S&D Railway Trust

I'm not disputing that unpleasant things have been said, merely that they have been directed by the board instructing ordinary members to come on here and express particular opinions.
And even if that is the case, I still fail to see why there's any merit in dwelling on it when there are so many better points to be made, chiefly; the legalities surround the eviction, the purpose of the eviction, and the immoral and highly unprofessional way in which it was conducted. If we stick to those and those in support of the eviction stick to playing the man not the ball does that not speak volumes more than trying to throw more mud back?

 

Alex,

I was only replying to your previous post, and in reply to '6960 Raveningham Hall's direct criticism of me as an "idiot"!

Your post 1339 contradicts your reply to me your post 1341, but no matter.

What is important is the situation of the SDRT at Washford, and whether the WSR PLC board can see sense and back down over all this. I was not responsible for JJP taking a divisive stance over the SDRT, neither presumably his small board who went along with him over this including Mark Smith!

Cheers,

Julian

 

Let's all play nicely, and avoid using, in the heat of the moment, unnecessary words like 'idiot'. I trust that everybody has the survival, and future success, of the Railway at heart, and it is quite possible to be sincere, but wrong.

As Julian (jma) says, it is the situation at Washford which is the current issue. I dare say that JJP and the rest of the Board honestly believe that the S&DRT should leave. I don't agree that they should, but I don't have the full facts of the matter, and the Board may have its reasons. However, the high handed way in which the S&DRT was given 12 months notice to quit; no reason given under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part 2 relating to business tenancies (this would be taken into account by a court when deciding on any award of legal costs, and the lack of such can lead to even a winning party being told to pay the losing party's costs because disclosure of such reasons might have avoided the need for litigation), and that ridiculous press release about the so-called 'cuckoo in the nest', is hardly showing the WSR Board in a good light.

Surely, and especially in today's tough economic and social climate, we should be on the same side and arguing in a civilised manner on both sides of the argument. As a retired lawyer, who sometimes struggled to persuade a client that jaw-jaw was better than war-war, I would urge everyone to avoid litigation if at all possible. The S&DRT will have no other choice if the plc won't pull the Notice to Quit. It would be a very Pyrrhic victory for JJP, even if the court did uphold the Notice to Quit, but legal expenses put the Railway into liquidation. We only need to look at the libel action involving 6024, to realise the danger. I have far more respect for someone who says, 'let's take a step back and reconsider' than for the one who ploughs on into disaster for himself and everyone else.

John

 

I agree that we should stick to discussing the issues rather than criticising individuals. However there is very little new to be said about the issues, unless and until any of those (few) on the PLC's side explain the PLC's motives (if they know) and/or their personal motives for supporting the PLC's actions. Perhaps the PLC Board has put them up to posting on here or perhaps not, but anyway if they genuinely believe that the Trust should be evicted they ought to explain why. The alleged reasons in the February PLC statement were quickly and thoroughly demolished as nonsense, and nothing has been said on here to change that.

 

Julian,

I concur with your analysis of what should happen in respect of the notice given, and where responsibility for the current situation lies. However, as war-war (formal legal proceedings in this case) is likely to be at best a necessary evil for the S&DRT, I suggest that jaw-jaw is more likely in an atmosphere where the S&DRT is able to be seen to be on the moral high ground in terms of not just the legal and moral case in respect of the eviction, but also the conduct of the case. To that end, I can only agree with the advice from @nanstallon on tone; if nothing else, you do not want to undermine your own case by providing the other side with ammunition to convince people that they hold the moral high ground. Some recent exchanges have shown how easily some people are convinced of that.

 

That the preservation sector has not learnt the lessons of 6024, makes you wonder about the kind of advice some groups are getting.

With regard to personal comments. Given that the PLC chair has placed himself so front and centre of WSR activities, the WSR has to some extent become a personal vehicle, rather than an organisation. There is a clear personality cult emerging.

What I do not understand is how those who choose to support the board cannot provide a coherent rationale for their support for the board and its actions. It takes on an almost mystical faith, I support the board because I trust the board, I trust the board because I support the board.

People have asked time and time again, in what way does this eviction and the legal battle benefit the WSR in the short, medium and long term given the more pressing financial crisis the whole sector faces?

After the 6024 case, people commented about why did it get to this stage and why did no one put a stop to it? Why did people who work for a group follow a course of actions so destructive that it ended up with the group having to sell the loco that they were set up to preserve? I fear in a few months time we could end up in the same situation again asking the same questions.

 

Lets be honest, no one can win this, If the PLC are successful in evicting the S&D trust, they will be driving a wedge between all the support groups on the line, and outside their railway, and the recriminations will if anything become more polarised, as group blames group, ideal if you want to not have any supporting groups, As the fight will only escalate,
And what will the perception of the greater heritage world make of the WSR? ,
If it goes to court and the PLC lose, and have to pay the costs, it will bankrupt the railway, then its down to who can get what, but the railway effectively is dead, killed by what the industry will say was a very stupid unnecessary course of action. the PLC board will have to meet their legal financial requirements, and it might personally bankrupt them in the process if they are held to be personally liable for a percentage of the costs of liquidation.

 

By which time I fear there will be nothing left on either side to fight over.

 

In the absence of any explanation from supporters of the PLC as to why the eviction is a good thing, I am going to try to to come up with an argument.

Let us assume that the PLC has a long term plan and this is part of the plan. Let us assume that the objectives are financial and organisational control.

Let us assume that the PLC has had legal advice that makes it clear that in the advent of of court case they will win and they will be awarded costs.

(This next bit is where I am happy to have my arguments/assumptions corrected).

Assuming it goes to court and the PLC wins.

This would render the S&DRT insolvent. The WSR PLC would be the primary creditor.

Question - in these circumstances what would happen to 88? Would the PLC be able to ‘claim’ 88 in lieu of costs? Or would the S&DRT be able to sell 88 to a.n.other? (I am assuming 88 is their primary asset).

In this case, the WSR ‘wins’ by evicting a group and as part of claiming costs, gets a loco out of it.

The second result would be that it would mean that no other group would ever want to run the risk of taking legal action against the PLC because the costs would clearly be so potentially ruinous, effectively, enabling the PLC to do as they wish without any hinderance. (I’ve got my eyes on those diesels at WN).

It might drive a wedge, it might alienate a lot of people but most customers won’t care, so the damage would be minimal.

Short term reputation hit, but it consolidates control over the line, it forces discipline to the various groups and shows who is boss, a site is gained, a loco is gained and blokey who only cares about what is on the 12.00 from Minehead tomorrow doesn’t care, tourists to Minehead don’t care, and those who don’t like it can do one like Mr x, y and z had to.

 

Indeed - would anyone actually put themselves at risk of a court case without such an assurance? Particularly when the "opponent" has no option under charity law to go to court?

And don't forget the buildings, track and rail at Washford - They're just as much at risk as 88...

indeed.

 

I don't think - but stand to correction from a lawyer - that the Trust's hands are tied by Charity law in this instance - the restrictions are quite tightly drawn.

 

Here's a thought though, and I am extremely not a lawyer (!) but what if the S&D trust didn't take the WSR to court but also simply refused to move out? Would the WSR's only action if it wanted to enforce the eviction be to take the S&D trust to court? At which point don't you need the charities commission's permission to take a charity to court? (as Paul Whitehouse and Robin White found during their life membership court case during the X6 era)

 

I had got the impression from previous posts that going to court was mandatory in this case, but if not it rather increases the possibility that the notice to quit is based on bluff.

 

The point about a charity case was that it was to do with the administration of that charity - which is what that case was about. There was a linked paper further up the thread which gives a good insight into when charities can and can't go to law - I'm digesting my reading of that.

 

I wondered if there was a distinction between a charity taking someone to court (i.e. the charity chose to go to court) and someone taking a charity to court (so the charity hasn't chosen to go to court).

 

The guidance is focused on spending the charity's money, so action that would be taken about the charity. It's worth reading the paper.

 

AIUI with the WSRA situation, the CC's permission was needed for members of a charity to take their own charity to court, whereas 'outsiders' eg the Plc could take a charity to court if they so wished without needing permission - no doubt those with the relevant knowledge will correct me if wrong.

I get the impression that sadly the S&DRT is in the position of being 'damned if they do, damned if they don't'. If they do challenge the Plc in court then they risk losing, whereas if they do not challenge in court then AIUI the Trustees risk being found in breach of their duties as Trustees to protect the assets of their Trust.

 

Ah I see, thank you, that makes sense.
On the basis of what we've discussed here, I can see no choice for the trustees but to take legal action, not necessarily because charity law forces them to, but that given the facts as presented to us so far, it seems likely to succeed and also to be the most desirable outcome.

 

And the WSRA has handed over £180000 to the PLC but has for practical purposes little if any say in how it is run..........

 

To be fair, it did buy some advice on how to combine pleasure with travel.