S&D Railway Trust

It is very sad that the plc is getting away with its disgusting behaviour. The law is not the same as justice, and the two seldom coincide. Morally, the fact remains that the plc behaved badly and anyone doing business with them should be very cautious, as they don't seem to have any 'moral compass'.

The plc won't be getting a penny more from me.

 

Why does the content of post #2520 remind me of a piece of paper signed 80 years previous?

 

True, but then the SDRT might be able to get a new lease direct from the SCC. That wouldn't be optimal, as without the WSR to transport people to Washford, it would be a less attractive location for them; but it's probably still better than having to move, which will be extremely expensive, an incredible amount of work, and will mean abandoning much of the decades (literally!) of labour that has gone into improving the Washford location.

What on G-d's green earth the PLC thought it was accomplishing by turfing out the SDRT is utterly beyond me. I live in hope that some way will be found to undo this foolish step. I take minor heart on that front from the lack of a public statement on the subject by the SDRT management; I'd have thought that if they'd assessed that there's no way the PLC will let them stay, and a difficult and painful departure had to be organized, they'd have said something about it. A very thin reed, I willingly concede, but their recent silence on this topic has to mean that it's not a 'done deal'.

Noel

 

Has the S&DRT set up a separate funding appeal to cover the costs of any move away? I've looked at their web-site and it appears, to me anyway, that all donations go into one central pot.

 

My impression from the S&DRT is that the position is that they have been forced to move, so they will move. If you have finite resources it is maybe better to look for somewhere that wants you, where you trust your landlords and that allows you to rebuild, rather than spending time, money and energy on somewhere where there is no trust and the landlord wants you out.

You can hope, the WSR will have a Pauline conversion, but I think that is hoping for common sense and reality to kick in. I’ll leave it to you as to whether you think it likely that this will happen.

HRA involvement was, it appears a waste of time.

You might not have given them any legal advice but did you give them any advice on how trying to evict respected tenants is bad for public support of their organisation, and how given their various issues, alienating potential supporters isn’t exactly the most obvious of strategies.

 

>>>If the notice to quit was ineffective then the lease as extended continues as before until its due expiry date. In that case, the plc's Notice of Termination under Part II of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954 is similarly of no effect because it can only be given lawfully not less than 6 nor more than 12 months before the expiry date of the lease. That would mean that no termination notice under the 1954 Act could lawfully be given before 1st May 2069.

An interesting argument that I do not recall seeing mentioned previously. I wonder if in fact that would apply - to a layman the whole process seems fraught with doubt and dispute.

On a practical point.... the Notice to Quit was issued in Feb, ie 5 months ago. I would suggest that the Trust is rapidly approaching the 'drop dead' date after which, if it IS going to move out in Feb 2021, then it has to start dismantling and packing up, a process that will be even more difficult than might otherwise be the case because of the impact of COVID-19 on volunteer availability. Unless any behind-the-scenes discussions between the Plc and S&DRT are actually yielding some fruit (say, for example, a extension of time for at least another 6 months, even if not an actually cancellation of the Notice), it would be imprudent for the Trust to just sit around in the hope that it will be 'alright on the night'.

I find it SO frustrating and unfathomable that the the Plc has yet to issue any formal statement that provides a convincing reason why the Trust have to be treated in this way. It just beggars belief.

 

I've been thinking about this looking at it from the perspective of a group I'm involved with was in the position of the S&D Trust...

Personally at this point I wouldn't see the point in fighting things legally to stay as there has been no real 'fight' or back up for the Trust. I'd imagine they feel a bit unloved at the moment in the one place they had hoped they were valued and safe. Ok people have bemoaned the imminent departure of 53808 on social media platforms and similar when the Trust were initially told they were cuckoo's in the nest and all that, but it's all been words and no great action by the 'family' as a whole. If another 'home' came forward offering a warm welcome, three meals a day and all that I'd be off....

But then we are back to what often gets mentioned on here, people are worried to speak out for obvious reasons and that worry is very genuine among many so they won't stand up and say 'not in our name'

It has often been said by ex board members (quite frequently and at the same time as the donation bucket is being rattled at all) on here that the board are only answerable to their shareholders, so we either assume that the shareholders are happy with the course of action or are receiving no answers to their concerns, I wonder which it is....?

Genuinely a great shame, the Plc say they need money, reversing this decision I am very sure would make an instant change to the donations level, if it's not too late by now from the point of view of the Trust.

I'd chuck some money in if things changed, from comments on here surely I wouldn't be alone...


Mike

 

I am a shareholder, but what can I do? Evicting the S&DRT and closing the Railway (I still hope against hope only temporarily) certainly weren't done in my name!

It is very sad.

 

On this bit. I don't know if it's simply because there's more traffic on this thread so simply everything gets said more often, but it feels to me that the idea of the Plc being principally answerable to their shareholders seems to come up on the WSR more often than elsewhere, often in response to a criticism of something or other.
Well yes, technically, legally, the directors' first duties are to their shareholders. But shareholders are weak. They're poorly informed, many of them have invested very little with the railway, often many years ago. Practically, it should be the volunteers that should be taken notice of principally. Part of this is structural - normally volunteers are members of a large shareholding body, but I think it's probably mainly an attitude thing on the WSR. Another symptom of this is the fact that WSR staff and volunteers have to have their own representative on the PDG meetings. I'd feel represented by our board members at a similarly high level meeting, why don't WSR staff and volunteers?

 

It does seem to get said often in connection with the WSR, but seems a very superficial understanding. The general argument goes "the responsibility of the directors is solely to act in the interests of the company" but that seems to get interpreted as they have no duty to listen to any other stakeholders than the shareholders - if them.

But you have a business model that only works because the majority of your labour is given voluntarily and your capital is in essence donated altruistically! So the interests of the company is inextricably linked to the demands of volunteers and external donors: alienating them is a surefire way to work precisely against the interests of the company you claim to serve ... The disenfranchisement of key stakeholders on the WSR in the supposed pursuit of some higher ideal of "acting only in accordance with the duty to act solely in the interests of the company" seems a peculiarly West Somerset trait, and is rather symptomatic of an organisation that seems to have no clear understanding of the business model it works under.

Tom

 

The board are legally answerable to their shareholders, yes.
But good governance and a positive organisation will attract many benefits from third parties. Grant giving bodies being one, other suitors another. Isle of Wight Railway got the benefit of three Ivatt locos as a result of a sound structure and a “go forward” nature. Anyone can change their fortunes around with a good reputation.
If you are in an industry which requires a lot of goodwill then you should set your sights much wider than to whom you are legally responsible to, especially in current circumstances (and that’s coming from a lawyer!)

Regards

Matt

 

I would suspect it's down to how incredibly difficult and painful it's going to be to move. It's not like moving apartments when one is fresh out of university; it's more like moving to a different house when one has been in the house one's in for four decades - you've built a workshop in the basement and acquired a whole fleet of machine tools to go in it, etc, etc. No matter how nice the potential new house might be, one's probably likely to think 'no, too much work'....

If the PLC does in fact chuck the SDRT out, I very much doubt the WSR has a hope in the proverbial netherworld of raising much from the rest of the heritage world. I'm rather puzzled that that's not completely obvious to the PLC and its supporters. Failing to stop this will be condemning the WSR to oblivion; one would think that would get their attention.

Noel

 

Unless of course it's just a convenient excuse for avoiding said stakeholders, and they for whatever reason can't or won't see the likely outcome of going down that road. Which, is of course, just a more long-winded way of saying "no clear understanding of the business model it works under" - the bottom line either way is that the ship will eventually wind up on the rocks.

Noel

 

If the eviction does go ahead, I doubt if the WSR, It's self will survive much longer if Pratt remains in office, such will be the feeling of anger towards his actions, that any good will will evaporate, and who will he blame next, ? the WSRA,? WSSRT? I can't see any other groups wanting to enter into loan agreements to move their engines to the line, the only ones that will, are those owned by JJP. once the axle loading allows it.

 

It would help if people didn't jump to unwarranted conclusions! The irony is that a number of posters on here are all too ready to predict dire financial consequences if the dispute ends up in Court and appear to be delighted if resort to Law gave the PLC a bloody nose. Yet when the Law produces an inconvenient result it's dismissed as a legal nicety that should be ignored. You can't have it both ways!
Let's be clear, the PLC has NOT sought in the Notice to Quit to rely on any deficiency in the extension agreement. Unfortunately both parties seem to have decided at the time they could avoid expensive lawyers with the unfortunate result that whatever they intended the extension agreement may be void by law. It would be bizarre in facilitating a resolution over the Washford situation not to at least suggest that apparent problems with validity of the extension agreement should be checked. To be in hot water the PLC would have to have known the extension was potentially invalid. I don't for one moment believe that those involved at the time were aware of that.

 

If the Trust need money to help them remove to another place I suspect many people, unhappy with the treatment given to them by the WSR PLC, will give them financial support.
I also think that a lot of the donations to the Trust will be at the expense of WSR coffers. I have no intention to help bale out the WSR but I would still continue to support the Trust.

 

You misunderstand those who are critical of the PLC. You are repeating the PLC spin that anyone who is critical of the WSR PLC board wants the WSR fail.

It is perfectly possible to warn about the financial costs associated with going to court as neither side has the money to fight the case. Or rather going to court is a poor use of limited funds and potentially ruinous. For the S&DRT they either fight the case with the costs involved, or they move with the costs involved. And they have the risk of challenging it and losing so costs of court and costs of moving. It is precisely because almost everyone wants neither the S&DRT or the WSR to fail that many would like the eviction dropped.

Given how the situation is weighted against the S&DRT, it is unsurprisingly that some people would like there to be consequences for those who created this situation. However, to describe it as 'wanting the law to give the WSR PLC board a bloody nose' seems oddly emotional language in the midst of a discussion of legal statuses.

It is perfectly possible for people to disagree with your interpretations and understandings.

 

One might well think that but there's none so blind as those THAT WILL NOT see........

 

I really don't see the possible invalidity of the S&DRT's lease being dismissed "as a legal nicety that should be ignored". The point I see being made is that it is irrelevant. Whatever the law has to say on the matter, the Court of Public Opinion is going to come to the same conclusion. That court is not worried why the WSR chucked out the S&DRT, whether it was on a legally valid case or not, whether a 1954 act or a 1925 act was relevant, who was supposed to pay for the move, or whether the S&DRT legally had to move or decided to move because of the bad blood between them and the WSR. All they will be interested in is that the S&DRT had to go. It may be expensive to lose a case in a court of law, but not half as expensive, in terms of lost donations and volunteers, as losing one in the Court of Public Opinion.

 

Put it this way, if the S&DRT has to launce an appeal for funds and help to relocate to where ever, most people would donate, and/ or offer practical help,
Should the PLC, after evicting the trust launch an other appeal for funds to keep the railway from folding, I suspect the reply will be the same message as given to the former WSRA chairman by the chairman of the PLC,