Forum Topic

Surprised this has not been posted here

Just noticed whilst searching for news on car park opening that.....On 12th May the information Commissioner agreed with the WPCC on their stance with regard to information on the 1979 agreement with the Royal Wimbledon Golf Club. The WPCC posted the full ruling on their site on May 13th. Its 17 pages long and makes interesting reading. I'd suggest reading it all as it gives good background on why.Surprised Nick or John have mentioned it.

Andy Pike ● 2141d35 Comments

In 2005 the WPCC took advice in respect of their unlawful agreement.  A meeting was arranged and attended by Guy Fetherstonhaugh QC to advise the then trustees.  At the meeting Mr Fetherstonhaugh outlined his concerns... "preventing the general public to park in the car park would constitute enclosure (prohibited by. S 34 of the Act)”Mr Fetherstonhaugh was also concerned that the exclusive use of the car park, as required by the Royal Wimbledon... "would make the LICENCE in effect a LEASE, which was prohibited by S35 of the Act”It is little wonder that the current board are so determined to bury the advice, agreements and valuation of the unlawful land swap.  The trustees are simply repeating the misconduct and mismanagement of their undersale of Putney Common.

John Cameron ● 2129d

Dear Jim,I’m not going to add any further comments regarding the Statutory Inquiry. I believe all those concerned, including past and present Conservators, will take whatever actions they think are appropriate for themselves. I may agree or disagree with some but have always acted as I saw was in my own best interests to protect my own reputation. Something I have done throughout this affair, Best,Nick

Nicholas Evans ● 2131d

Nick,Thank you for your detailed response. Whilst I have often disagreed with the actions you have taken in regards to WPCC, I do appreciate that you take time to carefully explain your perspective & reasoning.One clarification please? Are you, John & Shirley acting as one entity in this matter? [When you write "John, Shirley and I instructed our solicitors", that could mean either you (as a group) instructed one firm of solicitors, or you each individually instructed your own separate solicitors]I did however ask John Cameron for his response to a specific question. I find his arrogance in ignoring questions quite extraordinary: he makes bold statements of "fact", which are actually just his own opinion, and then fails to respond to quite straightforward questions. Since he seems to use this website as a key communication platform, a reasonable inference is that a truthful answer would conflict with his previous postings, and he's just relying on people forgetting the question over the passage of time. Or perhaps he has delusions of grandeur, and is simply following the alleged Royal approach of never apologise, never explain?On a separate note, I don't think our current government is purposefully incompetent - sadly I think they are just incompetent.Best,Jim.

Jim Cleary ● 2131d

Dear Jim,The Charity Commission circulated a draft of the “final report” to all present and past Conservators, together with a draft press release well over a year ago. A number of these trustees, including but not limited to, John and myself made representations about the content through our solicitors. The Commission then replied that it would take some time to consider these representations. They then circulated a revised version of the “final report” and press release, with a planned date of release. Again we made representations. Some while after this happened they were served with a “pre-action letter” by one or more past Trustees (not John or myself or Shirley Gillbe) although we were not shown this letter or given any details. After some digging it became apparent that the challenge was made by Sir Ian Andrews and perhaps one other past Trustee. Time went by. A new revised draft report plus press release was then sent out by the Commission. Considerable changes had been made to both documents after Sir Ian Andrews’s intervention (which we had not seen). We compared the earlier draft with the latest version. The changes raised important questions. John, Shirley and I instructed our solicitors to ask for a reply to the earlier questions we had already asked, plus new ones related to the changes that had been incorporated after the pre-action letter from Ian Andrews. Then we were told Covid would cause some delay.Last week I received the following update from the Commission, via my solicitor, after they had reminded the Commission that we expected an answer.“Dear Sirs,We refer to our previous correspondence as well as your letter below and write with an update.Please note that we have considered the representations made by the various parties and will be issuing a new decision/report to all the parties hopefully within the next 7 days with an appropriate notice prior to publication. Kind regardsxxxxxxxxxxxx (name removed)Head of Litigation’So there you have it. I believe the Commission usually allows around two weeks from sending out a “final report” for responses. But this does not give a reliable guide to actual publication as who can say whether this version of the report is the final one. Have  we had three or four versions so far? I’ve lost track. Will there be a legal challenge? By whom? Your guess is as good as mine. I can’t comment on the contents of the drafts I have seenThere was a very good broadcast by Howard Jacobson on Radio 4’s My Point of View last week. In it he drew comparisons with our present government’s purposeful incompetence with that of the Circumlocution Office in Charles Dickens’ novel Little Dorritt. I must admit the last four years of dealing with the Regulator makes me think they should be renamed the Charity Commission Circumulocation Office. Sorry for the long reply.Nick

Nicholas Evans ● 2131d

I understand the act very well. I dont understand ths expense or the sense in this ongoing pursuit. It is common land but its position is such that were you to be successful the land woikd probably  still be a car park . Not exclusive I accept but it was extremely limited use other than a car park. Its a personal vendetta that we are all paying for.

Andy Pike ● 2131d

It is not up to me to give an view on 'what it would be used for'. The land is common, and is protected by the 1871 Act. At present it is a private car park, which is enclosed and securely gated.The WPCC, as we now know only too well, do cosy deal and then try to bury them.  If they have nothing to hide in this land swap they would publish the legal advice, the agreements and the valuations.  They have spent thousands of levy payer pounds with aggressive lawyers to ensure that the material stays buried. You appear to think that is justified.The Act is clear, it says..34. The Conservators shall at all times keep the commons open, uninclosed, and unbuilt on, except as regards such parts thereof as are at the passing of this Act inclosed or built on, and except as otherwise in this Act expressed, and shall by all lawful means prevent, resist and abate all encroachments and attempted encroachments on the commons, and protect the commons and preserve them as open spaces, and resist all proceedings tending to the inclosure, or appropriation for any purpose of any part thereof.35. It shall not be lawful for the Conservators, except as in this Act expressed, to sell,lease, grant, or in any manner dispose of any part of the commons.36. The Conservators shall at all times preserve, as far as may be, the natural aspect and state of the commons, and to that end shall protect the turf, gorse, heather, timber, and other trees, shrubs, and brushwood thereon.Exactly which part of s34, 35 and 36 is difficult to understand?

John Cameron ● 2131d

Last week I asked you a question regarding the Charity Commission report, which given that Nick has again pointed out the fact that the report has not been published seems still relevant. Here's the question again for your convenience:Regarding the Charity Commission report, as seems your normal behavior (which was also noticed & criticised by the Information Commissioner) you are presenting your opinion as fact. It seems that you are in a legal position to delay publication, and you are doing so: is that correct?

Jim Cleary ● 2131d

Bounded by the area currently occupied by the shed and with an access road between it and the common golf course?

Andy Pike ● 2131d

As far as I am aware no one has been arrested for perjury in either court. The common sense pretty much in fact to me.Can you answer my question if you are successful what would you see the car park used for, given its restricted location between 2 golf courses, next ti the royal club house,bounded by

Andy Pike ● 2131d

The legal case was lost...because the WPCC lied in their submissions to the High Court and then the Court of Appeal.  The point in this case is that (once again) the current board and Lee are endeavouring to bury unlawful land swaps. If they were not trying to bury it, the WPCC would simply publish the legal advice, the agreements and the valuations of the land. They won't because it will expose yet more misconduct and mismanagement. Do you want the common protected, or do you want cosy deals which ignore the 1871 Act and are then denied, denied, denied.This is exactly what the WPCC did at Putney Common. Trustees elected to protect the commons roll over when someone wants a just a little. What is the point of the Act if it is not respected?

John Cameron ● 2131d

Legal case was lost. .... previous message should read.

Andy Pike ● 2132d

I have never worked out what would be achieved by handing this car park back to WCPP.you would have a piece of land sandwiched between the club house and the land where the shed currently sits. The best use of this land would probably be as a parking area or maybe an open storage area for the WPCC machinery. If it's a parking area it will open for all common users and those from both golf clubs on that side of the common. So no real change in its use but ok for common users to park. The shed would need to be dismantled and land handed back to  the Royal who would probably use it for their members exclusive  parking. If WPCC still need a secure storage facility for their machinery they would have to find another site, off common, and pay a suitably agreed rental for the site.How does that additional expense benefit the levy payer? I'm all for points of principle but they usually end up costing money. In this case it would be the levy payer picking up the tab along with the bill for defending a sensible position to date. And all because at the other end of the common a school was built and a legal case was list.

Andy Pike ● 2132d

@ EdOf course levy payers and residents should form their own opinion, but they must be allowed to do so on the facts.  Which the current board are trying to bury. This is a rerun of Putney Common, where Simon Lee and the board lied about their cosy deal, an unlawful sale of common land and at a huge undervalue.Lee lied in legal docuements, he lied to the Charity Commission, he lied to trustees and he lied to levy payers in order to bury the misconduct.What we do know is that the 1871 Act provides for the Conservators to keep the commons open, unenclosed and unbuilt on; to prevent all encroachments on the commons and to preserve the natural aspect and state of the commons. The Act also states...It shall not be lawful for the Conservators, except as in this Act expressed, to sell, lease, grant, or in any manner dispose of any part of the commons.  Which is exactly what has happened with the RWGC’s car park.

John Cameron ● 2132d

It would be interesting to know the size and specific use of the shed along with the ratio of the car park size, given that they are close. I assume from that most people could form their own opinion.

Ed Robinson ● 2132d

100% common, unlawful under the 1871 Act...

John Cameron ● 2132d

Ed Some way up the road equals less than 200 yards. The 2 sites are virtualy adjacent.

Andy Pike ● 2132d

The “large shed” is leased to the WPCC. It is on land owned by the RWGC. The car park some way up the road is all on a much larger piece of land right next to the main club house. It is all common. It is now “licensed” to the RGWC for their exclusive use as car park. As a public body answerable to the levy payers (you and me) under Environmental Information Regulations it would be nice to see how this swap works. A copy of the most recent licence. A copy of the lease. A copy of the qualified surveyors report valuations which are required when a charity disposes of “protected” land. Simple.Nick

Nicholas Evans ● 2132d

A small plane maybe. More of a  large shed medium barn size.

Andy Pike ● 2132d

Sorry I've been trying to follow this.Is there any details in how big this machinery shed is etc?I assume it must be like a plane hanger???

Ed Robinson ● 2132d

I have no idea whatsoever. But I do think the very sensible idea of building a machinery shed for the Wpcc on Royal Wimbledons then car park  (because the act would not allow it on common land) and a bit of the commons land to be used by Royal Wimbledon to replace said car park was a very sensible idea in 1979, and again in 2005 and still is now.

Andy Pike ● 2132d

Andy,In fact the car park agreement was renewed in 2005. You will remember the names of the then Conservators because most of them featured in the Putney Common fiasco. The point at issue is why won't the trustees release the information? Can you think of a good reason why not? After all the RWGC private car park is still being used. I understand  a number of people have asked for the basic information, and if they are like me they’ve been told by the usual suspect (Simon Lee) that the issue is complex and a reply will take 40 working days. Perhaps you could advise me what they are hiding?Nick

Nicholas Evans ● 2132d

I doubt that Ms Greenjng resorted to name calling and generally insulting posts on a public media about individuals. Most if not all of whom were not in post when this agreement was struck 41 years ago.

Andy Pike ● 2132d

The WPCC claim that it is manifestly unreasonable that they publish the legal advice, agreements and valuations in respect of their unlawful swap of common land with the Royal Wimbledon Golf Club.In October 2018 Justine Greening, (in her capacity as an MP) made a FOI 2000 requests to the DfT for material regarding Heathrow. The DfT refusted to provide the material and used the manifestly unreasonable argument.JG asked for an internal DfT review and the Dft maintained its positionJG then complained to the Information Commissioner who produced their decision in June 2019.  The Commissioner's decision notice was then appealed by Greening.The case was held on 18 February 2020 before Judge Stephen Cragg QC and two tribunal members.The appeal was allowed the tribunal citing "the presumption in favour of disclosure" and "there is clearly a wide public interest in as much information as possible being disclosed about the Heathrow expansion, and this would be in line and advance the policy and values of protection of the environment which underpin the EIR".http://informationrights.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decision/i2631/Greening,%20Justine%20EA.2019.0257%20(10.03.20)%20.pdf

John Cameron ● 2134d

It seems to me that refusing to release the information that led to a car park  being built on common land on the grounds that the request was “vexatious” was a last ditch effort. Why on earth don’t the present Conservators just ‘Fess up’ and release the material. Surely finding out whether there has been a breach of the 1871 Act is what levy payers should expect, at the very least. Commonsense? Absolutely. I seem to remember that was the slogan adopted by four of the trustees during the last election. I have also asked for copies of the valuations related to the swap of land. The reply from Mr Lee is that this will take 40 working days as it’s “complex”. Oh dear. Photocopying is such hard work.The next election is next year. The Charity Commission have yet to publish their report.Nick

Nicholas Evans ● 2137d

John,First, a minor correction: the title of my previous post had a typo - it should have read "obsessive", not "excessive".The Information Commissioner described your behaviour as obsessive and unreasonable - those are her words, not those of the WPCC. Regarding the Charity Commission report, as seems your normal behavior (which was also noticed & criticised by the Information Commissioner) you are presenting your opinion as fact. It seems that you are in a legal position to delay publication, and you are doing so: is that correct?

Jim Cleary ● 2138d

Very interesting. The previous Committee, chaired by Dominic Grieve QC and heavy in senior lawyers, stood down at the last election. The new Committee and its chair have yet to be appointed.  One wonders if that delay is not unconnected with the unpublished report, about which the previous Committee stated “ On 13 December No. 10 wrote to the Committee Secretariat to notify it that the Prime Minister has now confirmed that there is no material in the Committee's Russia Report which, if published, would be prejudicial to the discharge of the functions of the security and intelligence Agencies, and that therefore the Report may be published once the new Committee is appointed.”  And there it currently  rests. We await this one with non-vexatious interest!

Jonathan Callaway ● 2138d

The WPCC's vexatious defence, like BoJo's is a last line of defence.Simon Lee and the WPCC trustees lied and lied when they were first asked to pony up on their undersale of land at Putney Common.  The then used physical intimidation, legal and financial threats, collusion and gerrymandering to frustrate an investigation.  They did so to protect themselves.  At one point I was physically assaulted.  We now know the extent of their deceit and cover up, despite the Charity Commission having a problem in reporting it.In terms of the current controversy the WPCC are using the defence in order to bury another of their cosy land deals. Instead of simply publishing the legal advice, agreements and valuations of the land which they have unlawfully swapped, they bury it. Instead of transparency they use aggressive and expensive lawyers to fight this tooth and nail, paid for by levy payers.

John Cameron ● 2138d

Interestingly 10 Downing Street has recently used the "vexatious" defence."No 10 has dismissed as “vexatious” a freedom of information request by the Bureau [of Investigative Journalism] for emails between the prime minister’s office and the parliamentary committee behind the Russia report in the run up to the 2019 general election.The Bureau sought these emails because they could have shed light on Boris Johnson’s controversial decision to delay the publication of the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) report into Russian influence in the UK until after the election. Downing Street refused the FOI request by dismissing it as “vexatious”, a rarely used refusal reserved for requests which were “disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress”. The documents could have been collated by No 10 via a series of simple searches. “Boris Johnson has been accused by his critics of a ‘cover-up’ by blocking the release of the Russia report. Blocking the publication of correspondence around that decision could look like a cover-up of the cover-up,” said Rachel Oldroyd, the Bureau’s managing editor. “The Bureau has only ever been interested in securing the report – and scrutinising the decision to block it – in the spirit of informing the public and keeping government transparent. This decision threatens those goals.”"https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2020-02-13/bureau-request-for-russia-report-transparency-dismissed-as-vexatious

David Ainsworth ● 2138d

@ Jim ClearyGiven that I (and others) blew the whistle on the lies of Lee and Co, do you not think for a minute that the WPCC would describe me intemperate, antagonistic, and so on?  I was hardly going to be popular with the trustees who lied to the Commission and then tried to cover it up, was I?The Commissioners report is delayed for one reason and one reason only, they cannot publish it as  currently drafted.  I cannot go into the detail here however the Commission's report is irrational, unlawful and procedurally flawed and in view of that, unpublishable. Having reached the conclusion that that “there was misconduct and/or mismanagement in the administration of the charity by the original trustees who took the decision to grant the easement" the Commission then agreed to amend the report - when threatened with a High Court action by the errant trustees who failed so miserably.As I explained in previous post the decision by the Information Commissioner's decision will be the subject of First Tier Tribunal, overseen by the judiciary.  Which I am really, really looking forward to.

John Cameron ● 2138d

Thanks for sharing this Andy. It's not surprising that Mr Cameron decided not to publicize this ruling as it does contain some fine quotations:Para 57: However she considers that there is clear evidence of obsessive and unreasonable behaviour on his part. Para 58:  The complainant included multiple comments that his actions were justified and requested that the Charity Commission remove any criticism of his actions. The complainant also appeared to doubt the experience of anofficer assigned to WPCC by the Charity Commission and asked the Charity Commission to amend its report to include his allegations of motive as factual events. The Commissioner considers this to be evidence of the complainant’s unwillingness to accept independentscrutiny which does not align with his own view. Para 60: Having had sight of the relevant information the Commissioner accepts WPCC’s description of the complainant’s tone and language as intemperate,antagonistic and on occasion, abusive.I guess paragraph 58 explains why the Charity Commissioners report has been delayed?

Jim Cleary ● 2138d

@ Alan ShermanYour point as to whether a request for the material by a third party would be successful is well made.  The material concerned is in respect of the trade of common land with the Royal Wimbledon Golf Club, which is unlawful under the 1871 Act. The trustee’s QC commented on the breaches of S34 and S35 of the Act at the time the agreement was put in place. The relevant sections which concerned him are;34. The Conservators shall at all times keep the commons open, uninclosed, and unbuilt on, except as regards such parts thereof as are at the passing of this Act inclosed or built on, and except as otherwise in this Act expressed, and shall by all lawful means prevent, resist and abate all encroachments and attempted encroachments on the commons, and protect the commons and preserve them as open spaces, and resist all proceedings tending to the inclosure, or appropriation for any purpose of any part thereof.35. It shall not be lawful for the Conservators, except as in this Act expressed, to sell, lease, grant, or in any manner dispose of any part of the commons.The WPCC have now spent 18 months and thousands of pounds on legal of levy payers money to keep the agreements, legal advice and the valuations confidential. EIR legislation is clear, it is in the public interest that the material is published, particularly in the case of the “public interest test”. The WPCC vexatious defence was the only defence that the WPCC could bring, and they did so in a particularly aggressive  manner. The detail of the will now be examined in a First Tier Tribunal, ie by the judiciary.  It would be interesting if the same request submitted by a party who could not be described as vexatious would be successful, or will the WPCC play the victim card again and again.Anyone wanting to see the material could simply email the WPCC along the lines of...Dear WPCCEnvironment Information Regulations – WPCC / Lease of land to the Royal Wimbledon Golf Club for a private car parkI wish to make a request under EIR in respect of the lease of land by the WPCC to the RWGC.  Please provide;1. Copies of all “Qualified Surveyors Reports” and/or “valuations” and/or “valuation advice” (whether in formal reports/otherwise) procured by the WPCC at the time the agreement was granted.2. Copies of professional / legal advice received at the time of the lease was granted, for example that the sale was in breach of the act, and unlawful.3. Copies of the agreementsThe WPCC are obliged to reply as soon as possible and no later than 20 days from the request being submitted.The email address for the WPCC is;rangersoffice@wpcc.org.uk

John Cameron ● 2139d

The decision by the Information Commissioner is instructive and I would encourage everyone to read it.  But it is also materially wrong, and based on the further false representations by the WPCC who seem to have a problem with the truth.The WPCC have mounted an defence based that it would be manifestly unreasonable as the request is vexatious. Any whistleblower is likely to be described as vexatious by a charity who have been exposed for their material failures. It's not surprising.  What the Commissioner doesn't report are the bullying, intimidation, physical violence and legal and financial threats made against me by the WPCC and their lawyers. The decision to not publish the material will be challenged, and the appeal has been lodged with the General Regulatory Council. 

John Cameron ● 2141d

It is indeed a very instructive read and having read it I am not surprised that none of the usual suspects has drawn attention to it.https://www.wpcc.org.uk/downloads/ico-documents---rwgc/fer0829694-signed-decision-notice-(003)redacted.pdf

Michael Winstanley ● 2141d

Interesting, especially the reasons why the complaint has not been upheld.

Caroline Whitehead ● 2141d

Well spotted and raised (although the post title could be clearer!).  It reads like it was a finely balanced call from the commissioner.  I suspect if the complaint had been raised by someone else it would have been upheld.

Alan Sherman ● 2141d