Forum Topic

Simon Lee and the Charity Commission

The following is an extract from Simon Lee's letter to the Charity Commission, dated 15 October 2014.  -----------------------Throughout, the Conservators have also sought independent advice concerning the valuation of the easement. This advice was sought from a partner in Drivers Jonas Deloitte, one of the country's leading firms of Chartered Surveyors. The terms and conditions of that engagement included a specific Confidentiality Clause.The Conservators have now received numerous requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI) relating to the valuation of the easement the Friends of Putney Common. The Conservators suspect that a case is being prepared for submission to the Charity Commission of misadministration. Information concerning the Putney Hospital site has been posted on the Conservators website at: http://www.wpcc.org.uk/putneyhospital.htmlIt is also important to advise that due to an administrative oversight in the Ministry of Justice, we are not formally subject to FOI and are not therefore bound by its provisions, however, we attempt as far as possible to adhere to its spirit and act as if we are, while applying the permitted legislative exemptions, including matters such as commercial confidentiality. -----------------------

John Cameron ● 2883d3 Comments

A further extract of how Lee and the then Trustees deliberately misdirected the Charity Commission.  In 2012 Gregsons, on behalf of the WPCC claimed there was no case to answer, the law and regulations had been followed.  Despite being well aware that the trustees had talked the price down, they disingenuously claimed that the pressure to sell was a 'large payment'*-----------------------The purpose of this letter is to update you on matters associated with the redevelopment of the former Putney Hospital site that forms an enclave of buildings within Putney Lower Common.In November 2012 you wrote to the Conservators setting out concerns that the Charity Commission had received in respect of plans to redevelop the Putney Hospital site, and the grant of a Deed of Easement over a small part of the Common. The concerns raised were that:the trustees did not have the power to grant the easement.the trustees had not acted transparently because they had kept agreements secret and had not consulted local residents.the trustees had been pressured into granting the easement by Wandsworth Borough Council - the pressure being a large payment for the access rights and the threat of compulsory purchase.At that time you were satisfied that the Conservators were seeking independent legal and professional advice and you advised on the 14th December 2012, following Gregsons response of the 7th December 2012, that "having considered the correspondence, I am writing to advise that the Commission has no further regulatory concerns and has therefore closed its case today."-----------------------* the WPCC were advised that the land was worth over £800k. Having been threatened by Wandsworth and rather than act solely in the interest of the charity, the trustees talked the price down to £250k.

John Cameron ● 2883d

30 December 2014 15:49To:  Simon Lee Wimbledon and Putney Commons ConservatorsSubject:  Wimbledon and Putney Commons Conservators CRM:0350300Dear Mr LeeThank you for your letter.We note that the charity has written to provide an update to the Commission in respect of a deed of easement over the Commission as part of the redevelopment of the former Putney Hospital site. You have told us that the trustees took the matter to court and subsequently to the Court of Appeal where it was held that the trustees did have the power to grant the easement.However an easement is a disposal for the purposes of the Charities Act 2011 and therefore the trustees need to ensure that they have complied with s.117-125 of the Act. As the land concerned is designated they would also need to ensure that they complied with the requirement to give public notice and consider representations. It is not clear from the information we hold from previous correspondence whether the trustees have confirmed this. The court case only referred to the power the charity had to grant the easement but did not refer to the effect of the decision on the charity. Therefore we require some further information. Can you confirm that the trustees have fully complied with the provisions of Section 117-125 of the Charities Act 2011 in relation to the disposal? If not please give full reasons why.As the land is designated we would refer you to the guidance on public consultation, please see the link to our guidance below*Can you provide copies of the minutes of relevant meetings which show the decisions being made in relation to the easement? Can you confirm that these decisions were made purely in the best interests of the charity rather than any council or political considerations?We would also require a copy of the surveyors report and any other advice that the trustees obtained in order to enable them to make their decisions.We have recently published new guidance for trustees on decision making, please read this here online which may be useful to you https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/its-your-decision-charity-trustees-and-decisionmaking Guidance on the requirements of the Act in relation to disposal of charity land can be read here https://www.gov.uk/government!publicationsWe look forward to hearing from youYours SincerelyShirley BanksCharity Commission

John Cameron ● 2881d

In their letter of 20 December the Charity Commission asked specific questions, viz1.  Can you confirm that the trustees have fully complied with the provisions of Section 117-125 of the Charities Act 2011 in relation to the disposal? If not please give full reasons why.2.  As the land is designated we would refer you to the guidance on public consultation, please see the link to our guidance below*3.  Can you provide copies of the minutes of relevant meetings which show the decisions being made in relation to the easement? 4.  Can you confirm that these decisions were made purely in the best interests of the charity rather than any council or political considerations?5.  We would also require a copy of the surveyors report and any other advice that the trustees obtained in order to enable them to make their decisions. So, how did Lee reply to the questions raised.  He simply lied or ignored them, in his letter to the Charity Commission the following month.In response the points Lee replied - in the same order;1.  "The Conservators complied with all the necessary statutory provisions relating to this disposal" and went on to say "Again I can confirm that the Conservators complied with the provisions of Section 117 to 121 of the Charities Act 2011 as far as applicable, as can be seen from 7.2(b) of the Deed of Easement*."FACT:  Lee and the trustees ignored the necessary provisions relating to the disposal, despite claiming falsely to the Commission that they complied2.  "Mr Lomax further confirmed to our solicitors that he did not think it either necessary or appropriate for the proposed disposition to be publicly advertised, as it was being made subject to a planning permission being granted, and therefore notice would be given to the public through the planning process in the usual way.".  FACT:  There was NO such statement made by Lomax to anyone nor did Lee provide ANY evidence to the Commission that Lomax did.  It was a barefaced and deliberate deceit.  The trustees were legally obliged under the CA to advertise the sale of the land, as it was designated.  To claim that the land could be advertised through planning is utter bull***t. 3.  What Lee enclosed in respect of this point is not clear, but there are NO substantive records to show that the trustees ever considered the grant of the easement in a manner which would withstand scrutiny.  4.  Lee simply ignores this point, as he cannot deny it.  The board had minuted the political considerations, and the extreme fallout if they disobeyed the threats of Wandsworth.  5.  Lee ignores this point as well, as the surveyors report did not exist.  Had it existed, he would have provided it.  The surveyors report was a legal requirement of the sale.  Lee also lied about the existence of the report in correspondence with residents.  *The Deed of Easement provided in evidence was a red herring, given that that the legally required statement therein was also a deceit, and signed by Lee.

John Cameron ● 2866d