MARY Clarkson makes two statements I dispute in her letter about the Covered Market (May 23).

Firstly, she said the arbitrators’ report on market rent rises contained an error and secondly that the council could not challenge the error.

It is pretty obvious that an independent arbitrator appointed by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors would not knowingly submit an inaccurate report. The traders, to their credit, pointed out a slip in the original calculations. The arbitrator held up his hands and corrected the error. There is no evidence that the arbitrator does not stand by the recommendations in his final report, or that it contains any errors.

She goes on to say that the arbitration is binding and the council cannot challenge it. Again this is incorrect. Section 57 of the Arbitration Act 1996 makes it clear that if there is a genuine clerical ‘slip’ in the report, it can be challenged. Both parties have 28 days to appeal. It is not clear why the council chose not to appeal but if they had spotted an ‘arithmetical error’ that prevented them honouring their agreement to the traders, as Bob Price told the BBC in March, they should have done so. Mary admitted in writing that there had been an ‘informal understanding’ that the arbitrators’ figures would be applied to all other market traders and not just the five sited in the report. This has not happened.

Labour seems very upset about the wording of my petition to save the Covered Market which points out that they reneged on this promise. Instead they argue that they simply failed to fulfil their commitment.

Either way the majority of the traders in the market now face months of costly arbitration for each individual unit. It will waste thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money and further jeopardise the future of one of the city’s most treasured assets.

TIM BEARDER, Liberal Democrat Candidate for North ward, Stanley Road, Oxford

Want to give your opinion? Email letters@oxfordmail.co.uk

  • Today’s letters