West Somerset Railway General Discussion

''GWR Pannier locomotive 9466 has been made available for hire over the Christmas period, according to owner Jonathan Jones Pratt.
Its current home, the Ecclesbourne Valley Railway, do not require the locomotive’s services in December, which makes it a prime time for another railway to hire the locomotive''.

I wonder which railway will wish to hire a locomotive for just December? <BJ>

 

They didn't look like throw-away addresses to me. Robin's was her WSRA address, but the others could quite easily be their main personal addresses. Even if they are "throw-away" addresses, they still broke the law, and even if you decide that doesn't matter, their postal addresses were also revealed. A staggeringly daft thing to do. Quite why someone as senior as @FrankC is trying to excuse that is majorly baffling. For once, the legal aspect is the most important aspect to this issue! So no doubt @Lineisclear will have a view too...

 

perhaps they are using the same scriptwriters as the plc

 

In the words of E.Blackadder's telegram to Charlie Chaplin.

Please please please STOP

 

The whole WSR saga would make a good subject for a Tom Lehrer song.

Incidentally, I don't really agree that this business reflects badly on railway preservation as a whole. It certainly does on the WSR though.

 

One has to ask why the WSSRT Trustees felt it necessary to seek legal advice before supplying the members' addresses to the "group of ten", particularly as some of them (the Trustees) had been involved with the challenge to the "WRSA 6" who had also attempted to obstruct the flow of information to their members. It is axiomatic that, in a democratic society, candidates for office have the absolute right to put their cases before the electors, who can then vote as they see fit. I am both astounded and deeply disappointed that anybody should think it in any way acceptable to interfere in the process in this way. If you don't agree with the policies that the group of candidates are proposing then spell out your reasoning to your members and let them decide which direction to take. Trying to interfere with the vote only diminishes your case, however good it might be.

 

Instead, more shots fired…

Very strange…

Simon

 

But oddly, they didn't seem to seek legal advice on including the addresses of some of the WSSRT10.

I wonder how much money that could have been spent on carriage restoration was wasted in pointless lawyers fees?

 

With the positions entrenched as they are I don't see there is any point in considering concilliation until the "winner" becomes clear. Whether the "incumbents" or the "rebels" prevail, there is going to be a significant number of the "losing" side who either leave or are expelled. All we can hope is that the side which prevails actually represents the will of the majority of the volunteers on the railway - those who put the effort into the running of the railway for no other reward than enjoyment - because they are going to have to work even harder to keep the WSR alive (unless the incumbents prevail and their ultimate goal is a paid staff only railway which no longer reequires volunteers...)

 

Maybe I based my views on my mail address usage. Hotmail got a very bad press almost twenty years ago, I never used it except for Skype access or as a throwaway. Likewise GMail is only necessary for Google map and You Tube, but it was the only mail address that I ever received unwanted and unpleasant mail on until I blocked most things. I have an ISP address less important use but my important mail is secure Swiss based. I recently closed two former ISP addresses. I do not use Windows.
I know no mail addresses of anyone here on NP. but I have part of one now, you have told me.

 

Most people aren't that fussy/aware of potential issues. Certainly I know plenty of people for whom @btinternet or @hotmail addresses are their main personal addresses and they'd be most annoyed if it was given away. I tend to use my gmail account for signing up to things like free wifi in stations and the like so they can bombard me with emails to their heart's desire and I never see any of it.

 

Frank C is a PLC 'board adviser'. Need I say more?

 

It may be perhaps that the legal status of the WSSRT is different to that of the WSRA and that, given that the request was made under a section of Company law, perhaps the required response was different?

As it happens, I know of another Trust in the same county where many long-standing senior members, including at least one very well known honorary life member, have either resigned in disgust at recent actions of their Trustees or have been thrown out for voicing an 'opposing' view. Yet AFAIK most of the wider membership of that Trust have no knowledge of this at all, because AIUI those subject to this action have been denied access to the means to communicate with the membership and the only source of news comes from the in-house magazine (shades of the 'Pravda' WSRA Journal at the time of the ex-6) and media outlets which are conspicuous silent on the matter. Here again, the legal status of this particular Trust may - or may not - make it susceptible to a similar action under Company law (as a layman I have no idea).

 

Ian,

Did the plc not already say that they have a business use for the site that was the legal basis for the eviction ? Has that now evaporated or did it indeed ever exist ?

Brian

 

An online search of the register of companies is now straightforwardly accomplished at https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/. Feed the name of the trust concerned into the 'Company name' box and you should obtain details of companies matching the name under which you searched. If the organisation to which you are referring is the one I think then, yes, it is a company, and in principle it might be possible to obtain a list of company members' names and addresses via a Section 116 Companies Act request.

However, the company concerned may, within 5 working days of receiving such a request, apply for a court order relieving it from the obligation to supply such details . If it satisfies the Court that the none of the grounds on which such details are sought constitute a 'proper purpose' for requesting them then such an order will be granted. Requesting such details merely as the basis for a mailshot setting out details of a grievance about the way in which the company has treated you is not likely to be treated as a 'proper purpose'. On the other hand, using such a mailshot to canvass support for a motion about that grievance to be put to an EGM of the company might pass the 'proper purpose' test.

The way the legislation is set up on this seems all too likely to end up in litigation, so potentially another nice little earner for m'learned friends.

 

Brian, yes I think they have. I made my comment before that announcement, back in those halcyon pre-covid days. Another world.
Ian

 

Whatever business use for the Washford site the plc may have intended, it was never a lawful basis for evicting the S&DRT. In the case of Washford, any such intended business use only becomes relevant in the context of the plc, as landlord, opposing on the ground set out in Section 30(1)(g) Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 an application for a new tenancy by its tenant the S&DRT. But the S&DRT has no need to apply for such a new tenancy until its existing tenancy is lawfully brought to an end. That has yet to happen.

The suggestion has previously been made on this thread (at https://www.national-preservation.c...eral-discussion.508987/page-1570#post-2602914) that a landlord of business premises cannot simply evict a tenant but must satisfy a court that it requires such premises for its own business purposes. The need to use Washford as the best site for a Permanent Way base was then cited as being in the WSR's best interests, if not in those of the S&DRT. Evidently this was thought to be a tenable basis for the Trust's eviction, but as a matter of law it is pure poppycock.