Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Destined to be an historic figure?

 

https://www.ncvo.org.uk/about-us/our-services/support-small-charities-voluntary-organisations/#/

https://smallcharitiesdata.org/definitions-small-charity/

 

...but hopefully not as dramatic as that other AB Anne Boleyn


Or, as somebody wrote after yesterday "The Penny is mightier than the sword"

 

You presume that savings are readily available to fund those roles. I think that is optimistic at best.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

4.1.4 of the CC's "Guidance Charity reporting and accounting: the essentials November 2016 (CC15d)" details it thus:

4.1.4 Charities with a gross income exceeding £1 million in the relevant financial year, or whose gross assets exceed £3.26 million and gross income exceeds £250,000 (legal requirement)
Basis of preparation: a charity must prepare accruals accounts in accordance with the 2008 Regulations and the applicable SORP.

External scrutiny: a statutory audit is required and the accounts must be audited by a registered auditor.

Type of trustees’ annual report: a full trustees’ annual report must be prepared (see section 7).

Information to be sent to the commission: these charities must complete an annual return. The named charity contact on the commission’s records will receive an annual return notification. Submission of the annual return is online.

The annual return, trustees’ annual report and accounts must be filed with the commission, within 10 months of the end of the charity’s financial year.

Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...g-requirements-for-different-types-of-charity

 

Threshold for statutory audit A.7. In England and Wales, an audit is required if either the charity’s gross income exceeds £1 million or its gross assets exceed £3.26m and gross income exceeds £250,000. A.8. In Scotland, an audit is required if either the charity’s gross income is £500,000 or more or its gross assets exceed £3.26m and the charity has prepared accruals accounts. A.9. In Northern Ireland, an audit is required when the charity’s gross income exceeds £500,000. A.10. In the Republic of Ireland, section 50 of the Charities Act 2009, which provides for the minister to set an audit threshold of €500,000 (or less), has yet to be implemented. Consequently, there is no audit or reporting framework for non-company charities in charity law. The audit of company charities is conducted under Irish company law. Company charities must have an audit unless the company qualifies for an audit exemption.

Definition of a larger charity B.10. Prior to Update Bulletin 1, the definition of a larger charity in the SORP was linked to the charity law audit threshold. The SORP required those charities required by charity law to have an audit to provide greater disclosure in their trustees’ annual report and notes to the accounts. B.11. The Charities Act 2011 (Accounts and Audit) Order 2015 increased the charity audit income threshold from £500,000 to £1 million in England and Wales with effect for reporting periods ending on or after 31 March 2015. As a result, the definition of a larger charity was amended so it is not linked to the statutory audit threshold in order to ensure that the definition of smaller charity remained the same across the UK charity law jurisdictions. The glossary of the SORP now defines larger charities as those charities with a gross income exceeding £500,000 (UK) or 500,000 euros (Republic of Ireland) in the reporting period. B.12. The joint SORP-making body consulted on the definition of a larger charity in 2015. Respondents supported the proposal to de-link the definition from the statutory audit threshold. The joint SORP-making body concluded that the revised definition preserved the current consistency in reporting practice for charities in the UK and the Republic of Ireland, avoided confusion for charities operating in different jurisdictions and sought to future proof the SORP from any further divergent changes in audit thresholds.

According to the 2022 accounts net current assets come to £5,553,254.00 pounds

 

I think perhaps both may be right depending on the criteria you apply, whether by membership numbers, financially, assets held or otherwise.

When seeking to set governance documents one definition may not give enough info to enable the best possible. The membership numbers themselves, the resources to pull trustees from, and also how the wider sector defines must be taken into account.

 

It's highly unlikely (like 99.9%) that the CC will do anything. No matter what anyone thinks, this IS a small spat in Devon. The CC is far too busy chasing charities who are financing terrorism or embezzling £100ks. All you can do is to encourage the members to vote against.
Also remember that is great to be the one who counts the votes.
Ian

 

“It’s not the man who votes who counts, it’s the man who counts the votes.” (Stalin)

 

Perhaps, but if there's conflict bewteen two sets of gudiance, then the best course is to choose the more demanding standard under the precautionary principle.

 

The key point is that the Charities Commission is the legal regulator, and the links provided by @Tobbes represent the legal position. The links you’ve provided represent the support available to charities under different, non-statutory, definitions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

At least Dominion has not yet reached North Devon. I wonder what safeguarding is in place to ensure a true and fair count?

 

Sadly, probably none :-(

ikcdab will recall a situation where the HRA was engaged to act as an independent vote counter, but all the postal votes came in the first instance to the Trust's registered office for 'onward shipment' (because the Trust supplied pre-paid envelopes to its members to encourage postal votes and it was not possible to change the address or get a new licence in time), but IIRC after the first batch or two had been forwarded to the HRA the former Chairman (still a Trustee) arrived in the Manager's office and demanded that the votes be handed over to him :-( Still, it was finally too late and the EGM went in favour of the 'new blood'.

 

Disagree. As co-signatory on an official complaint to the Charity Commission 20 years regarding the L&B's egregious behaviour then (Yes, nothing changes, sadly), it stepped in with remarkable alacrity and sorted out the problems in pretty short order. So, unless you can demonstrate, with substantive evidence that the CC will do nothing, I don't think your comment is in any way constructive.

 

As I recall, that was dealt with admirably at the last AGM - they called on independent adjudicators.
The CIC directors handled the Trust counts, and the Trustees handled the CIC counts. Simples!

 

I still think caution needs to be applied in considering ourselves a large charity. Perhaps asset rich but membership poor in comparison to other charities is a better way to put it. My biggest concern is needing a far larger membership base to be able to source future trustees from and especially in light of not that long ago we did not have all spaces filled.

 

Hi Dave I am sure that once progress can be seen to be happening, we will get members coming out of the woodwork for all sorts of reasons, success like a bigger and better L&BR will always attract people to it, we may not agree with their motives, but I am sure we will recruit those that we shall need.

 

Dear Mr Fenwick

I strongly object to you naming me as an associate of the L&BR Board of Trustees. Your suggestion is completely wrong, so you may wish to do the right thing and apologise.

My current involvement with the railway is limited to being a "life member" of the L&BR Trust and also involved with the Surrey Support Group. As an aside, I have directly contributed to several funding appeals as also donated railway items for both L&BR and EA projects. For many years I was a regular train "guard" at Woody Bay, and also attended several winter working weekends.

Since then, I have also undertaken the role of "membership secretary" for a short period until a health decline forced my resignation. I was then invited to help manage the .ORG archive website which I could do sitting in my armchair here at home. When the new current website was introduced, I was effectively sacked by the management from this latter role, which to this day remains my only confirmed dissatisfaction against the management.

I am not ignoring the repetitive postings on this website. My silence is by reason that during my working career I learnt that in every dispute there are always at least two sides to every story. Until I have heard the awaited response from the Trustees, hopefully at the forthcoming AGM later this week, I shall continue to remain silent.

 

Did he name you? I took his comments to relate just to the current board of trustees.

You and me both Chris! I have never had any official confirmation of my "sacking" or any explanation, nor any thanks for supporting various iterations of the website over 20-odd years, but am I bitter? Well, maybe a little...

 

@Axe +1 - my apologies - I was using "Chris D" as a shorthand for "Chris Duffell" - I thought this would be clear from the context. My apologies, I've corrected the post.