Remove listed orders for private owned homes

Our house and next doors has the front facing bay window listed.The road we live on has approx 70%-80% block flats on it.Our house and next doors is in 1/2 of an acre.We cannot sell to developers because of this listing.I personally see no point to it as it is of no use to the public interest.The government should look at all old listed building order's and restrict them to places of interest to the public. Putting a listing on the front of a house makes no sense at all especially if the majority of buildings on the same road are all blocks of flats.We have a coach house which had a restriction for it not to be removed. When the Birmingham city council rented  one of their properties with the coachouse that was in need of repair they scrapped the listing just so that they could pull down their coachouse as re-building it would have cost alot,this was 2 doors away from us. They do what they want when they want.  

Why is this idea important?

Our house and next doors has the front facing bay window listed.The road we live on has approx 70%-80% block flats on it.Our house and next doors is in 1/2 of an acre.We cannot sell to developers because of this listing.I personally see no point to it as it is of no use to the public interest.The government should look at all old listed building order's and restrict them to places of interest to the public. Putting a listing on the front of a house makes no sense at all especially if the majority of buildings on the same road are all blocks of flats.We have a coach house which had a restriction for it not to be removed. When the Birmingham city council rented  one of their properties with the coachouse that was in need of repair they scrapped the listing just so that they could pull down their coachouse as re-building it would have cost alot,this was 2 doors away from us. They do what they want when they want.  

Self Defence against intruders into your home

Change law so that no homeowner need be worried by attacking Burglar(s). The onus should be on the intruder ( and/or prosecution service) to establish " beyond all doubt, that the homeowner deliberately and intentionally injured , maimed or killed an intruder. Intruders should know that if they break into a house and are caught by a householder   , they  risk serious injury or even being killed and that it would be very rare and exceptional for a householder to be prosecuted .  A householder should not have to worry about hitting an intruder "too hard" but should have clear rights to defend his/her self ,  home, and family. Perhaps if this were the case it would . deter burglars from breaking into private homes !

Why is this idea important?

Change law so that no homeowner need be worried by attacking Burglar(s). The onus should be on the intruder ( and/or prosecution service) to establish " beyond all doubt, that the homeowner deliberately and intentionally injured , maimed or killed an intruder. Intruders should know that if they break into a house and are caught by a householder   , they  risk serious injury or even being killed and that it would be very rare and exceptional for a householder to be prosecuted .  A householder should not have to worry about hitting an intruder "too hard" but should have clear rights to defend his/her self ,  home, and family. Perhaps if this were the case it would . deter burglars from breaking into private homes !

Clear paths of snow without fear of reprisal

Last winter saw the heaviest snowfall for decades.  Getting out and about was extremely difficult, and I for one was so grateful when I came to a patch where someone had made an attempt to clear it.

Years ago, it was only the odd house/shop front who failed to clear the snow, and they were seen to be the unsociable ones.  Since the introduction of the right to claim if you fall where a resident has cleared, people are scared to carry out this simple civic duty.  How can it be right to let someone break their leg outside your door because you've made no effort, and yet someone who has tried to make it easier for pedestrians may face claims leading into thousands for being neighbourly.  This is a law which is contributing to unsociable and selfish behaviours.

Why is this idea important?

Last winter saw the heaviest snowfall for decades.  Getting out and about was extremely difficult, and I for one was so grateful when I came to a patch where someone had made an attempt to clear it.

Years ago, it was only the odd house/shop front who failed to clear the snow, and they were seen to be the unsociable ones.  Since the introduction of the right to claim if you fall where a resident has cleared, people are scared to carry out this simple civic duty.  How can it be right to let someone break their leg outside your door because you've made no effort, and yet someone who has tried to make it easier for pedestrians may face claims leading into thousands for being neighbourly.  This is a law which is contributing to unsociable and selfish behaviours.

Abolish Chancel Tax (Steeple Tax) Liability

An archaic law dating back to Henry VIII allow the church to demand homeowners pay for repairs of their local church if their home is built on land that at some distant time belonged to the church.

This law was recently enforced (2008) on a couple (the Wallbanks) who had to pay the church 200k for repairs of St John the Baptist church near Stratford upon Avon.  They challenged this in many courts at various levels, spending thousands on legal bills, but ultimately could not overturn the decision. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2008/dec/08/church-of-england

Clearly this archaic law is still dangerous and enforcable.  Incredibly the church does not even have to spread the charge evenly across homeowners on the affected land.

This problem clearly infringes the moral rights of thousands of people in the UK.  Solicitors often spot this liability during the purchase/conveyancing process.  They have to pay for a "search" to check for it – guess who runs the search, the church – a nice earner – and what's more the search results are non-binding "you probably will/won't have to pay…".   The hapless homeowner is then forced to take out around 100 of insurance just incase the church sues them at some point due to this Chancel Liability.

I propose this law be scrapped.

Why is this idea important?

An archaic law dating back to Henry VIII allow the church to demand homeowners pay for repairs of their local church if their home is built on land that at some distant time belonged to the church.

This law was recently enforced (2008) on a couple (the Wallbanks) who had to pay the church 200k for repairs of St John the Baptist church near Stratford upon Avon.  They challenged this in many courts at various levels, spending thousands on legal bills, but ultimately could not overturn the decision. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2008/dec/08/church-of-england

Clearly this archaic law is still dangerous and enforcable.  Incredibly the church does not even have to spread the charge evenly across homeowners on the affected land.

This problem clearly infringes the moral rights of thousands of people in the UK.  Solicitors often spot this liability during the purchase/conveyancing process.  They have to pay for a "search" to check for it – guess who runs the search, the church – a nice earner – and what's more the search results are non-binding "you probably will/won't have to pay…".   The hapless homeowner is then forced to take out around 100 of insurance just incase the church sues them at some point due to this Chancel Liability.

I propose this law be scrapped.