Lawyer denies States informed him of Fort Richmond land deal

Policy & Resources has insisted that the Allez family was legally represented when a portion of their home was sold by the States, together with the neighbouring fort, at a knockdown price of £1m. five years ago.

However, a letter written only last week by the advocate who was the Allez family’s lawyer at that time, and subsequently seen by the Guernsey Press, categorically denied that the States informed him of the property deal before or after it was completed in June 2019.

‘Having reviewed our files, we have no email correspondence relating to the period up to and including 6 June 2019 from the States or the Law Officers of the Crown informing us that the sale of Fort Richmond had completed on 6 June 2019,’ he said.

‘Further, I have no recollection, and there is nothing on file to indicate, that I was informed prior to completion that the sale would complete on 6 June 2019. If we had been informed, we would have called Mr Allez to inform him.’

The family’s current lawyer has asked the States to explain its allegedly misleading claim, which has been made on more than one occasion, including last month when P&R replied to Rule 14 questions submitted by Andrew Taylor.

The new evidence could force another climbdown from P&R, just weeks after it had to backtrack on earlier claims that the States sold the fort and part of the Allez family’s home only after receiving ‘formal assurances’ that the neighbouring landowners were happy to deal with any subsequent boundary disputes between themselves.

Deputy Taylor accused the senior committee of gradually being drawn into a cover-up when it finally admitted that no such assurances had been received from the Allez family.

P&R has now rejected another request from the family to be reimbursed of tens of thousands of pounds they were forced to spend before they recently secured ownership of their home, Maison de la Guerre, a former German bunker, after the States sold part of it using a map from 1922. The States has accepted for decades that the boundaries needed to be redrawn to show that George Allez, now 83, had rightful ownership of the whole of the property.

The family would pursue a claim for compensation for damages, as well as legal costs, only if the matter reaches the courts, although the States is understood to be untroubled by the possibility of facing a court case.

The Guernsey Press learned yesterday that a wealthy benefactor, outraged by the States’ actions, has offered to bankroll the family’s legal costs to encourage them to take their case to court.

Meanwhile, Deputy Taylor has submitted another round of Rule 14 written questions to P&R. He said he hoped the replies, which are due next week, would extract more information about the assurances P&R claims were received ahead of the sale of the fort.

‘I hope to establish what assurances, if any, the States relied upon, and at what level the assurances were considered,’ said Deputy Taylor.

‘Having been granted additional time to respond to my last questions, it is impossible to conceive that P&R might seek to backtrack again.

‘However, the latest confirmation from the Allez family’s advocate at the time of the property deal casts further doubt on the position taken by P&R, which is deeply concerning.’