Forum Topic

I have two FTT / GRC appeals running at present and both are due to the current board having learned nothing from the lies of Lee and the previous boards of 2015.  In both case I require (under EIR) for the WPCC to publish the legal advice and the valuations relating to transactions. Information which would be published automatically by any other public body who had nothing to hide.In the first case the WPCC sold Mill House for £2.5m and it was sold the same afternoon for £6.1m. No valuation, no adherence to the CA, no legal advice as to how to avoid the losses. In the second, in a absolutely cast iron breach of the 1871 Act, the WPCC have swapped land with the Royal Wimbledon Golf Club.  Unlawful. In both cases the WPCC are spending thousands, probably tens of thousands with lawyers and barristers to stop the publication of the material. So the problem won’t go away. Or not until levy payers elect trustees who will not look after their pals first, and ignore regulation and basic principles of public office.Stephen Hammond MP wants to blame me, while conveniently ignoring the simple facts of the Putney Hospital access undersale. The WPCC were told in detail in writing, by the Commission to follow the law.  The Commission’s lawyer spelled it out, he quoted from the Acts, he told them precisely what to do. The trustees ignored him, knowing that they had to deliver to Wandsworth. They got advice from Drivers Jonas in scrappy emails telling them the access was £775,000 in 2008, or multiples of what they then sold if for, in a sham transaction with the WPCT. They told the ‘valuer’ to tone his view down due to the political considerations of Wandsworth and repercussions if he didn’t.When they were asked by the Commission if they HAD followed the law, Lee and Gregsons lied to the Commission. The WPCC continue to bury transactions, the WPCC continue to lie, the WPCC continue to deny levy payers the most basic transparency in terms of governance.

John Cameron ● 2068d

Wimbledon MP Stephen Hammond, said: “I spoke to the Charity Commission when the Report was published and expressed a number of concerns to them.“The report had initially contained inaccuracies which the Commission were forced to correct. “The so called ‘whitewash’ has been the complete failure of the Charity Commission to recognise or understand the problem which was that principally one individual embarked on a course of action which has harmed the WPCC and cost the charity, and therefore local residents, hundreds of thousands of pounds.“It is relevant that the Information Commissioner found on May 12th this year that the actions of this individual showed “clear evidence of obsessive and unreasonable behaviour on his part “ and that there was an “unwillingness to accept independent scrutiny which does not align with his own view”.“I note:(i) The Commission did not make any findings about the decision to grant the easement or the terms of that grant.(ii) The inquiry found that the decision of trustees in February 2017 not to recover any funds which may have been lost was reasonable and properly taken.(iii) The inquiry did not find any one individual responsible for any incorrect decision, act or omission.“Therefore, it is difficult to understand how the Charity Commission reached its conclusions.“I am now of the view that the Charity Commission is neither qualified nor competent to undertake these investigations in future. I think that we now need an immediate investigation into whether the Charity Commission itself is any longer fit for purpose.“I sincerely hope that the WPCC will now be allowed to do what it was set up for; to manage the Commons for the enjoyment of Wimbledon and Putney residents.”

John Cameron ● 2068d

I think there are two questions.1) Can we trust the present board of WPCC to protect our Commons and spend the £1.7m a year in revenue wisely. And will they be open and transparent in the way they make decisions. A first step in the right direction would be to enrol the charity in the FOI and completely revise their publication scheme and policies for making meetings open to levy-payers so we can really see what is happening. Why haven’t they already added a link to the webinar of the 29th July Open Meeting? They have the recording.2) The second broader question for the whole charity sector is whether the Charity Commission is fit for purpose. My experience over the last five years shows that it is not. We must lobby our representatives to bring about change from top to bottom. Their excuse for not explaining why they suddenly changed the findings of the Statutory Inquiry literally at the last minute do not hold water. They claim that they often change draft reports, and this was no different. This is a lame excuse. After four years of “investigation” and at least three versions in draft all of which contained clear findings of maladministration and misconduct, they suddenly made major changes only after Sir Ian Andrews threatened a judicial review. Why did they bow to this pressure? If they didn’t, then what is the evidence to back why they changed tack and dropped all the charges of wrongdoing over the under sale. They need to stop relying on poor excuses, and provide us with the new evidence, which I don’t believe exists.Nick

Nicholas Evans ● 2072d

Do you just shrug and move on when you are offended as you clearly are with the identity of the reporter? No, you call it out as you did. Is this not all that John Cameron and Nick Evans have done over many years often in the face of serious resistance. It seems you may wish to no platform this reporter because of what I presume to be previous articles by him on matters independent of the WPCC and the Charity Commission. I see little purpose in such an approach and would commend to you the article by Trevor Phillips also in today’s Times.  As for the WPCC contrary to your assertion there is something new in today's Times article too. The Charity Commission accepts there was mismanagement and appear to have backed off when threatened by one of the trustees who failed to prevent the disposal of the land at an under value in the first place. If the Charity Commission had stood by their conclusions instead of watering down their report in the face of threatened litigation (as reported in today’s Times article) then personal liability may have come into play so I can well understand a strong desire to push back on individual criticism although of course this should be of no concern to the Commission unless it corrects facts. Messrs Cameron & Evans search for the truth appears to have been vindicated although I doubt it will end with any recompense for the WPCC. This will be left to the levy payers to cover through higher charges as we have a regulator who is unwilling to regulate.

Brian Rutherford ● 2074d

When threatened by Russell Cooke (the WPCC's lawyers) the Commission removed their most critical conclusions from the final version of their inquiry. -------------------------------------------It appeared to the Commission that the surveyor was put in the position of being required to negotiate the best deal he could get from WBC, without the benefit of a full valuation report. However, the trustee’s obligation was to obtain the best terms that could reasonably be obtained. The inquiry considers that this placed the charity’s subsequent trustees under a similar obligation to the provisions of the Charities Act and that in order to obtain the best terms the subsequent trustees would have needed a surveyor’s valuation. The granting of the easement at an undervalue and the failure to obtain a surveyor’s report were not in the best interests of the charity and demonstrate that the original trustees did not act with reasonable care and skill. The Commission found 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. Whether or not the original trustees were bound by the specific provisions of the Charities Act regarding the disposal of land, they were under a duty to obtain the best price. In order to ensure that they obtained the best price the original trustees would have required a professional valuation. The easement was transferred at a significant undervalue which was not in the best interests of the charity and means that the charity has sustained a significant financial loss. The inability of subsequent trustees to manage the trustee conflict resulting from the granting of the easement without seeking a surveyor’s report and at a significant undervalue contributed to further misconduct and/or mismanagement.

John Cameron ● 2074d