West Somerset Railway General Discussion

@rodders154
What due diligence did you & the other plc Directors do when you appointed JJP to the board?

So, the plc was trading whilst insolvent...

 

So, the sale of Promotions by the WSRA to the plc, which was recommended in an independent report, & which has now hit problems because of the plc, is somehow the fault of the WSRA?
How would they gain control of the company, without a load of shareholders willingly selling up?
Why would the loco have been sold to the plc? WSRA already own locos, which they've not sold to the plc.

 

Here's your chance...
https://www.facebook.com/144955566307085/posts/719924235476879/

 

Haven't ALL the assets of the plc been mortgaged to the bank - if so that would include both locos, wouldn't it?

 

An interesting comment from JJP on this post.

Sent from my SM-T590 using Tapatalk

 

There are 4 active charges on the plc;
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/01010188/charges


The reason I mentioned Odney Manor separately is because it's mentioned separately in the Annual Report;
Finance
In the last months of 2018, the newly formed board took professional advice to confirm whether the Company was able to continue trading taking into account the very serious cash position that the business faced in the early months of 2019. The position was not helped by the decision of the prior executive to allow our overdraft facilities to lapse and our bankers were understandably cautious in their subsequent approach to lending. The result was a need to resort to an asset backed loan against Odney Manor and the sale of locomotive 4110. In the end the bank did provide a facility albeit at a far lower level than we had previously enjoyed.


This is for the year ending 31 March 2019, but the report is dated 1 November 2019.
4110 was sold in February 2019, so within the year.
Two of the active charges were created August 2019 (so after year end) The earlier charges are from 2017.

One of those charges is a mortgage (re-mortgage?) of property;
The freehold property known as station house, station road, bishops lydeard, taunton, somerset TA4 3BX and registered at the land registry with title number ST40050, and the freehold property known as land lying to the west of station house, station road, bishops lydeard, taunton, somerset and registered at the land registry with title number ST304124

The other looks like an overdraft


So where is the asset backed loan?

 

I have remained quiet on this post as I do not wish to rise to personal insults, however I would like to pick up your comments re "fit for any position in any organisation".

For this I would like to draw your attention to the 7 duties of a company director as defined on companies house here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/being-a-company-director

I would draw particular attention to duty number 2, to promote the success of the company, here i quote:

Promote the success of the company
You must act in the company’s best interests to promote its success. You must consider the:

• consequences of decisions, including the long term
• interests of its employees
• need to support business relationships with suppliers, customers and others
• impact of its operations on the community and environment
• company’s reputation for high standards of business conduct
• need to act fairly to all members of the company

I would ask you to reflect on the above and conclude if this can be said to be true with regards to the West Somerset Railway.

I received not one but four copies of the unredacted Bailey report over the course of the last month. I and the group acted with the best interests and did not share the report. We had to deal with the long term consequences of this stance as full publication would of only helped the cause of the open letter. We recognised the impact that the report would have on the employees and volunteers of West Somerset Railway. We recognised the need to support the businesses of the S and D trust and the WSR. We recognised the potential impact it could have on the wider community. We recognised that full publication without prior approval of all four organisations would only damage the poor reputation of the WSR even further. And most importantly we did not publish it further as we needed to ensure that the S and D Trust was treated fairly.

I therefore do not understand your ill informed comments.

Now is the time to come together, save the WSR, restructure (not create new competing organisations) and to repair the damage done to the wider railway family, heritage movement and most importantly the community of people surrounding the WSR!

 

How is this helping anyone exactly?... Do you want the railway to fail and cease to exist?

 

Note 31, page 43 of the last accounts. It's a finance lease rather than a charge. By my reckoning the repayments of £11k a month mean the PLC would have paid it back and so redeemed the lease (for a "nominal charge") on or around 31 August 2020, but they may (like many businesses) have sought to reschedule that in view of COVID-19.

The other is a standard debenture, a fixed and floating charge on all the property or undertaking of the company, viz. "all of the company's freehold and leasehold property, plant and machinery, book and other debts and any other sums payable to the company, the benefit of all contracts, deeds and agreements, all intellectual property rights, goodwill and uncalled capital and undertaking, in each case both owned by the company now or in the future."

It's not uncommon and it gives Lloyds security of everything against the PLC's loans (which run to 2037) and overdraft.

Patrick

 

Ah likewise and i thought i was the only one.

 

This fails to realise that someone who is good at one thing is not necessarily good at everything, not even in their own narrow field of expertise. Whilst the chairman deserves our thanks for turning the company round, that doesn't absolve him from all criticism on any subject in the future. He has proved that he has what it takes to make some hard decisions, when those decisions need to be taken. He has not proved that he is infallible.

 

https://www.west-somerset-railway.c...response-to-sections-4-5-of-the-bailey-report
So, we have the Bailey Report, dated 23 May 2020
Which the plc made public on the 26 June 2020

Steam Railway magazine, issue 507, dated 26 June 2020;
HRA Completes Review of S&D Trust Saga
quote from JJP, as WSR Chairman

Regarding the allegations of safety issues at Washford, he said: "The issue was with a real ale festival where people were sitting down on the rails in the yard - it is a live railway, and that's not how you should portray your railway in the public eye. "ROGS (Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006) does apply to Washford yard - it's on the safety case which I've signed - and the reason the trust weren't contacted [by the Office of Rail and Road] is because the ORR's relationship is with the plc."​

which is part of a response to reporting in issue 506, dated 29 May 2020 (press 18 May)

He spoke to the magazine after having the Bailey Report for about 2 weeks

That response is also after the S&DRT issued a Press Statement, dated 15 May 2020;

Regarding alleged complaints to the ORR the Trust have not been made aware of any issues affecting the sidings at Washford. The Trust have sought guidance from the ORR and they confirm that, regarding the sidings at Washford, there are no reported issues and ROGS do not apply.​

I wonder if Bailey/HRA have been in contact with the ORR?

 

I can’t “like” that, but nor is it as fanciful as I’d wish.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Hello 'RichardBrum',

I've got a copy of both leases for Washford - and I don't agree with the Bailey Report's interpretation of either. The simple fact is that if there were operational safety issues over the SDRT at Washford yard they could have been used in the 'Notice to Quit' served by the WSR PLC board in February - but no such grounds were relied on.

The Bailey Report, to my surprise, is 'WSR PLC centric' (to use 35B's phrase for the rest of the report) also in so far as the currently redacted sections concerning the SDRT. I have already commented on other aspects of this part of the redacted Bailey Report yesterday evening.

If I were doing a Report such as John Bailey undertook (note his original brief was to mediate between the WSR PLC and SDRT over Washford and the 'Notice to Quit') and then extending my terms of reference to include the matters in parts 4 and 5 of his Report, I would have considered many others examples of 'set ups' of preserved railways for parts 4 and 5 of the Report; the KWVR, the IOWSR (the HRA chief exec Steve Oates is from the IOWSR), the TR, Ff R, and quite a few others.

I happen to disagree with John Bailey's comments in his Report over the WSRA, surprisingly as that may seem to some on here. If there is a big funding deficit I would cite Ditcheat Manor owned by the WSRA that John Bailey disparagingly comments as being in a 'shopping centre'; and the WSRA ought to be raising an appeal for it's substantial repair. It ought to ensure the Quantock Belle fleet is being properly maintained by the WSR PLC.

(And for the benefit of Michael Rowe and 'Rodders', I had no copy in any form of the Bailey Report until yesterday evening when the WSR PLC published the redacted version, and then only had this sent to me shortly afterwards via email in it's full version, and this was not via the SDRT. The first I knew of the Bailey Report being written up was something 'Barrie the beer' mentioned on here - was it a few days ago?)

Cheers,

Julian

 

A most interesting question, I look forward to the reply.

 

I feel the same way. The WSR is tearing itself apart, and I feel it is in the hands of people who are too used to getting their own way by bullying and refusing to face up to their mistakes. As said above, if the S&DRT had been guilty of safety breaches, these would have been alleged in the Notice to Quit. Either (a) the plc used rubbish lawyers to draw up the Notice to Quit, or (b) didn't instruct them properly or (c) didn't bother with lawyers at all and thought they knew it all, and what they didn't know they could make up as they went on.

Much though I love the Railway, I can't bring myself to give a penny piece to the appeal, while the present Board are in charge.

 

Unfortunately all only visible if one has a FB account and logs in.

 

Try this

 

Can't see anything from JJP there.

 

Hang on, I’ll just plug in my:



Robin