S&D Railway Trust

I doubt if they want to receive several hundred private letters ! They have been asked continuously on here to provide explanations but steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the concerns, let alone respond to them.
Just because there are one or two posters with what appear to be personal issues with the Board or its members (and a couple of those that appeared a couple of months back were, rightly, quickly barred) does not mean that the rest of us should be treated with disdain.
"1492" above comments "I return to the concept of what is actually a "fact". Some folk on here seem to be having trouble with the concept." Strangely ignoring that "the facts" is exactly what we are asking for but are not being given. As I, and others, have said before: There would be far less speculation if the real facts were presented openly in the first place.(my post 23684).

 

Isn't that kind of the point!? Certainly worth a try.

 

What a strange response ! Nobody asked you to put private details into the public domain. What I was saying was that the Board could have given an explanation to the members and shareholders concerned - after the event if necessary for commercial reasons - but has not done so. Nor has it done so, despite the considerable concerns being expressed "by people who are genuinely passionate", over the Washford action. These are not, as you put it, "only of interest to the two parties participating" and something that can therefore be dealt with by one-to-one communication. There are many hundreds of volunteers, shareholders and supporters who have the right to know what is being done in their name and why.
There is a danger that the Board develops a "Bunker" mentality whereby they are unable to distinguish between sensible advice and unreasonable criticism, leading to a "my way or the highway" approach which can only result in a severe loss of support and, ultimately, disaster.

 

The 1991 lease between the WSR PLC and the SDRT is very clear that the SDRT must comply with all legal and regulatory requirements. There is not the slightest doubt that the SDRT has complied with all that it is required to do under the terms of it's lease and all regulatory matters so far as Washford is concerned, and the Notice to Quit purports to rely on statutory grounds in the 1954 Act, and no additional Notice to Quit has been served under the terms of the lease suggesting the SDRT has infringed it's lease or any regulatory matters at all or at any time.

What Mark Smith, WSR PLC director implied in his press statement is of no legal effect and a slur on the SDRT that it had by merely "suggested" movements within the Washford yard caused the Notice to Quit to be issued.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The Notice to Quit does not cite the SDRT contravening the terms of it's lease whatsoever. Instead it relies only on a statutory ground in s.30 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 with a Notice to Quit under s.25 of the Act.

Cheers,

Julian

 

A landlord and tenant lawyer should be able to make mincemeat of the Notice to Quit, and even if the Notice were to be upheld in court, with the S&DRT obliged to leave, the whole way in which the WSR Board has handled the matter throws the board's competence into question. Even when you are justified in kicking a tenant out, there is no point in casting slurs such as 'cuckoo in the nest'. It doesn't advance your case for possession and termination of the lease. It just shows you to be intemperate and a bully. As a (very minor) shareholder, this episode does not give me any confidence in the present Board.

I'd better not identify myself, lest my shares be confiscated for having questioned the Board's competence.

John

 

Please stand up and be counted! The more shareholders and stakeholders who do make representations the more difficult it will be to penalise us. Keith

 

Is that not the 'old' lease though?

It is my recollection that the old lease ran out sometime in mid 2020 - May or June perhaps? So, does the new lease - signed in 2018 apparently - start from when the old one expired, and so is not yet in operation, or did it supersede the old lease at that time, in which case the latter is no longer relevant? Perhaps Ian can advise us on that please given that he signed it

 

Your post reads as if you have actually seen the relevant documents including the Notice to Quit. I presume that these documents are not actually in the public domain and remain private between the parties.

As such we can’t really say what the grounds for termination are (noting that it is possible to state multiple grounds) so perfectly possible that s.25 and breaches of the lease have been suggested by WSR plc. Given the nature of the lease I’d expect a clause to be in there for the regulatory side, and this would presumably have been carried over to the new lease signed last year.

Without seeing the original documents this is all just pure speculation of course.

I would say there is a difference as between the “legal” rights and wrongs of this matter with the “moral” rights and wrongs. I think the general view expressed on here is that difficult to make a judgement on the former without knowing the exact detail whereas on the latter there seem to be some very clear lines as to who is “right” and “wrong”.

regards

Matt

 

Whilst the notice to quit Washford came as a surprise, I think it is part of the natural evolution of things and eventually the SDRT would have re located to Midsomer Norton, its natural home.

So rejoice, let the cuckoo fly the nest and settle as a swan at MN.

Steve

 

I’m not sure that the S&DRT were ever a cuckoo, while my memory of the fairy tale is that it was an ugly duckling that turned into a swan.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Mixing metaphors is worth two in the bush, so to speak

 

Fine, but.....can you explain please exactly where "at MSN" you expect the S&DRT to be able to settle, given that currently the S&DRHT does not have enough siding and shed capacity for its own needs and any free space is likely to be taken up by their own expansion plans?

 

Aren't the S&DRHT currently asking the owners of a MR coach to remove it? Just at the time when the arrival of several S &D coaches that would nicely match it are potentially about to arrive? IIUC its because it doesn't fit the 1950s image they are seeking to recreate, so presumably the the same will apply to at least some of the S & DRT stock? This might be a case of "out of the frying pan......"

 

Has anyone actually established whether MN would be willing to take the S&DRT, or the S&DRT would wish to go to MN? This discussion seems to be in danger of moving other people around without reference to those affected.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

The S&DRT was never a Cuckoo! A Cuckoo invades another bird's nest and evicts its eggs leaving the original bird to bring up the young Cuckoo. How this can be seen to have been the case with S&DRT? they were invited to take up residence at Washford and have paid rent and enhanced the station and its environs ever since. They could not, because of their charitable status give money to WSR but they have been a valuable asset for many years. Keith

 

Now all these analogies are really confusing me. If you have a cuckoo in the nest you need to get a doctor to amputate it as fast as you can before it spreads and you have a swan on your head? An ugly duckling is the best medicine? Many hands make light evictions?

I notice the "new thread" doesn't have "West Somerset Railway" in the title - is that so the "The WSR can do nothing wrong!" contingent can uphold the line that the S&DRT is a foreign invader who are nothing to do with them, or is it to calm things down on the basis that those who assume this forum consists of the WSR thread and nothing else won't even realise this thread exists?

 

Perhaps it’s just to focus the discussion?

As for the analogies, I just think people need to pause to think what they are actually saying, and perhaps explain why they think them apt. I’m not at all clear why the S&DRT would be a cuckoo in the nest, or why they cannot reach their potential at Washford but could become a swan at a site belonging to another organisation that apparently has its own issues and isn’t as far as we know in the running to provide a refuge anyway.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Exactly the point which I made some while ago. Rather like Washford, there are 'other issues' at play here in the case of the MR coach, but I don't want to get embroiled in that particular can of worms

 

Nor me, but it is WSR management to whom we should be addressing that question really

 

On the other hand, there is someone on the WSR who has come in from outside and now appears to be, cuckoo-fashion, kicking the other nestlings out of the nest. A historically inappropriate form of gaslighting, perhaps?