Forum Topic

Wimbledon and Putney Commons Conservators

Regular readers may be aware that the Windmill Towers trustees refused my EIR request to produce the professional and valuation advice taken at the time of the sale of Mill House.  Their justificaion was that the complaint was vexatious (this is hysterical coming from Simon Lee who regularly lied to the Charity Commission, trustees and levy payers).The ICO accepted my complaint several months ago and I have heard this afternoon that it has now been assigned to a Senior Officer to manage.  Separately the WPCC have been instructed by the ICO to respond to my ‘internal review’ request by late April, and in the event that they don’t the ICO will consider what further action to take.💃

John Cameron ● 2792d17 Comments

Fingers crossed!

Ivonne Holliday ● 2792d

The argument for the WPCC to provide the Mill House valuations is not disimilar to Nick Evans successful EIR complaint to force the Daniel Watney valuation into the public domain.The trustees appointed Daniel Watney for one reason, they could be relied upon to provide a soft number. Having done so the trustees used the soft number, based on incorrect assumptions to get an opinion to drop the matter.  This was all arranged by lawyers who were neither independent nor transparent. Daniel Watney were first suggested by Bates Wells Braithwaite who said of DW ‘We know them very well’. BWB, when appointed, failed to declare a conflict of interest with a serving trustee.  When challenged as to whether the were ‘independent’ BWB resigned, thus avoiding the issue. CRS were then appointed, and again failed to declare a conflict of interest. When challenged they made heavy handed threats of legal action to shut down the issue. A gerrymandered appointment of Daniel Watney was the engineered by trustees colluding with Lee and advisors. Of course they never intended the DW valuation to see the light of day, it was locked in the safe at Windmill Towers. Nicks pursuit through the ICO forced the shoddy DW report into public, and exposed it for the sham is was. All paid for by levy payersThe current board are now trying to prevent other (equally shoddy or non existent) valuations from being seen - as their publication will expose the cosy Wimbledon centric trustees casual attitude to looking after their mates. Lawyers are appointed by the WPCC to defend their shut down, paid for by levy payers.

John Cameron ● 2791d

Well done John, its incredible how incompetent and dishonest they are.

Robert E Wilkinson ● 2791d

I have now received the WPCC's internal review which was imposed on the trustees by the Information Commissioner.The review is by a current member of the WPCC's Audit and Risk Committee.  The author claims to have not participated in the initial refusal, before going on to regurgitate the same reasons - ie "it is manifestly unreasonable, not in the public interest, would be burdensome, disruptive" and so on.The land exchange continues to be a material breach of the 1871 Act which states "it is unlawful for the Conservators to sell, lease, grant or in any manner dispose of any part of the commons". Under the Act the Commons are kept “forever open and unenclosed”.  The grant of a substantial area of common land for the private benefit of a golf club cannot be squared with this legal obligation.I have requested that the trustees publish the valuations of the respective areas of land and the professional advice to back up the transaction.  The trustees refuse to do so. So what are the trustees hiding? Almost certainly that there are NO valuations of the land, nor will there be robust advice that the the trade of land does not breach the Act.

John Cameron ● 2770d

How can a valuer assign a value to something which legally cannot be sold?

Alan Sherman ● 2770d

The answer is that the valuer didn't assign a value because no professional advice was taken. A valuer would need to satisfy themself as to the legality of the transaction, bound by their strict professional standards etc. The swop took place, under the radar and with no regard as to what the relative numbers were.  The golf club gained a hugely valuable private car park on common land, the conservators gained a site for their sheds.  The car park (on common land) is immediately adjacent to the golf club, and could not be located elsewhere.  Whereas the maintenance sheds could be located just about anywhere. Even if the land swop was legal (it isn't), advice would be sought on the relative values, on say the basis of an annual rent. The numbers would have been hugely beneficial in favour of the WPCC, and produce an income stream which the golf club could easily afford.The resistance to publishing the material tells levy payers all they need to know.  It either doesn't exist, or does not support the cosy deal. Take your pick.The WPCC have a habit of looking after their mates, and the current board are no different.

John Cameron ● 2770d

This is so boring that it  must be something to do with Brexit.

Hugh Thompson ● 2770d

It happened over 20 years ago and you know the answer so why keep banging on.

Andy Pike ● 2770d

Well done John, keep up the good work!Something that was wrong 20 years ago does need to be rectified - particularly as profit was gain at the expense of all of us who were not aware of this.Andy, you say it happened over 20 years ago and why keep banging on about it.  Well, let us say that the UK joined the EC, then the EEC 40 years ago.  Why vote for Brexit on this premise, as so many people did? On another issue, men are being accused of sexual assault that happened over 30 years ago.  Should this not be put right?

Ivonne Holliday ● 2770d

The reason to keep 'banging on' about it self evident.  The land swop is unlawful, it was at the time and it is today. The WPCC are wrong to deny access to the papers, the WPCC are a funded by a statutory tax, acting solely for the public benefit. They refuse to publish papers, for a simple reason.  They current board are covering up wrongdoing, exactly the same way as previous boards did over the lies at Putney Hospital  Three cosy land deals over a number of years, none which withstand scrutiny.  Deals with tenants, deals with Wandsworth BC, deals with the Wandsworth Primary Care Trust, deals with the golf club - which hosts their levy funded cocktail parties.  A charity board hijacked by trustees acting in concert, a CEO who has lied and lied - to trustees, to the Charity Commission and to levy payers. In 2013.Margaret Hodge described the Charity Commission as not "fit for purpose" after a highly critical report warned that its failure to investigate fraud and abuse was undermining public faith in good causes.  Six years later, what has changed?

John Cameron ● 2770d

We Levy payers are still waiting for the report from the Charity Commission on the conduct of The Conservators. Would it not be better to wait for this rather than to continue to go over the past ad infinitum?On the other hand, if the Report when it comes out is not to John Cameron's liking, I imagine that he will be agreeing with Margaret Hodge!

Caroline Whitehead ● 2770d

The investigation by the Commission is into the deliberate undersale of land at Putney Hospital, and the subsequent collusion by Lee and trustees to deny their failings.The inquiry isn’t into the sale of Mill House which netted a tax free, risk free profit of £3.6m, or into the unlawful land trade with the Royal Wimbledon Golf Club. It is the latter two transactions which the current board are now in denial of, by refusing to make public the valuations and advice taken the time.Trustees colluded, failed to declare conflicts of interest with BWB and CRS, and gerrymandered the appointment of Daniel Watney. Greening and Hammond leant on the Commission, endeavouring to have me disqualified.

John Cameron ● 2770d

Wow a huge jump from a land swoop to sexual assault. I'd suggest they are rather different things.  On the car park if the situation were to be recfitied it would simply I curr more costs for the WPCCto relocate their sheds back on their land. Maybe time to accept the situation and move on.

Andy Pike ● 2770d

Or alternatively, for the WPCC to publish the material in an open and transparent way, so that levy payers can see exactly the basis that the cosy deal was done?Just a thought. 

John Cameron ● 2769d

While on the subject of costs, the WPCC have incurred over £500,000 in legal and professional fees in the past 4 years.  The majority of these costs were to defend the deliberate undersale of land, and subsequent collusion and lies by the then trustees and Lee.Good use of residents levy? 

John Cameron ● 2769d

"On 9 April 2008, the Commission had written to Mr Devons [Attachment 13] confirming that the trustees are “to take the following steps before committing their charity to grant an easement”. The letter goes on to say that the “charity trustees must give at least one month’s public notice, inviting representations, and must take into consideration any representations they receive”". The trustees did not give the public notice, they did not invite representations, they did not advertise the disposition and they did not receive a Qualified Surveyors Report.So what exactly did the Charity Commission do when Lee lied to them?Closed the file.

John Cameron ● 2768d

Given the refusal by the WPCC board to provide the material concerning the land swop )with the Royal Wimbledon Golf Club), the ICO have now confirmed that they will reopen the case -.The WPCC of course have 'form' in respect of burying information that they don't want pesky levy payers to see. The 2015 / 18 trustees and Simon Lee colluded CRS and Daniel Watney to procure a 'get out of jail' valuation.  They did so to close down the  investigation into the undersale of land at Putney Hospital. Knowing that the DW valuation would not withstand public scrutiny they refused to publish it.Nick Evans went to the ICO and in October 2017, the ICO issued a notice forcing the trustees to publish the report, or find themselves in contempt.The Daniel Watney report was then exposed as 24 carat *****, as it was based on assumptions which were materially and fundamentally wrong.Lee and the current board are no better than their predecessors, they know the cosy WPCC deals don't stand up to scrutiny, hence their refusal to act transparently .

John Cameron ● 2767d