P&R asked to reimburse family £80,000 of costs
A FAMILY have asked Policy & Resources to reimburse tens of thousands of pounds they were forced to spend to secure ownership of their home after the States sold part of it without telling them.
A portion of Maison de la Guerre, a former German bunker, was included in the sale of Fort Richmond five years ago, using a map from 1922, despite the States accepting for decades that the boundaries needed to be redrawn to show that the Allez family had rightful ownership of the whole of the property.
The family’s lawyer has received no substantive reply to a letter sent to P&R in the middle of September, and seen by the Guernsey Press, which has requested reimbursement of about £80,000 towards the family’s costs of recently securing clear title to their home.
Deputy Andrew Taylor, who has been assisting the Allez family in recent months, urged P&R to deal with a problem created by the States.
‘It is disappointing to hear once again that P&R has failed to respond to the Allez family in a timely manner,’ he said.
‘I am sure the committee would like this matter simply to go away, but the actions of the States have been completely unacceptable and P&R needs to recognise this properly.’
Earlier this week, P&R finally admitted that the States had no assurance from the Allez family before including their home in the sale of the fort, having previously claimed to have received ‘formal assurances’ that neighbouring landowners were happy to deal with any boundary disputes between themselves once the fort was sold.
That admission prompted Deputy Taylor to accuse P&R of being drawn into a cover-up.
The mid-September letter sent to P&R seeking reimbursement of costs indicated that the Allez family may be prepared to take ‘further action’ against the States unless the dispute was ‘resolved amicably’ by reimbursement of some of their costs.
‘The States has a clear legal duty. It has breached its legal duties to Mr Allez,’ it said.
‘The States is in breach of its agreement concerning resolving the boundaries and appropriate rights in the way set out.
‘I do not mean any disrespect when I say that, although Pontius Pilate tried to wash his hands of a problem, the States is not in the same position.
‘Its conduct has been unhelpful and dismissive, and it is simply not acceptable.’
The letter also explained the emotional strain on the family, especially 83-year-old George Allez, the owner of Maison de la Guerre, during their years-long battle to retain their home and defeat repeated threats to evict them.
It claimed that the strain was compounded by the States allegedly reneging on a land deal. The States ended up with clear ownership of a key part of the access track to the fort, but the other half of the deal, which was meant to give the family secure ownership of their home, was never completed.
‘This is a matter that has been protracted and has gone on for at least 11 or 12 years and it has been caused, in no small measure, by the activities of the States, or should I say in part by the inactivity of the States,’ it said.
‘This has been a very serious and concerning matter. It has caused an 83-year-old man, his wife and family much concern. The stresses and strains upon them have been almost unbearable.’
In concluding its reply to Deputy Taylor’s most-recent Rule 14 question, P&R said that ‘as a private law matter, it does not believe it appropriate to comment further’.
Deputy Taylor said yesterday that he was considering submitting further questions to extract more information about how the States acted in the lead up to the sale of the fort.
