Forum Topic

Legal challenge to publication of Charity Commission report on the 18th February

I have just received (14.37 Fri 14 Feb) the following surprising message from the Commission:Dear Mr EvansDue to legal challenge the Commission will not be publishing its inquiry report into Wimbledon and Putney Commons Conservators on 18 February.We will provide you with a update in due course.Yours sincerelyAlison BurmistonSenior Investigator: Investigations Monitoring & Enforcement

Nicholas Evans ● 2307d28 Comments

The long awaited Charity Commission report into the mismanagement and misconduct by the WPCC and CEO is further delayed by litigation.  Meanwhile the Commission's report into the failings of Save the Children is running into criticism as reported in today's Times.  It will be interesting to see if the WPCC's mismanagement and misconduct, including the CEO Simon Lee, is equally vague and sterilised. The Times article says of the Save the Children report....-----------------That report is facing criticism. After a two-year inquiry, the commission’s findings ran to 38 pages and omitted the names of key individuals who ran the charity, made decisions and were accused of misconduct. Brie O’Keefe, a former Save the Children worker who raised concerns about misconduct, said that the regulator’s report was “so vague and sterilised that if I hadn’t been working at the organisation during the time period in question, I would have no idea what they were talking about”.She added: “They do not name the behaviours that were so severe women were willing to risk the professional blowback and career suicide by making complaints about the CEO and director of policy. They do not even clarify that Employee A is Justin Forsyth, surely a pertinent detail when looking at how complaints were managed.”

John Cameron ● 2286d

The Putney Society in their March newsletter make the following point;"Historically, Putney has been relatively under­represented on this Board, which is responsible to the Charity Commission having registered with the Commission in the 1970’s. At present four of the five elected conservators are residents of theLondon Borough of Merton and two of the three appointed Conservators live there.  The election for the next body of Conservators will occur in February 2021.  Given the importance of the Commons and Heath to Putney it is to be hoped thatPutney residents will stand in the 2021 election and that more will be elected to the Board."It is correct to say that the board has historically been dominated by Wimbledon residents.  It was only the perseverance of elected "Putney" residents that the misconduct and mismanagement of the then trustees and Simon Lee was exposed.  The Charity Commission's long awaited report into the undersale of land is now on hold due to litigation.  Having exposed the misconduct of the Wimbledoncentric board, the last elections were hijacked by a claque of SW19 neighbours, with the enthusiastic support of the returning officer, a Whitehall appointed trustee and the then Chair, Prue Whyte (of Putney).  It is also worth pointing out that David Devons, who led the board at the time of the undersale of land to Wandsworth, was a 'Putney' trustee.  The current board intend to bring sweeping constitutional changes in 2020, which are likely to extend to the elections.  However they WPCC are silent on the at present as to the detail.  A swift consultation in the summer will tick the consultation box and the WPCC's tame MP will then trot off to push through the necessary secondary legislation.  The Open Spaces Society appear to be particularly concerned about the proposed changes to the 1871 Act, which is telling.  Resident's who care about the protection of the common under the Act would be well advised to heed the Putney Society's concerns.

John Cameron ● 2287d

I agree with Matt Palmer: if only somebody would leak the report. Well, I feel sure it will happen at some point. It certainly should be published: the thousands of levy payers who are forced to prop up this failed charity have the right to see, officially, what John and Nick have been telling us for years.Thank you as ever to John and Nick for keeping levy payers informed, something the charity itself has spectacularly and persistently failed to do – despite endless surveys, committees, sub-committees, focus groups, pledges, promises and so on.The truth will eventually become public knowledge, no matter how much money the charity continues to waste in trying to conceal its misconduct and mismanagement.

David Austin ● 2289d

Always good to see Sir Edward Lister in the spotlight. See https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8059273/Boris-Johnsons-chief-adviser-accused-conflict-interest.html and also a report in the Times behind a firewall on the same subject.Sir Edward was of course responsible for the scheme to build flats and an Academy school at Putney Hospital and a road on Putney Common. He is now a Chief Adviser to PM Boris Johnson.Nick

Nicholas Evans ● 2292d

I don’t think you’ll see any Conservators in the small tent. I feel sorry for the staff of Barker Langham who are conducting a survey in this appalling weather in a small pop-up tent. The little flags draped around jt look pretty sad. I always thought conducting such a survey in mid-winter was pretty stupid. Simon Lee disagreed with me, again.Nick

Nicholas Evans ● 2292d

I do hope the tent is properly authorised and is not enclosing any part of the common

Andy Pike ● 2293d

There's a big blue tent where they're trying to gather views on the future of the common in the rain.  Apparantly they are there until about 3 today and tomorrow.

Adrian Pearce ● 2293d

The excerpt from the Trustees’ July 2008 meeting notes states; “DD (David Devons) explained the importance of the political aspect. The Conservators were something of an anachronism being funded by local people. If the proposed scheme was seen to fail because of the Conservators, the political repercussions could be serious, if not disastrous.”

John Cameron ● 2294d

During the run-up to the 2015 election Sir Ian Andrews was appointed the “Returning Officer” with responsibility for a fair and impartial process.One of the key questions asked by myself and John Cameron running as candidates based in Putney was whether 1) The charity had followed charity law when selling the access at Putney Hospital; and 2) Had they therefore undertaken a Qualified Surveyors Report to establish the value of that access; and 3) Could we see it?After much bluster and vague promises that they had followed the law, claiming that they could not publish the QSR for confidentiality reasons, Sir Ian suddenly put up a Q&A statement about Putney Hospital immediately before the voting that contained the following totally misleading statement, as we and the Charity Commission now know:Q. Did the Conservators get the best possible value for the easement?A. The Conservators have, throughout their involvement, initially with the Primary Care Trust and latterly with Wandsworth Council, obtained independent legal and valuation advice from professional firms with a national/international reputation and have at all times acted in the utmost good faith and in the best interests of the Commons and Levy-payers.Q. What was the valuation for the easement?A. The professional advice that the Conservators obtained initially set the valuation for the easement with the Primary Care Trust at £250,000 for the proposal to build a Primary Care Centre and residential flats, but this was subsequently increased to £350,000 for the proposal put forward by Wandsworth Council to build a school and virtually identical residential flats.As I explained to the Interim Manager and to the Commission both figures given above relate to the negotiated price to be paid, firstly by the Primary Care Trust (£250,000) and then by Wandsworth Borough Council (£350,000) NOT THE VALUATION established by a QSR. It transpired much later in 2015 when the correspondence with their valuer became available, that his original view when asked for a rough opinion (no formal valuation) on the value was around £700,000 to £1,000,000. Sir Ian Andrews must have been looking in the wrong filing cabinet.Nick

Nicholas Evans ● 2294d

Having run up a shedload of costs with BWB... Prepared by Simon Lee, for the September Board 2015 board meeting...

John Cameron ● 2295d

It is notable that Russell Cooke, the WPCC’s retained solicitors are acting. 

John Cameron ● 2295d

I received the following message from the Charity Commission through my solicitor today:“We accept that your clients are likely to fall within the definition of ‘Interested Parties’ under CPR 54.1(2)(f). We have been forwarded a pre-action letter for judicial review by Russell Cooke who represent Sir Ian Andrews. We are surprised that a copy of the same was not forwarded to you by them in accordance with the CPR in light of the identified interested parties in their letter. We suggest that you request a copy of the same directly from Russell Cooke.“Nick

Nicholas Evans ● 2295d

It will be the full amount which I think is just under 2%.  There will be a whopping great increase once the WPCC get their tame MP to bring forward a SI to increase the levy, as it is only covering about 2/3 of their operating costs. I expect it will increase by 50% or more.  And then fund the pension deficit. Lee’s departure of course would save a ****load of money, given his £100,000 salary ++++

John Cameron ● 2295d

Hi John, do you know how much the levy is increasing this year? I thought it would be easy to find details on the wpcc website, alas not!

Adam Tripp ● 2295d

Lee made deliberate false misrepresentations to the Charity Commission and on the basis of those, the Commission closed their case. It is impossible to see how Lee can continue as the CEO of the WPCC, once the report is published. 

John Cameron ● 2295d

It is a criminal offence to mislead the Charity Commission. I wonder whether they will bring charges?Nick

Nicholas Evans ● 2295d

Simon Lee, 15 September 2014

John Cameron ● 2295d

24 January 2013

John Cameron ● 2296d

@ MattSomeone will, it is inevitable.

John Cameron ● 2296d

if only someone would leak the document...

Matt Palmer ● 2297d

So, no publication of the report from the Charity Commission on the 18th of February.The report itself and the attendant press release had been sent to about twenty past and present Conservators.The Charity Commission refused to say what the legal challenge is, or who made it. Requests for clarification have so far only elicited the following received today by my solicitors:“We can confirm that the legal challenge is in the pre-action stage and we will keep you informed should proceedings be issued.”Helpful, aren’t they. The only people who know what is going on are either the Commission, and they’re not telling, or the person/people who have mounted the challenge. If they are reading this, they might act in a spirit of openness and transparency and tell us all. The rest of us are left in limbo.WPCC: a local charity paid for by you to run your Commons and not lose thousands in dodgy development deals.Nick

Nicholas Evans ● 2297d

@ Adam Theoretically the WPCC could fund a former trustee if the board agreed, but they would need a cast iron case that it was in the 'best interests' of the charity. Given that we know as an absolute fact there was an undersale, mismanagement, misconduct, collusion with lawyers and so on I can't see how they could construct a 'best interest' argument. So I doubt that the WPCC are behind it, or funding a challenge.Alternatively trustees had the benefit of D&O insurance policy which covers legal expenses in this sort of case.  The insurers (of course) have to recoup their losses over time, through big hikes in the annual D&O premium, so over time the levy payers get the bill.The WPCC funded Lee when he brought his vexatious and untruthful complaint against me, to try and persuade the Charity Commission to disqualify me as a trustee.  The charity paid out over £50,000 (ex vat) which levy payers paid for directly.  The Commission took no action as the complaint, cooked up by Russell Cooke and Lee, was a pack of 24 carat bullshit. The Commission are independent but as a public authority the courts could order them to take a certain course, for example to close the entire inquiry if a legal challenge was successful.  This could all be a fuss about absolutely nothing, but if there is an actual legal challenge to prevent the Commission publishing it will have to resisted by the Commission, and possibly others.

John Cameron ● 2306d

Hi John/Nick, thanks for the updates. If a former conservator is the source of the legal challenge, is the WPCC required to pay their legal costs? Similarly, is the WPCC responsible for the legal costs of any current conservators? thx.

Adam Tripp ● 2306d

The Commission brought the Statutory Inquiry using their legal powers to investigate the mismanagement and misconduct by the trustees / Simon Lee. The inquiry started in August 2016 and was due to report on Tuesday. The Commission’s legal powers can be challenged through the GRC, by way of a First Tier Tribunal -  which is spelled out in the Charities Act. Alternatively, as a public authority, (like the WPCC) their decisions can be challenged by way of a Judicial Review, in the High Court.  It is not clear whether the legal challenge is a threat or an actual challenge. Is the intention is to prevent the conclusions being made public or to persuade the Commission to revisit their report?The Commission, late on Friday, were using “legal privilege” in order to not provide detail.

John Cameron ● 2306d

Having studied the report in some detail I am not that surprised.

John Cameron ● 2307d

Sue, I’ve no idea who is challenging them. I don’t think it’s John who I spoke to yesterday. I’ve asked my solicitor to find out what sort of challenge this is, but as it is a Friday I rather doubt they will hear anything before the weekend.I believe the report was sent in advance last week to all past and present Trustees (Conservators) so that means it could be any one of them. Nick

Nicholas Evans ● 2307d

Nick, have you asked what the legal challenge is?

Sue Hammond ● 2307d

This is getting to be beyond a joke.

Ivonne Holliday ● 2307d