Rebellion in Campbell’s Kingdom
RESIDENTS IN COURT OVER LEASE
A GLASGOW couple were taken to court this week by Drimsynie Estates Ltd after refusing to pay the rent for the last 18 months for the land on which their chalet sits.
Jim and Carol Ramsay, however, feel that they were perfectly justified in their actions after their landlords put them on to a year-to-year lease despite, they claim, being previously assured that they would have no problem renewing the lease in much the same way as the expired one.
So far, 14 owners are refusing to pay rent after seeking legal advice but many more owners are concerned with the situation that faces them when their existing leases are up.
The Ramsays have owned their chalet in the Lochgoilhead camp site for 14 years and had looked upon the owners, the Campbells, as friends. They adore the site and thoroughly enjoy coming through on a Friday evening, and spending the weekend in their chalet overlooking Loch Goil. Unfortunately their enjoyment over the last two years has been overshadowed by the legal dispute.
Mr Ramsay said: “We were told by several park representatives that the lease would be extended without any problems once the initial 25 year lease ran out. This did not happen and when we decided to contest the new terms we were offered £200 for our chalet. This was subsequently dropped to £100.”
Mrs Ramsay added that: “The company are buying new chalets and selling them for £95,000. Who in their right minds would spend this amount of money on a chalet that sits on ground which has a year to year lease?”
The chalet owners feel so incensed about this situation that they have set up the Lochgoilhead Chalet Owners Association, and are in the process of mounting a legal challenge against the new leases. One of the members, Alec Robertson, also from Glasgow, said: “We bought our chalet when there was 11 years left on the lease. We were told that there would be no problem with renewal on a similar lease. Many of the other owners claim to have been told the same thing. We have now been told that when this lease expires next March, it will be replaced by a renewable annual lease.”
Mr Robertson continued: “Our chalet cost us £28,000 and we have spent over £10,000 on it. We regard it as a second home, and it is used and treasured by all the family. This move has effectively rendered it worthless. We have no security or any future, and we certainly couldn’t sell it - except to the park’s owners, who, we understand, are offering £100 to anyone who wants to move.”
Douglas Campbell, of Drimsynie Estates, says that what they are doing will bring the chalets into line with the caravan leases. He said: “We are doing this with all our chalets across all our sites. The caravans are all on this type of lease so it makes sense to have everyone the same.”
The basis of the Campbells argument is that Clause 14 of the contract states that the park owners have the option to review the terms of the lease, giving three months notice. If the tenants do not agree to the new terms, and choose not to renew the lease, then they are obliged to offer to buy the chalet from them. This is what they claim to be doing.
The Ramsays, and the rest of the chalet owners, argue vehemently that they were told several times, by several park employees, that they would be able to renew the lease, in a similar way to their initial lease.
The court case lasted all day. There were lengthy cases put forward by counsel for both sides. Both parties obviously feel very strongly about the situation. There were about a dozen or so chalet owners who had a vested interest in the outcome sitting in the public gallery. They too, are very concerned about what will happen next. One of them said that although her lease was not up for another 12 years, she was preparing herself for the inevitable.
At the end of the day the sheriff felt that more time was needed for her to reach a decision. Given the fact that there is so much riding on the outcome, this was probably a wise move.


Complaint lodged over ferry issue
Pier Pressure Group have announced that they have submitted a complaint to the Office of Fair Trading alleging breaches of Chapter 1 of the Competition Act 1998
The owners of the two ferry companies in the Gourock-Dunoon ferry market conducted private meetings and correspondence over several months (the Users Charter Meetings) designed to set up an agreement or agreements to (1) fix selling prices, (2) limit and control (monopolise) markets, (3) share markets and (4) place third parties at a competitive disadvantage.
The information that is presently available on these meetings has since been made public only because of Freedom of Information legislation.
As one ferry operator noted in these meetings, much of the proposed agreement was “already in operation on an informal basis” indicating an informal agreement in existence between the parties in these areas.
Subsequent events surrounding the tender process for the CalMac service are consistent with concerted practices where the parties knowingly substitutes informal co-operation for the risks of competition. This behaviour was most obviously influenced by these direct contacts involved in the User Charter meetings. Not only was the tender designed to lead to no bidder (and towards a monopoly by one firm), both SNP and Conservative Party spokesmen have raised serious questions about the integrity of the tender process. At least several companies felt so strongly about this the process to complain to an MSP. V-Ships, a major international operator, withdrew from the tender process, and went on the record to state that they could have no confidence in there being a level playing field here. All of this is consistent with informal understandings and practices between the owners of the two ferry companies created in these “User Charter meetings” that would eliminate competition and move the market in the direction of a monopoly.
As a consequence there have been severe distortions of competition in this market and it is argued there have been serious breaches of the Competition Act 1998.
It is hoped that the OFT will investigate these issues as a matter of urgency.
Pier Pressure Group also note that there may be parallel issues under the Enterprise Act, as well as under the EC Maritime Cabotage Regulation 1992, and State Aid Law. They reserve the right to take up these matters directly with the European Commission should this prove necessary.


INVERARAY ROCK!
AN estimated 20,000 people are set to descend on Inveraray next September, as the team behind the successful T in the Park festival announced that they will stage the Connect Music Festival in the grounds of Inveraray Castle.
The two-day festival will be held on Saturday 1 and Sunday 2 September 2007 and is aimed at the people who maybe grew up with the T in the Park festival but now have more discerning tastes. Upmarket food from local suppliers will replace the usual stodgy festival fare and rows of muddy tents will be replaced by large tepees and ‘pods’ with wooden floors.
The musical line-up has yet to be announced, but festival organiser Geoff Ellis of DF Concerts said: “Negotiations are still ongoing over specific acts. What would typical Connect Festival-goers listen to on the journey there? I think a very diverse spectrum of bands, from Radiohead and Beck through to Belle and Sebastian, Kraftwerk and Clap Your Hands Say Yeh. It’s going to be a festival with quality music, for discerning listeners.”
Mr Ellis continued: “We’re delighted to be able to confirm Connect’s location in one of the most beautiful settings I’ve ever seen and are very much looking forward to working with the Duke of Argyll and his team at Inveraray Castle to deliver what will be a truly unique event not just for Scotland but for the UK as a whole.
“DF Concerts promote a wide range of outdoor events throughout the year and we’re proud to be adding Connect to our award-winning programme. With ticket information, artists and attractions still to be unveiled over the coming months this is just the start of Connect’s journey and it’s one that we’re all incredibly excited about making.”
20,000 extra people in the Inveraray district is sure to have an impact on the economy all round Loch Fyne and many businesses in the area are very excited about the event. Virginia Sumsion, of Loch Fyne Oysters, said: “Having just returned from the Slow Food Show in Turin where Loch Fyne products were enthusiastically received by a crowd of over 140,000 we are looking forward to entertaining a similarly enthusiastic gathering on our doorstep.”
The organisers are looking into the issue of the transport of people to and from the festival. As well as laying on coaches, organisers are considering plans to charge people more to park their car if there are fewer people in them. Also being investigated are plans to dredge Loch Fyne to allow transport by sea from Glasgow.
Further details and up-dates from www.connectmusic festival.com.


Residents demand answers on restrictions
THERE is growing anger among residents of a Dunoon street over the delay in by Argyll and Bute Council in addressing the issue of parking restrictions outside their houses.
The story first featured in the Observer over two months ago, on September 1.
There were a number of areas of concern - not least of which was painting double yellow lines in lay-bys, which by definition are designed for parking - but the real bone of contention was the painting of double yellow lines in Alexander Street. Angry residents called a meeting, which was attended by MP Alan Reid and Ward Councillor Gordon McKinven.
Cllr McKinven had already taken up the issue with the council’s legal department and asked - unsuccessfully - to have the order suspended. He was told by a roads departmen official that this could only be done by councillors.
The main issue of contention is the fashion in which the planned restrictions were publicised. A council advertisement in the Dunoon Observer was non-specific, referring only to ‘various streets’ where the restrictions would be implemented.
It was widely recognised that there were a number of streets in Dunoon - notably Hill Street - and corners where parking was causing a problem. However there is, say the residents, no such problem in Alexander Street, and in that they are supported by Councillor McKinven.
He said: “I’m getting frustrated at the length of time this issue has been dragging on without any response from the council’s legal department - it only serves to reinforce the residents’ view that the officials have made a blunder and they are looking for a way out of it.”
After numerous calls to the council asking for a response on the matter, the Observer finally received a two-sentence statement at noon on Wednesday.
It reads: “Concerns have been expressed to the council that the relevant procedures have not been adhered to in the making of the order. However no formal complaints have been made within the necessary timescale to the Court of Session.
“In the light of the concerns expressed, council officials and councillors are due to discuss this at their next business day at the end of November.”
A spokesman for the residents was far from impressed. “Why should we be complaining to the Court of Session? That’s what we have a councillor for. We raise the complaint with him, and he takes it up with the official concerned - who’s paid by us to act in our interests. That’s the way it’s supposed to work - so why isn’t it?
“The notion that we should be raising the matter at this stage with the Court of Session is really ironic. We believe they have made a serious blunder, and it may well be that they don’t want to admit it because it may have widespread repercussions.
“The legal department is suggesting that we should take the case to the Court of Session and use our money to fight our case - while they use our money to defend it!”
He went on to say that they had legal advice which, in a nutshell, was that if the newspaper advertisements were incorrect, then it was unfair to expect them to write to the Court of Session to object to something which had been dealt with incompetently.
He concluded: “We’d also question why it’s taking all this time to actually get on to a council agenda.”
Cllr McKinven said: “This matter has already been discussed by the business group and no conclusion was reached - I can’t see why the next meeting should be any different.
“However, the matter has also been referred to the Local Authority Ombudsman, and it will be interesting to see what conclusions that body arrives at.”