S&D Railway Trust

Have you never heard of leases? These entitle the tenant to remain, subject to conditions, even if the landlord. "sells up" as you put it.

Sent from my SM-T590 using Tapatalk

 

It would be interesting to have some clarification on this incident _ I can't really see how a gas fire could be used to light up an engine. On the other hand I can recall, as a child, using a gas poker in place of newspaper and kindling to light a domestic coal fire. If the "gas fire" in this incident was actually a gas poker then I can't really see a major problem.

 

I think that the Major problem is that there are some people with in the PLC who because the S&D isn't GWR, but their old enemy Southern ,and Midland, probably don't want them on their GWR railway, purist's who will actually be happy to see them and the midland 7f go elsewhere, perhaps they think the HRA might act as middleman in finding a new home for it, rather than to help solve what is an unsolvable problem, because its I now believe the real reason all this kicked off. its someone with a pro GWR bias I bet that if there was a group on the line with an Bulleid Pacific, they would also find themselves no longer welcome. didn't the 35011 group have discussions with the WSR, to move there, but it went sour, unexpectedly?

 

It depends what the lease says the HRA can do - some sort of non-binding mediation or some more formal commercial landlord and tenant dispute resolution role. For what it's worth the joint statement mentions neither arbitration nor adjudication:

"It was agreed that the best way to minimise those concerns was to use the services of an independent party, which is provided for in the terms of the lease. The PLC explained that it has already been in talks with the Heritage Railway Association about such an approach, and was waiting for their final agreement on assistance. "

Adding 2 + 2 this may have been the legal delay referred to in the statement, awaiting the HRA's agreement to undertake whatever thing is in the terms of the lease.

Patrick

 

Do we know if it is to use the HRA as the independent party or to have the HRA recommend someone who could be acceptable to both sides?

 

The official website states that WSR's lease expires in 2088. Still plenty long enough not to be a concern in the current climate.

 

The Plc seem to be blithely oblivious to the fact that whatever they do as landlords to the S&DRT could be done to them as leaseholders of Somerset County Council. Whilst they are trying to prove that the S&DRT are not paying enough rent, they are forgetting just how much rent the WSR paid until the end of its first lease and how much less than that they are paying now. Unlike the case with Washford and the S&DRT, it is easy to work out what rent the WSR Plc "should" be paying.

 

I agree - but was more wondering if @JBTEvans was consistent in his view of how lease relations should work, or actually arguing that it's WSR plc who ought somehow to be immune from property law, contract law, and common decency.

 

I'm glad that I'm not a tenant of yours. There is little point in a tenancy agreement if the landlord can just tell the tenant to go.

I recall acting for landlords who had nightmare tenants; yes, the court would give a possession order if the tenant had failed to pay the rent, or otherwise breached the terms. I also acted for tenants with nightmare landlords, and harassment led to court proceedings with substantial damages being awarded. Even tenants have some rights, as long as they behave themselves. There is nothing in what I've seen of the notice to quit, to show that the S&DRT has misbehaved in terms of the tenancy terms. It is only now that the WSR plc is trying to justify the notice to quit, and any judge will ask why such breaches weren't alleged in the original notice to quit. The plc's attempts to justify the notice seem very unconvincing.

 

Given just how often the WSR stage S&D themed galas, I’d be very surprised (and more than a little shocked) if what you say is true - they must know which side the gala bread is buttered when it comes to attracting enthusiasts. I wouldn’t take what sounds like mess room banter and turn it into a considered view of strategy.

Tom

 

A bit like this thread then........

 

The difference of course is that this thread contains submissions from a wide range of people, so an inaccuracy by one poster casts doubt on their posts, but not the rest. Care to point out any inaccuracies made by posters in this threads by the way, that haven't been picked up on by others?

 

So over £300K of the provision was released. All part of the financial miracle brought about by jjp’s stewardship. All smoke and mirrors which does nothing to the cash balances or to the sustainability of the railway.

 

Though, being fair, if the provision was in the books but not backed by cash, releasing it may have been a reasonable thing to do - regardless of suspicions of smoke and mirrors.

 

WRT 2, surely that makes him conflicted and therefore disqualified from involvement on behalf of either organisation in this particular exercise.

 

I would expect Mark Smith and David Morgan to continue to conduct themselves with the professionalism they have demonstrated over many years.

Mark Smith has a clear conflict of interest in this matter, so could not play any part in HRA’s deliberations and adjudication on a WSR matter.
There are plenty of other HRA board and sub group members that could act completely impartially.

 

Not really, the only justification for reducing it would be that the obligation no longer existed or there had been a re-estimation of the final cost of the obligation. It would be reasonable to include a note explaining which was the cause without it shareholder and other interested parties are non the wiser.

Still these accounts are a year past their date, I wonder when we will see the 2019/20 ones?.

 

Releasing part of the provision will reduce the 'loss' that year but it does not change the amount of cash the company may or may not have.

 

I'm pretty sure the 300K of loco overhaul provision removed related to the termination of the contracts with the 56xx and 4F, leaving just 118K or so provision for the 7F - what other Plc-owned locos were running at this time?

 

So, as Ian Milne said: