Peak Rail Annual Report and Action Group

I have started a new thread as I know that the main contributor to the existing thread prefers that it stays free of more controversial matters. The latest annual report of Peak Rail PLC (y/e 31 December 2016) - available at https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/02071143/filing-history makes depressing reading. The management there seems to get into a lot of disputes and it comes across as a rather dysfunctional set-up, reflected in the tiny turnover.

 

£160,000 - that's one hell of a claim - wht on earth can justify that - have Peak Rail destroyed the loco?

Also if it comes anywhere near suceeding, once legal costs are added it is a massive sum in relation to turnover and even the balance sheet - lets hope this doesn't turn into another King Edward I type of case

David R

 

For those not familiar with the King Edward I case:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...team-buffs-sell-engine-to-pay-libel-bill.html

A very unfortunate tale

David R

 

I am a shareholder, so got the printed copy, which has a bit more detail on costs.
There do appear to be some disputes, not only with the owner of the locomotive mentioned above. I guess it all depends on what was in the hire agreement.
There is also the use of capitalised labour to reduce expenses, £19k in 2016 and £25k in 2015 and 2014. If you add that back into the P&L the 2016 profit becomes a loss. I don't fully understand the accounting implications of capitalising labour, perhaps someone can shed light on that? The A/R says that 'labour costs incurred that are directly attributable to bringing assets into working condition are capitalised'.
They also revalued the Buxton site in 2011, which increases the equity.

On the other hand, they got into Matlock, which is a success, and they are looking into extending to Rowsley, which is why I became a shareholder in the first place.

Good stuff seems to be happening at Darley Dale - lamp posts, footbridge, station building.

 

My understanding is that the "claim" is still live. Still within the court system so it is in no ones interest to publically comment about it.
Perhaps this thread should be removed ?

Peace

 

Blimey that annual report makes grim reading

 

I understand the claim has been settled by Peak Rail accepting and paying the Grinsty offer of settlement of £130,000, plus costs to be assessed later - goodness knows what they will be.

 

It's no big surprise IMO.

The management at Peak Rail have consistently underperformed and if a change of directors, or at the very least a new approach to running the railway can, in all honesty, have only one outcome and that will be the closure of the railway!

Ok that maybe sounds a bit harsh, but in reality it's what will happen if things stay as they are.

 

I have received an email from Jackie Statham, who is the Joint Managing Director of Peak Rail PLC.

Due to this being an ongoing court case, I have been asked to moderate further discussion. Therefore, I will leave posts that have already been posted. However I will lock this thread until the court case has been resolved where this thread will be reopened in the interest of publicly available information and free speech.

Admin

 

There is more information about the recently settled court case on Pete Briddon’s excellent Weekend Rails site, 22/10/17 blog post.

Thanks Admin for reopening this thread.

 

Being a shareholder I have received a circular from another concerned shareholder - there seems to be some disquiet at all the disagreements.
And I'm not happy with the idea of 'capitalised wages' in the AR. Never seen that before, certainly not with another preserved railway accounts.
Given the tiny profit last reported the case settlement costs are a huge setback.

 

It would be helpful if the press release circulated by Grinsty’s lawyers could be shared.

As for capitalised labour it’s not unreasonable if it’s being expended on bringing a new asset into use. It was one aspect of controversy at the WSRA though.

like Mr Briddon I did get a companies house CD of the shareholders. It’s not up to date but it was clear the shareholders were very thinly spread with very few holding more than 10k out of 700k+. I would have thought an AGM could be swung by about 3 parties. One of these is the Peak Railway Association.

The most common name seems to be deceased, followed by dec’d. My name is spelt wrong and I expect the address is 30years out.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

So sad when things like this happen as the only winners at the end of the day are the Lawyers.
Chris

 

I think it would be extremely helpful if Peak Rail plc made a public statement about the case, its implications for the future and the lessons that need to be learnt. In that way shareholders and also members can make their own judgement on what has happened.

Mick Bond

 

I made a point of going to the AGM for the first time in several years, partly because it was held on a Tuesday and very few people could go, mostly because it was clear that the company had engaged in extremely dangerous courses of action and I wished to give a personal warning about the possible legal costs of the two actions. No complete figure for those costs has yet been given. As a shareholder I would like to know whether the directors were directly and fully advised of the risks at an early stage.

No one wants to see Peak Rail fail, but there have been years of futile disputes which the company does not seem to know how to avoid or settle without un-necessary damage. This must be addressed.

The overwhelming impression I got from the AGM, apart from the present troubles, was of a rather tired organisation, urgently in need of new blood, new energy and fresh, realistic ideas.

 

Figers crossed there will not be a need for an EGM.

Change is good.

For those who can assist with running of the railway make it know to the PLC therefor a smooth transfer of reponsibities can be made. Those who have given many years of commitment at no cost to the railway should be thanked for their dedication.

Has anyone asked the joint director what is his her plan for their future within the PLC ?

If persons decide to dig their heals in it is now potential to cause PR real damage.

PR cannot afford a WSRA type situation although to be fair it appears to have ultimately worked out in the best interest for the bright future of the railway,

Talking is good but requires both parties to partake.

An EGM may well be unavoidale although washing the laudry in public on forums is best avoided.

If the people concerned do the right things then change is possible without ill will while securing the railways future.

Peace

 

Having the AGM of a volunteer association on a normal working day for most people would to me indicate that participation by it's members was the last thing the current board wanted. Or am I just being suspicious for no reason?

 

As you suggest, it seems somewhat suspicious. Less reputable public companies have been known to hold their AGMs in a remote location for a similar reason.

 

That is to assume it is a deliberate attempt to exclude - as opposed to simply not caring, and just going through the motions at management's convenience.

I'm not sure that's overmuch better.