Deputy Taylor accuses P&R of being drawn into a cover-up

Policy & Resources claimed this summer that a portion of Maison de la Guerre, the family’s home, was included in the 2019 sale of the fort only after the States received ‘formal assurances’ that neighbouring landowners were happy to deal with any boundary disputes between themselves once the fort was sold.

Deputy Andrew Taylor, who has repeatedly challenged P&R’s version of events, yesterday accused the senior committee of being drawn into a cover-up.

‘If I had been told initially that the conveyance of the fort on a 1922 map had been a genuine administrative error, I could have accepted that, but it is now looking increasingly likely that something is being covered up,’ said Deputy Taylor.

‘The media release from P&R in July was clear in its message, and when challenged during a States meeting in September Deputy Trott stood firm, utterly refuting my allegation that P&R’s claims were inaccurate and misleading. Prior to the submission of my latest question, I was of the view that P&R members had themselves been misled, but I am now doubting that position.’

The sale of the fort, at a knockdown price of £1m., was based on a boundary which States officials had accepted for years was inaccurate and needed to be redrawn, after agreeing that the Allez family had rightful ownership of the former German bunker which had become their home.

The Allez family has consistently maintained that nothing they said or did could have given the impression that they were happy for the States to sell the fort, and part of their home, without first sorting out the boundary problems.

In its reply to Deputy Taylor’s Rule 14 written question, published yesterday, P&R confirmed that it had no ‘formal assurances’ from the Allez family, but defended its previous statements on the issue.

‘It was not intended, through the media release of 26 July, to imply that the Allez family had supplied formal assurances to the States. No such assurances had been received,’ said P&R president Lyndon Trott.

‘Rather, the release sought to explain that, following considerable efforts to facilitate an exchange with all parties prior to the sale of land, the States believed it would be possible for the adjoining landowners to agree any boundary exchanges to suit their specific requirements following completion.’

The Allez family recently won their years-long battle to secure clear title of their home, but only after racking up huge legal bills and enduring concerns that they could lose it.

They felt particularly let down after the States allegedly reneged on a land deal made in 2013. The States ended up with clear ownership of a key part of the access track to Fort Richmond, but the other half of the deal, which was meant to give the family secure ownership of their home, was never completed.

‘Quite how the States envisaged boundary negotiations following the sale of the fort is simply beyond me,’ said Deputy Taylor. ‘If the States genuinely believed negotiations were best without the States’ involvement, why wasn’t the vehicle access conveyed back to Mr Allez instead of leaving him to fight with his arms tied behind his back? It appears to me that there is a desire to portray the Allez family as having frustrated negotiations to the point that an agreement could not be reached with the States, but this could not be further from the truth.’

In its latest Rule 14 reply, P&R insisted that all parties had legal representation during the boundary discussions and said the States ‘covered a significant proportion of the legal costs’ incurred by the Allez family at that time.

‘While an agreement could not be achieved prior to the completion [of the sale of the fort], the sale was concluded with boundaries clearly conveyed and understood by the legal representatives of the parties,’ said Deputy Trott.