MICHAEL Weir raises some interesting points in his letter on superiorities (May 1).
When the Land Tenure Reform (Scotland) Act, 1974, was passed, it was generally thought that superiorities would ''die on the vine,'' since the Act prohibited the creation of any new feu-duties and provided for compulsory redemption of an allocated feu-duty when a property was sold.
Unfortunately, those of us involved in conveyancing have helped to breathe new life into the feudal system by insisting on the superior's consent for even the most trivial of alterations, such as installation of double glazing or central heating.
It was not always so. I remember a friend being puzzled about 15 years ago because his parents' solicitors were insisting that retrospective superior's consent had to be purchased for an extension to their home which had been built in the 1930s, despite the property having been sold on a number of occasions since then.
Whereas in the past conveyancers were inclined to the view that a superior who was collecting feu-duties could be held to have acquiesced in alterations about which he had raised no objections, they are now inclined to insist on evidence of consent to any alteration, even though the superior now no longer has any continuing interest in the property.
This is somewhat perverse since the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act, 1970, allows a proprietor to apply to the Lands Tribunal for the variation or discharge of any obligation which impedes some reasonable use of his property.
The problem could be resolved by changing the law to provide that a superior shall be presumed to have acquiesced in alterations. To rebut this presumption the superior would have to show that he had an interest over and over his mere title, in enforcing the feuing obligations.
This would protect those feu superiors who do have a genuine interest in a property and at the same time sweep away a great deal of time-consuming and expensive bureaucracy.
G L Barrowman,
7 Catherine Street, Kirkintilloch.
May 5.
May 1.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article