice President of the Law Society, as he stated in a lecture, revealed that only 46 properties in England had notices of CRL registered against them, and that was last year, 5 years after it became possible to register the notices. The official guidance from Church House says that PCCs do not have to register claims if they think there are pastoral reasons not to do so, which obviously is the case and it is why they are not doing so. The Legal Office of the Church wrote to me to say that they intended do look at CRL in 2013 and decide what to do about it. As it is likely that there will be very few registrations, it is almost bound to conclude that the Church should legislate itself to relieve lay rectors of any further liability since this is a law which is clearly obsolete and unworkable.

 

In addition, section 21 of the Tithe Act 1936, which contains the crucial definition of the (extinguished) tithe rentcharges giving rise to liability, was repealed as "spent" in 2004 on the advice of the Law Commission.

 

This was either a diabolical liberty, or a blessing in disguise, depending on your view. It does mean that there is a defence to any claim based on merger of tithe rentcharges as section 31 of the Act can only operate by reference to the now repealed section 21. After a section has been repealed, it can no longer be read though it were still part of the Act.

[pommymike]

Everywhere in England and Wales is in an ancient parish, and every parish had a pre-reformation church. Later parishes were subdivided and some of the ancient parish churches no longer exist, but you cannot assume that because you are now living in a parish where there is a modern church, you are not in the ancient parish of a pre-reformation church. If you solicitor does a chancel check search this will reveal whether the house is in an ancient parish or tithe district where there is potential chancel repair liability. It is true that the post-reformation churches are not entitled to claim for chancel repairs. This is because it was at the reformation that Henry VIII dissolved the monasteries and sold off their rectories (including the right to collect tithes) to lay rectors. If the original church of your ancient parish has been demolished, there is no problem.

[pommymike]

It is very likely however that if you have a full search you will find there is no liability. This is because the land affected is generally only the land which was owned by the lay rector who received the tithes from the rest of the parish, out of which the lay rector would have had to pay tithes if he had not been the lay rector (i.e. the person to whom the tithes were paid). The tithes on all the other land ended in 1936 when compensation was paid by the Government to compensate the tithe rentcharge owners (lay rectors) for the extinguishment of tithe rentcharges, and most of which ("the sum required for repairs") was paid to the Diocesan Boards of Finance on behalf of the Parochial Church Councils. Liability therefore passed to the Parochial Church Councils. Normally the rectorial land e.g. the church land, would not have been tithed so it was only if the lay rector happened to own some other land that the liability is continued to the extent of the tithe rentcharges payable out of it (i.e. probably less than £1 per year).

Because the sums involved as so small, apart from one case (Aston Cantlow) there is no report of any case where a individual has been sued since 1936 for chancel repair liability. There was a case in the 1950s concerning the Chivers Company v the Air Ministry. That concerned a liability originally of a Cambridge College which would have received compensation stock equal in value to the "sum required for repairs". No individual was involved. No one has argued in such a case that there is no longer any custom for the lay rector to repair the chancel - an argument which would be likely to succeed except in unusual cases similar to Chivers v Air Ministry and Aston Cantlow v Wallbank where substantial rectorial land or compensation stock was available to the defendant or his predecessors. Chancel repair liability relies on the ancient custom which in practical terms generally no longer exists. That is why many people think that the chancel repair insurance industry is a bit of a [problem].

[pommymike]

I am currently selling my house and the buyers solicitor performed a search which indicated that our house may be liable for chancel repair. However the local church to which it refers is no longer a CofE church as it fell into disrepair and is now owned by the historical chapels trust which is a charitable trust. So I am a little confused as to whether we would be liable or not?

James Derriman in his book, page 41 states "The Pastoral Measure 1983 states that 'on a declaration of redundancy taking effect, any liability of a PCC or rector (including a lay rector) for the repair and maintenance of the redundant building shall cease'. (Halsbury Statutes Vol 14 p 1030). So there is no Chancel Repair Liability for redundant churches.

[pommymike]

pelham 9,

You are right about the 10 year transitional period being under the Land Registration Act 2002 (Transitional Provisions) Order 2003 and not the direct result of anything said by the Law Lords in June 2003. The new Land Registration Act had then already been passed, omitting chancel repair liability as an overriding interest (because the Court of Appeal had said it was against the Human Rights Act for the church, as a hybrid public body, to charge an unfair tax). The effect of the new Act, would therefore have been that any chancel repair liability not protected by a notice at the Land Registry (or caution against first registration) against the title of the lay rector, would be postponed in favour of any buyer i.e. would not affect the buyer who purchased after the new Land Registration Act was brought into operation i.e. 13 October 2003. The effect of the Order is to postpone this until 13 October 2013 to give the Churches a chance to register their interests.

This would apply whether or not the chancel repair liability was mentioned in the title deeds. Existing owners will only be liable (whether or not a notice is registered against their title, and whether or not the liability is mentioned in their deeds) until they sell the property. They will only remain liable afterwards if they were served with a notice of claim by the PCC under the Chancel Repairs Act 1932, before completion of the sale. E.g. if at the time when they are about to sell, the Church finds that the chancel of the church building needs £1,000 spent on it, that will be the amount stated in the notice and they will not be liable for anything further. Of course the lay rector may not be liable for the full amount, as the Record of Ascertainments for the Parish made by the Tithe Redemption Commissioners in 1936 may include more than one Declaration of Merger, so there may be several lay rectors between whom the liability is apportioned, and if the lay rector only owns part of the land in respect of which the Declaration of Merger was made, he will be entitled to claim a contribution from the other owners of that land.

Future owners will only be liable if a notice was registered against their title when they purchased. As regards liability based on Enclosure Awards, in the Aston Cantlow case the actual Enclosure Award could not be produced, and Mr and Mrs Wallbank's lawyers should have argued more strongly that it was for the claimant PCC to prove strictly the contents of the Enclosure Award, as being admonished for failure to do your duty as lay rector by the Consistory Court was a quasi-criminal matter (you could be sent to prison for contempt of court if you failed to pay as happened in Hauxton PCC v Stevens in 1929). The mere fact that chancel repair liability was mentioned in the deeds should not have been regarded as sufficient, as it may not have been correct.

[pommymike]

The question of the extent of the repairing liability was considered by Mr Justice Lewison in PCC of Aston Cantlow v Wallbank, and he decided it was more than to keep the chancel wind- and water-tight, but it is only the fabric of the building that the lay rector is responsible for, not any furnishings or ornamentation. Of course if you are liable, only because of some tithe rentcharges having once been paid to a former owner of your property, the courts should interpret the Chancel Repairs Act 1932 in a way which takes into account the historical development of the law. This would mean that a lay rector whose predecessors were entitled to receive only a small proportion of the tithes of the parish, would only be liable for a similarly small proportion of the liability in respect of the parish church. I have tried to expound this argument in a paper which I submitted to the Law Commission and Ministry of Justice: http://tinyurl.com/6yug986, and discuss on my blog http://michaeljameshall.wordpress.com. The Justice Minister responsible Jonathan Djanogly has not accepted the need for any legislation. The liability does not relate to the tower or the nave of the church, only the chancel. The parochial church council is responsible for the rest of the church.

[pommymike]

George

Normally a chancel repair liability insurance policy does not cover diminution in value, only any actual payments which are required to be made to repair the chancel. You might receive a notice from the PCC under the Chancel Repairs Act 1932 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/22-23/20/section/2

You would then have the option (if your solicitor so advised) of refusing to pay and waiting for a county court claim form to be served on you by the PCC, and fighting the case in the county court. Such a notice can only be served if the chancel is in disrepair. If the liability is based on a tithe rentcharge merged in the land, you are only liable for a proportion of the cost of repair relative to the proportion of tithes of the parish which was payable out of the tithe field of which your property is part. See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5and1Edw8/26/43/schedule/SEVENTH (the Seventh Schedule of the Tithe Act 1936).

There has been no such case in the county court under the Tithe Act 1936 ever. The only two cases since 1936 have been in respect of liability said to arise from enclosure awards (land allotted to a lay rector in lieu of tithe).

In neither case was any attempt made to argue that there was no longer the custom for a lay rector to be required to repair the chancel. If you have chancel repair liability insurance it will be for your insurers to decide whether to contest the case or pay up (unless you are prepared to accept that the insurers avoid liability) so you may not have the pleasure of fighting the case. If you receive a notice from the Land Registry to say that the PCC has applied to register a notice of chancel repair liability against your title, you can object and if your objection is not deemed to be groundless the matter will be referred to the Adjudicator to HM Land Registry.

Though at the moment (until 13 October 2013) it is not necessary for CRL to be registered at Land Registry in order to be enforceable. If you buy after that date and it is not registered when you buy, your interest will have priority (it will not override your interest). That would be interesting as no such case has yet been referred. I have argued in my blog mentioned in the previous post that the statutory order allowing registration is invalid as it was beyond the powers of the Lord Chancellor to create interests in land and that CRL is not an interest in land. The relevant Land Registry practice guide http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/professional/guides/practice-guide-66 recognises that doubts have arisen whether CRL is an interest in land. Only interests in land can properly be registered at the Land Registry.

If I were you I would scrutinise your solicitors' advice and the search results to find out whether CRL actually applies, check what type it is and whether there is any record in the parish of a lay rector actually having been charged (this is very rare) not worry too much if the results of your enquiries are satisfactory, and not let this put you off buying the house you want. As happened in Broadway it is possible that the PCC will back off as the Charity Commission may accept that it is reasonable for the PCC not to register or enforce CRL. There is also the possibility of legislation to reform or abolish CRL if enough people write to their MPs about it.

[pommymike]

Bikemedic

I am surprised about the letter you mention as solicitors would not normally write letters to people worrying them unnecessarily, without their services having been retained, to act for anyone. Is this a genuine solicitors' letter? Who are they acting for? I don' think they would not get a commission on a chancel check search and even if they did it would not cover the cost of sending out batches of letters on spec. The Wallbank case was a one off. There has been no other reported case in which the church has actually sued anyone for chancel repair liability in the past 50 years. That is not to say it hasn't happened, only there is a lack of law reports of actual court cases.

[pommymike]

Now that we are approaching the all important 12 October deadline date, could someone please confirm: If my chancel check shows a potential liability and if I exchange contracts after 12 October (and probably complete one month after that time) AND if there is nothing showing on the land registry document at the point of completion, does taking out chancel liability insurance serve any purpose at all still?

It was the intention of the Parliament when it passed the Land Registration Act 2002 that chancel repair liability would continue to be regarded as an unfair tax and contrary to Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights (which was what the Court of Appeal decided in the Aston Cantlow PCC v Wallbank). However shortly afterwards the House of Lords judicial committee reversed that decision and so the Lord Chancellor amended the Land Registration Act by a statutory order (known by the snappy title the Land Registration Act 2002 (Transitional Provisions) (No 2) Order 2003) making chancel repair liaility an overriding interest for ten years until 12 October 2013. The assumption has been made by many that chancel repair will not affect a buyer if it is not registered at the Land Registry before the transfer to the buyer (and your solicitor will do a search which will give priority over any application made after completion but before the transfer is lodged). There is doubt about this as interests in land are not defined in the Act - and chancel repair liability is arguably beyond the scope of registration as section 2 of the Act says that only interests affecting land may be registered. What interests affect land? Interests affecting land do. It is a circular argument. Chancel repair liability actually affects the owner of land but not the property itself. It is not a charge on the land. I would therefore recommend that insurance is still obtained. The Law Commission is considering whether to include land registration in its 12th review of the law. There are many ambiguities in this poorly written law and I think this is certainly one.