07 September, 2015Ms Paula Sussex Chief Executive Charity Commission 1 Drummond Gate London SW1V 2QQDear Ms SussexQualified Surveyors Report, Putney Hospital / Wimbledon and Putney Commons ConservatorsWe have confirmed to Ms Shirley Banks and Mrs Tracey Monaghan‐Smith of the Charity Commission previously that using powers of the Audit & Risk Committee of the WPCC that a QSR was being procured retrospectively of the sale of the easement (land) at Putney Hospital. We have now received the body of the report, but without various appendices, executive summaries and so on.In view of the findings of the report, which confirm a substantial loss of at least £1,312,500, we thought it best to contact the Charity Commission, without further delay. A full copy of the report will be forwarded to the Charity Commission later this week.We expect to present the main findings of the report at the next full board meeting of the Trustees which is scheduled for Monday 14 September.Montagu Evans, Chartered SurveyorsThe report has been prepared by Mark Whitfield, BSc MRICS, a Partner in the Professional Services Department of Montagu Evans LLP. Mr Whitfield has experience of providing Valuation and Charities Act advice to a number of national and local charities, including the provision of reports and advice in relation to the disposition of land or interests in land on terms complying with the requirement of both the Charities Act and Associated Qualified Surveyors Report Regulations. A copy of Mr Whitfield’s CV will be attached to the final Report.Mr Whitfield was advised in respect of specialist town planning advice by Mr Sam Dalzell, an Associate in the Planning and Development Department of Montagu Evans LLP. Mr Dalzell’s opinions and analysis of prevailing planning policy have been reviewed and approved by a Partner, Mr John Cohu.Both Mr Dalzell and Mr Cohu have significant experience of working within the London Borough of Wandsworth on a variety of development projects including Ram Brewery, Springfield Hospital as well as a number of residential lead developments in the Vauxhall, Nine Elms and Battersea Opportunity Area. As such they have a good working knowledge of the planning policies prevailing within LBW both currently, but also as at the date the Easement was entered into.Terms of ReferenceThe propositions that have been considered, which are the same as the propositions that would have fallen to be considered by a Qualified Surveyor preparing a contemporaneous Qualified Surveyors Report (“QSR”) are as follows: 1. Whether the terms of the proposed Deed of Easement were representative of those which would satisfy Section 119 of the Charities Act 2011 and, as such, can be said to be representative of the best terms / price, reasonably obtainable in the open market?2. If the answer to proposition i) is no, then why is that not the case? In order words, on what basis did the terms agreed not achieve the best terms / price (often referred to as “best consideration”) for WPCC in consideration of the grant of the Easement?3. If the terms of the Easement were not the best terms reasonably obtainable, what terms, or range of terms, should have been agreed?ConclusionThe report goes into the factual matters surrounding the sale (February 2012, completed in August 2014) in considerable detail. Various claims made by the Conservators and BWB are challenged, for example that “works to the common” are part consideration. Mr Whitfield concluded he could not find any works that were to the sole benefit of the common, ie the works were part of the development.The report shows that in terms of value Mr Whitfield concludes that as the land was “an absolute ransom strip” that the Conservators share of the marriage value was a minimum of 35% of £4.750m, and that more may have been possible in negotiation, if the Trustees had been properly advised by an appropriately qualified surveyor.The Charity’s share of the marriage value is a minimum £1,662,500, which after deducting £350,000 received, equates to a minimum loss to the Charity of £1,312,500.The Charity Commission is already aware from our previous correspondence that the then Trustees (three of whom are still Trustees) failed to follow the legal requirements of the Charities Act when selling the easement. Furthermore, in our view the Trustees and their advisors have deliberately misled the Charity Commission on a number of occasions, in an attempt to cover up their multiple failings.The report will be discussed at the Audit & Risk Committee and the full board of the Charity; both meetings will be held on 14 September.There is a material risk that the full board will resist taking the matter further, in view of the conflicts of interest and previous attempts to delay our enquiries.Yours sincerelyJohn Cameron Nicholas Evanscc Ms Shirley Banks / Mrs Tracey Monaghan‐Smith, Charity Commission
John Cameron ● 2729d