Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Actually, I think the CC would prefer if you did make that ruling (or at least, the membership).

 

I'm not asking you to be judge and jury, @DaveE - it was a question of principle. If a Trustee has lied to the Membership, should they resign? It's not a complicated question....

 

By 'eck - it must be uncomfortable sitting on the fence all the time

 

No, it's not complicated. Lies are never good, and yes, resignation is perhaps one penalty. But to prove those lies with all the evidence available to be revised, needs a judge and jury body and with the authority to do so, someone such as the Cc. That is beyond the scope of this thread to discuss as I don't have that authority and therefore it's not for me to say whether anyone should resign or not.
That is all I will say on it and I hope you will respect that.

 

I appreciate the position you're in @DaveE , and I'm pleased we agree that lying is unacceptable.

The problem we've got is that it is now incontrvertible that the claims on the webite about the Return to Parracombe Fund - which are still there tonight, 18 September - are, for the avoidance of doubt, NOT TRUE.

Miles and Co have, and continue to lie about the state of the Return to Parracombe Fund. In not taking the honourable and principled stand of Anne, Chris and Mike, Messers Curson and Summers, are sadly implicated, too.

The obvious question now is if they've lied about the Return to Parracombe Fund, what else have they not been straight about?

Apologies and resignations are now their only honourable way forward. Others will need to pick up the pieces and move the railway forwards.

 

But Dave, old chap, on the balance of probabilities before any forensic analysis, what pray is your opinion? Or, is it not for you to say what your opinion is? I wonder what level of proof might be necessary for you to form an opinion? Surely you might be able to form one on the balance of probabilities??

 

I don't convict people on the balance of probabilities and when I don't have enough information to call either way. And for that same reason is why if you look back on the thread I would not be drawn into the situation with Ann.

Now, very busy today, last day at the workshop today this week with our wonderful volunteers. They have lots to do and will no doubt go home suitably tired!

Final packing tonight then early Wednesday I travel by train to North Devon ready for the Gala weekend. Although I don't really know who is who on this forum except for a few, I do hope to catch up with as many as I can! I love hearing the stories from the old hands and the walking encyclopedias of this railway. Equally I love seeing the general public, the families etc, making memories and creating new stories they will tell when they get older.

Hoping to get to Chelfham, maybe get to see Bratton finally, and of course Woody Bay and spend a bit in OSHI no doubt

I was going to go in full steampunk attire including top hat etc to the gala to have some fun but with the weather turning changeable I've had to prioritise wet weather clobber, just not enough space in the luggage! A shame because I think sometimes all this gets a bit too heavy, need to lighten up, smile, have some fun!

No matter, can do that another time, but fun will still be had!

Be good, be mindful, be well

 

Enjoy your time on the L & B Dave. Thank you for providing a lot of first hand knowledge of the situation to the many of us who live even further away.
As always there are many people who are just getting on with, slowly but steadily growing the L & B. Yes there are problems and people who are proving difficult - both within and without!
Nevertheless, there are many many more people, worldwide as well as in the UK, supporting each other........ and the rebuilding of the L&B.

 

Does anyone know how the situation lies concerning the reporting of the L&BR Trustees to the Charity Commission?

 

I'm not sure what you are asking. Anyone can make a complaint to the CC. You just email them. I guess they don't make the complaints public, so you won't know who else has complained. I assume that the more people who complain, the more notice they might take.

 

Feel free:
https://forms.charitycommission.gov...harity,Commission or a different organisation


Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

Charity Commission guidance is that they will not get involved unless and until all reasonable steps have been taken to resolve any dispute , including mediation. The exception is where a Serious Incident is reported to them. If some of the circumstances/ decisions alleged are correct then they might fall into the category of Serious Incidents. However, it's not possible for members and/or the public to report a Serious Incident. Only a Trustee can do so.

It's virtually impossible to force a trustee to resign under the current Articles. A vote of no confidence might be persuasive but is not binding.
It's theoretically possible for members to call an EGM to vote trustees out of office and replace them but only if not less than 5% of the members so request. The practical difficulty is that they have to bear the cost of calling the meeting including printing and postage of the notice of the EGM which would run into thousands. Alternatively they can wait till the next AGM when such a resolution could be proposed (if the 5% threshold is achieved) but the cost would be subsumed within the routine AGM costs

 

I understood that a complaint had been lodged.

 

Quote from Charity Commission explanatory guidance:

The Commission will not get involved if your dispute is about trustees' decisions or policies. Trustees are free to make decisions for their charity so long as they are acting within the law and within the charity's governing document.

So, whether the complaint is taken further will depend on what was alleged and by whom ( e.g. a Serious Incident Report by a Trustee would have much greater impact).

 

The website item says that as of 11 January 2023 the funding for RTP has reached £700K.
It seems that this was possibly true at the time. £450K legacy was received at around that time. With the £220k and the £20k KL fund, then around £700k was available.
The website does not say that the money is all in a restricted fund nor does it say that it is still available today. It just says that £700K is available as of Jan 2023. That could well have been true then.
Of course, what it needs is a subsequent news item to update it, but I'm not sure you can hang the board on a news item that might have been true when it was published.
It seems that the only way forward is a GM called by the members, but to do this you do need to be exactly precise on the facts. Otherwise you risk failure.
I am no apologist for the board and I am appalled at what is going on, but I can see what may have happened.
Restricted funds are difficult to manage so when they legacies arrived, they were put into the general fund to provide flexibility. That was sensible. The board had decided to purchase OSHI and they could see that the planning permission was about to fail. So it seems a reasonable tactical decision to use the money on OSHI. What was the alternative? Put the legacies into a restricted fund, then when OSHI became available, not have the cash to buy it? And seeing as the planning permission was going to fail, have £700K locked up untouchable with no prospect of being able to use it while OSHI was lost?
There are lots of failings, but I can see how we have got to where we have.

 

@ikcdab - the point here is that even if it was true, it hasn't been for months. If you don't update the website when circumstances change, then you are continuing to make the claim - and this claim isn't true, and hasn't been for months.

Things can get overlooked, sometimes for a long time. But the Board has known about this for months - I certainly raised it with Mr Miles privately last month, and Chris Duffell has apparently repeatedly made it. There's no excuse unless you are intending to mislead - and the intention to mislead should be a resigning matter.

 

I'm uncomfortable about the very idea that money claimed as part of an appeal is able to be removed from that appeal - restricted fund or no.

I've some experience of restricted funds, and they aren't that difficult to account for, though care is required, especially on liquidity. There are issues about locking up cash, but there are also rules about fundraising, what it is for, and what claims can be made.

Like you, I'm willing to accept that errors happen, and that the answer is to get them corrected. @Tobbes then says all that needs saying about what's happened since.

 

It seems to me that the most serious point is that considerable sums of money have been moved about without board approval. The lack of minuted decisions is a very serious matter. It implies that a subset of the board is making decisions without reference or oversight, and with the lack of transparency even to trustees about these movements, no one can be sure at this point precisely where that money went. Think about that. It may be slipshod or it may be criminal. There is a very urgent need to get to the bottom of this festering pile!

 

It is claimed in the Minority Report that:-

".... in 2022 the CIC transferred to the Trust the greater part of its 2021 net profit of some £130,000 to reduce its tax bill. This transfer was made by Mr Cowling, who acts as bookkeeper to the CIC but holds no official position in it, without any reference to, or agreement of, the CIC board. This transfer left the CIC in a financially challenged position early in 2022, when having to pay bills...."

If correct, IMHO this begs the questions of not only why did he do this apparently without any form of official instruction but also - perhaps more importantly - how was he able to transfer funds out of the CIC account without apparently any form of scrutiny or counter-signature authorisation whatsoever?

 

Thanks John!