You can crush my cars, says Cobo dispute man
Tuesday 11th August 2009, 2:00PM BST.
COBO car park ‘owner’ Thomas Holroyd will scrap the vehicles towed away by the Guernsey Boys.
Despite that, Mr Holroyd has hit back at claims they were wrecks, insisting all had been roadworthy when he parked them.
The group removed 24 ‘abandoned’ cars from the site after deciding ‘something had to be done’ to reclaim use of the car park, which has been at the centre of a long-running ownership dispute.
The Guernsey Boys, all well-known businessmen including Stan Brouard managing director Rodney Brouard and Island Waste director Dan Hubert, used skip lorries to take the cars to a compound in Victoria Avenue.
Mr Holroyd has admitted buying several cheap cars, insuring them and parking on the land to take away spaces used by Checkers Xpress customers, among others. He has demanded £120,000 a year from Sandpiper, which owns the supermarket.
After the Guernsey Boys struck, Mr Holroyd said the men had caused criminal damage to his vehicles when they smashed windows, put chains through and lifted them off the land.
The 38-year-old, who lives in St Peter Port but is believed to come from Sark, reported the incident to police but agreed the cars could be scrapped.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
‘Lives in St Peter Port but is believed to come from Sark’? Er….no….’Is believed to live in Sark (but no one has seen him there) and reportedly hails from Yorkshire….
Report abuse
I’m getting a little sick and tired about hearing of this ‘dispute.’ I know of the alleged landowner and believe me he’s not short of a penny or 2 so maybe he should consider £120k a year to be a little steep from Sandpiper!!!
In my opinion if he was the true landowner then he would’ve produced proof by now and the situation need not have descended into immature, silly games to prove a point!!!!
Produce the documents Mr Holroyd and get this stupid farce over and done with, you are doing nothing for the reputation of your island!!!
Report abuse
I’ll bet Mr Holroyd does want his cars scrapped, obviously he’s hoping that someone else will have to pay for their disposal!
I just hope our authorities don’t let him get away with trying this trick.
Report abuse
How utterly childish to go and buy cheap cars, insure them and then dump them at Cobo – I’m gobsmacked. He’s obviously gone to great lengths to prolong this game of his – what a small minded little man!
Report abuse
Ain’t it about time the States Got it’s backside i9n gear and make a lawin ownership of the vehicule!
In France Where I Live.The abandond vehicule would be removed by the local council and charged accordally to the original owner . if they did not pay the council would sell there house to cover the cost that’s Justice for you.
Report abuse
I am came to Visit Guernsey last year and thought the place (not Guernsey!) looked like a dump. There were about fifteen cars then which were certainly not roadworthy and nearly all had smashed windows. I had previously stayed in Guernsey many times but never over at Cobo. To be honest I am shocked it has took this long to do something about it.
Is the island not interested in tourism? Seemed to be a lot less (none?)guest houses than when I visted many years prior and I am just looking now but find it hard to pay the prices asked….
Anyway well done (eventually) on hopefully making the area look much nicer.
Report abuse
The cars certainly look roadworthy (pictures from Guernsey press at the start of the dispute) and in most cases were better than those on the road in Guernsey today!
Report abuse
CORRUPTION (Parish, States and Police) it is not good for Guernsey’s reputation.
Report abuse
Surely the States should deal with this situation, I am quite sure they will be able to claim some expenses dealing with it. However my opinion is that if I owned the land I would make the supermarket pay to use it, this seems to be the fundamental issue, Chequers want free car parking.
Report abuse
if I was the landowner and had deeds/title to prove the ownership then I would most certainly fence of this land and introduce a clamping practice to preserve my exclusive right to the site.
Report abuse
If he doesnt want the cars anyway this surely vindicates the action taken against him??
Report abuse
JC
They would certainly get admiring glances in Alderney
Report abuse
If it is his land is he going to ask for rent from the Chippy, Cobo Store and people who use it to go on the beach, Roger Wing if it is his land why has he not shown proof.
Report abuse
John, I think if you look at http://www.cobocarpark.com he has proved that he owns the land it is just that the States don’t like it and hence their silence on the matter!
Report abuse
Ha Ha, he is now actually admitting to buying the cars and dumping them in the car park. Before he was saying people had left them at Cobo. He is like an annoying ten year old brat with all these childish games.
Report abuse
Karen – none of those documents prove ownership of the land.
Report abuse
TL – They certainly prove who does not own the land – the Parish, the States and the Crown.
It looks to me like a cover up going on – how deep does the corruption go!
Report abuse
I really cannot believe that anyone thinks Holroyd has any valid claim. The link provided by Karen has been posted by Holroyd as he obviously thinks that it is his best evidence of ownership.
The Agreement says that the land is common land.
The correspondence shows that the IDC asked for a letter of consent from the owners. In the absence of known owners, John Langlois suggested getting the consent of the seigneurs at the time.
The rights of the seigneurs over this common land are not the same as private ownership rights.
And that is without even addressing the fact that Holroyd has not produced any evidence to show that he acquired the land from the seigneurs mentioned in the above documents.
It is laughable. No wonder he has not gone to court over it.
Report abuse
Now the cars have gone, can we get rid of the boat wrecks too?
That would really tidy up the area!
Report abuse
Actually, I don’t mind the boats. I see it that this island is a natural place for working and pleasure boats so at least they are in keeping with the surroundings. Virtually every harbour or lived-in coastal area in the world has tatty old boats lying around with varying degrees of charm.
The boats are kept quite separate from the area used for public parking, as well, and so are not inconveniencing anyone.
Report abuse
TL the proof of ownership thing runs both ways …. So far the parish and the States have also failed to produce any evidence showing that they own and have exclusive rights over the land in question. In fact the documentation Holroyd had supplied shows them , and a leading law firm, acting as if they don’t….
Not that I condone anyone’s actions in all this … And I mean anyone … Holroyd for his petty actions, the Guernsey Boys for their illegal actions, and the parish and States for their inaction in not sorting the whole mess out sooner …..
Report abuse
but Toby, I don’t think that the Parish is actively claiming that it does own the land at the moment.
No-one really knows who owns it until the Law Officers conclude their investigations (and even that may not produce an answer).
The one thing that we can be sure of is that the basis on which Holroyd says that he owns the land is false. That means that he was unjustified in littering our fine coastline.
Just because the Parish cannot show that it owns the land does not validate Holroyd’s claim in any way. I could claim ownership on that basis.
Personally, I think that if the land ownership cannot be determined, and if the Crown is not able to lay claim to it under the principles of bona vacantia, then the States need to effect a notional complusory purchase and make it free for the use of the community (yes, including for the benefit of each of the local businesses).
Report abuse
TL – The Parish, States and Crown can not claim the land as they don’t own it. This is clear due to the fact that no one except Holroyd has provided any evidence to the contrary – all of which is third party evidence from the Parish, States and Crown.
The land clearly forms part of the Fief as firstly there is no such thing as common land on Guernsey and secondly everyone knows all Fiefs extends to the foreshore.
It is interesting that the Rockmount, Cobo Bay, Village Centre etc all are built on land which is part of the Fief, yet you suggest it cannot be Fief Land.
To me and others it speaks volumes that the Parish, States and Crown were unable to act. It categorically states “THE PARISH, STATES AND CROWN DO NOT OWN THE LAND”
Report abuse
JC – you are making the same mistake as Holroyd. Title to the fief does not give you title to the land.
For all we know, the last seigneurs to actually own the land rather than just the title may have been 300 years ago. If they have no ancestors then the land belongs to the Crown.
Nowhere has Holroyd shown a valid claim to the land.
Report abuse
TL – Who owns it then as all land on Guernsey is owned by someone?
Report abuse
JC – that is the million dollar question!
Just because we don’t know who owns it, and just because 20 years ago the Parish signed to document to say that it, the States and the Crown did not own it, does not mean that noboady owns it nor, indeed, that Holroyd owns it.
The ownership has to pass down a chain by the legally recognised route. Buying a title to a fief is not that route. So it is possible that there is a living owner of the land but they do not realise that they are the owner. It may be you, it could be me, if we are the nearest descendents of the last legal owner.
However, if there are no descendents of the last legal owner, then it is Crown land as all land that is bona vacantia reverts to the Crown.
Report abuse
I agree with JC someone has to own the land.
Report abuse
I’m more interested in who SHOULD own this land in future rather than who, if anyone, owns it now.
For me it’s a clear case of squatter’s rights. Over the decades the land at Cobo has become the people’s land, just as much as Saumarez Park and L’Ancresse Common are the people’s land.
The land at Cobo was (and is again, thanks to the Guernsey Boys) a lovely little public amenity until Holroyd came along. His so called feudal rights should mean absolutely nothing in this day and age – any more than if he were to claim fiefdom over Saumarez Park or L’Ancresse Common.
Holroyd’s tactics so far amount to nothing more than feudal terrorism.
Report abuse
TL I don’t think you can describe Holroyds actions as unjustified. Petty and misguided yes, but unjustified ?
If it turns out he owns the land, he is justified. If it turns out he doesn’t own the land but holds usage rights then he is justified. If it turns out it is public land then he has as much of a right as anyone else to park his cas there.
What is unjustified is going onto someone elses land, be it public or private, and removing possesions without the owners permission.
Report abuse
Martino
You may not be interested in who controls the use of the land at Cobo, but perhaps you ought to be.
You should be aware of
Letter from Cary Langlois 20 January 1987 to Castel Constables that says
“…car park in fact under control of Mr Bean and Mrs Vessey, as Seigneurs of the Fief, and they can dictate who can use the land”.
This and other documents seem clear that the land is not controlled by the public but by private individuals and their successors in title.
I neither know, nor care if Mr Holroyd is a successor in title, but clearly some is.
That someone would be in the same position as Mrs Bean who received a letter from Constables of Castel Parishes dated 20 April 2000 saying
“We have consulted the Law Officers and need your permission to remove these and any subsequent cars /refuse abandoned in the future, subject to the necessary legal publications in the Guernsey Press”.
The comment of Martino that “WHolroyd’s tactics so far amount to nothing more than feudal terrorism” begs the question of how the legal successor(s) in title, would describe the acts of the self styled Guernsey Boys.
Perhaps the Constables of the Parish should negotiate to purchase the land and recover the cost from rents to the businesses and their successors, s detailed in the agreement of use between the Constable and and Mr Bean and Others, of 1987.
It would resolve the problem once and for all.
Report abuse
Seriously, all this feudal rights nonsense must be swept into the past where it belongs. The States must compulsorily acquire the land from whichever seigneur is found to ‘own’ it or have ‘rights’ over it and return it to the people, from whom it was originally stolen a number of centuries ago under an archaic and unjust legal, political and social system the remnants of which simply do not belong in the 21st century. I don’t care about the legal niceties and neither should our elected representatives. It’s our land and we want it back!
Report abuse
FRANK (17th August)
Those boats actually belong to people they are not wrecks as you put it and furthermore the boat owners have had the right to use that bit of land for many, many years. I would rather the boats stay and Thomas Holdroyd did one.
Report abuse