Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

The new fitter will allow for more flexibility when it comes to loco/stock availability allowing for things like charter trains and driver experience courses, which I'm told is where the big bucks are. It is hoped that the business is going to be developed quite considerably this year so the extra fitter is to accommodate for this increased growth, amongst other things. Also worth noting that the railway bought 2 lorry loads of coal last year and I can't remember any being bought the year before so that'll make a fair dent in the running costs.

In all this its worth remembering that the actual sales has only dropped by about 9 percent, so the drop in overall profit just means that the money has been reinvested back into the business, such as with the loco running costs.

 

I have no idea if you are right or wrong, but I sent an enquiry about a footplate experience back in late Jan/early Feb and never got a reply.
If my experience is typical then the railway is losing a lot of potential income.

 

No - unaudited - didn't spot that. Very odd - the Profit and Loss Account is repeated - on page 4 and again on page 12 (but without the tax being mentioned.)

 

Surely the cost of stocks of coal, if significant, are carried forward in the accounts at the end of each year, so one particular year should not be hit with the full costs of a large delivery ?

 

Odd - I wonder why?

At this point, I just don't know what to think about the information coming from the Trust; a clear, audited statement of assets, cash, liabilities - including contingent liabilities - should be easy and uncontroversial to provide, along with the costs of the abortive extension.

 

I'm not sure there are "big bucks" in footplate experiences. The key point being that although the price is high, the number of participants is necessarily low, while the cost of delivery is still substantial. For example, if you charge - say - £500 for a participant, that's the same income as needing to sell only about 50 tickets to regular passengers (and without the opportunities for secondary spend that those regular passengers might afford). The direct cost of delivery would be comparable, i.e. the steaming costs of a loco. My subjective opinion from having conducted them (albeit on standard gauge) is that footplate courses can also be quite heavy on coal for various reasons.

Wouldn't the normal accounting procedure be that any coal left over at the end of the year is essentially treated as "stock in hand". It would be the same principal as if your shop had taken £10,000 worth of items but only sold £5,000 by year end; you'd book £10,000 of costs to the year, £5,ooo of income in sales and have £5,000 of stock in hand carried over. Doing it that way smooths out the income / expenditure on items that are expensive, but bought rarely. But it does mean there isn't a benefit in 2023 just because you paid for your coal in 2022.

Tom

 

Agreed.
Just looking at the thread on Ffos y fran where posters estimate 20/25 tons per lorry load at a cost of about £450 per ton. So, if half of the two lorry-loads remained in stock at the end of the year that would give an asset of, say, £ 9000 to carry forward. Even if only half of this it would still have a substantial impact on the profit and loss record.
Are the company's trading stocks in the balance sheet ?

Edit : Post crossed with Tom's.

 

Assuming that the accounting is on an accruals basis (which I'd expect at this scale of organisation but haven't checked), then your assessment would be right. In the unlikely event that it the accounts are prepared on a cash basis, then @Thomas Woods' comment would be valid.

In my experience, it's not uncommon for those without experience of working around accounts to assume the cash basis (it's after all how we manage money as individuals) without realising the value of accruals based accounting.

Some more reading for the weekend.

 

Yes, but with no breakdown, so presumably includes shop stock, which the 'Accounting Policy' seems to confirm, talking about being 'measured at the lower of cost and estimated selling price less costs to complete and sell'. £21,300 at 31.12.22, £22,737 at the end of the previous year.

 

Those following the question of why Anne Belsey's name was not on the ballot will likely be interested in the following set of emails that I have sent to Tony Nicholson as Company Secretary and Peter Miles as Trust Chairman. As Mr Miles has not seen fit to respond, in the interests of informing the Membership of who did what and when, I am publishing the correspondence.

On 1 May 2023, 11.44 I wrote to Mr Miles:
____________________________________________

Dear Mr Miles cc L&BRT Trustees, Company Secretary,

As you will have seen on NatPres and Exmoor NG, there has been significant concern about the omission of Anne Belsey from the Trustee's ballot at the AGM.

Mr Nicholson wrote to me on Saturday stating that "You may not be aware that Anne Belsey currently faces a disciplinary investigation on serious - potentially criminal - charges. It would not be fair on her for me to say more but it would clearly be inappropriate for her to stand for election as a Trustee until the matter has been resolved."

This indicates that Anne's nomination was valid, and that it has been vetoed by Mr Nicholson acting alone or on the direction of others. I replied asking Mr Nicholson to pinpoint for me where in the Articles of Association this veto power exists and who it is vested in; I have not had a response; this is a simple request and his silence indicates that my reading of the M&A is correct: this power does not exist and he alone or with others has acted ultra vires.

Such an abuse is a very serious matter, and Mr Nicholson should have resigned or been sacked by the Board, and the Trustee election terminated and reset with Anne Belsey's valid nomination honoured and her name on the ballot.

I had hoped that this malfeasance would be confined to Mr Nicholson, and that his removal would be the end of it.

I was therefore astonished and very saddened to receive personal information over the weekend to the effect that you directed Mr Nicholson to reject Anne's nomination. If true, this would represent a spectacular abuse of power by you as Chair, and would be both a resigning matter in and of itself, as well meeting the Charity Commission's threshold for your personal disqualification as a Trustee for any UK charity for up to 15 years.

I do not want to prejudge this issue, so I ask a simple question:

Did you, or any of the Trustees, imply/suggest/direct/require/collude with/or in any other way attempt to influence Mr Nicholson to remove Anne Belsey's valid nomination for the 2023 Trusteeship election from the ballot?

I would appreciate an early response.

In the interests of transparency, I am copying this to the Trustees and to Anne Belsey.

SIncerely yours,

Toby

____________________________________________

 

There was no response from Mr Miles, but Chris Duffell did respond at 21:33 on 1 May 23.

_____________________________________________

Dear Toby

I refer to your email below to Mr Miles and copied to myself as a Trustees of the L&B Railway.

I will start by stating that the issue surrounding Anne Belsey has never been discussed or minuted, within a Trust meeting that I have attended, (I have only missed the June 2022 meeting, which I had arranged to attend by Zoom, but was unable to join, as the Chairman decided to move the meeting venue to a new location without WiFi. I could not attend the August 2022 meeting as I was otherwise engaged. However the minutes of those two meetings do not mention Ms Belsey). I have also never been involved in any discussion outside of Trust meetings concerning Anne.

The first that I knew about the proposed disciplinary action, was an email from the Chairman which contained the draft of a proposed letter to Ms Belsey. My reply (attached and copied to all trustees) pointed out that this letter should not be sent and set out my reasons. I also pointed out that the issue had never been discussed or minuted at a Trustee meeting.

Despite my email, The chairman sent the letter to Ms Belsey, who responded. I attach a further email chain (copied to all trustees), where, once more I pointed out that what was being proposed was unlawful, biased and a personal witch hunt.

Following the Chairman's reply to a further email from Annes enquiring why she had been expurgated from the Trustee election, I wrote further to the Chairman, Trustees and CIC directors. In a response, Peter Miles confirmed that the decision not to accept Anne nomination, had been taken by the Trustees. This agreement too must have been made outside of Trustee meetings, for as as pointed out above, it has never been discussed or minuted in a Trustee meeting. My opposition to this move has been set out in the emails listed which were copied to all Trustees. I have never consented to the proposal. However now that the Chairman has made this statement, then all those trustees that have agreed with the barring of Anne from standing as a Trustee are equally culpable and should also consider their position and resign.

The action to bar Anne has no legal standing within the Trust M&As and is an action where the Chairman and certain Trustees have acted ultra viries. It has rendered the Trusts AGM invalid and rearranging it will incur further costs to the Trust of at least £3000. Costs which must not be bourne by the membership.

I trust this email makes my position clear in opposing the actions of the Chairman and those Trustees that pledged their allegiance to him in his illegal action against Anne Belsey.

Kind regards

Chris

_________________________________________

Enclosed email one from Chris Duffell dated Thu, 13 Apr, 09:14

Peter

I refer to your letter to Anne Belsey, which I note is dated the 5th of April but was not sent to Trustees until the 12th April

I am appalled at the content of this proposed letter. It makes the organisation of the Trust seem more and more like a 3rd world dictatorship. You provide a copy of the Trust Disciplinary procedure, which was last updated in 2007, only a few months after the date the last piece of track laid on the L&B was opened. What has happened to the regular reviews of such procedures required as part of good Governance?

Your letter contravenes that procedure and demonstrates the length that you will go to denigrate those that have different views to yourself. Your letter is full of accusations and assumptions, but no evidence whatsoever has been provided.

You bring up the old chestnut of GDPR regulations, which appear only to apply when it suits you. The Trust has just suffered a very serious GDPR leak, caused by the Chairman of the East Group, where he used details of the Trust membership list to send out a newsletter, which by his on admission in that document "Is not a Trust Document" and "The views expressed are his own and his alone and do not represent the views of the Trust". So over 100 members had their membership emails exposed to all and sundry just for the purpose of sending out a document which was not Trust policy and makes unsubstantiated accusations against other Trust members. I therefore await a letter, similar to the one to Ms Belsey, being prepared for Mr Arthurs, together with the GDPR report to the Information Commissioner.

But I know I wont see such a letter because, "ALL THAT's OK" according to you. Its also "OK" to accuse Anne, without offering any evidence. You have no evidence showing that Anne used the Trust membership list to send out her email (especially as she did as instructed, and deleted her copy last year). Anne does not control the public forums, so if somebody wishes to re-post items there, there is nothing that the originator can do about it.

You sign the letter as being written on behalf of the Trustees. It certainly has not been written on my behalf, because the content has not been discussed with me, nor has it been discussed at any Trustee meeting (or rather not one that I have been included in), neither, as I said above, has any concrete evidence to support your claims been made known to the Trustees.

Before you go any further with this sham letter I suggest that you read paras ii, iii, & iv of your disciplinary procedure and put those processes in place. As Anne has to have at least 28 days notice of any meeting, it means that no meeting can now be held until after the AGM, at which I hope, she will have been elected as a Trustee. My suggestion to you is to quietly drop this charade before it comes back to bite you.

There is a saying "Be careful what you wish for"

Chris

On 12/04/2023 17:33, Peter Miles wrote:
Dear All



Attached is a letter which will be sent to Anne Belsey shortly. The contents are self-explanatory.



Best regards

Peter

__________________________________________

Email two chain from Chris to Peter Miles and Trust on Sun, 23 Apr, 08:44

Peter

I find your latest email most disturbing, as it makes this business more and more like a witch hunt, where the party is already guilty, but where you are still fabricating the evidence.

Having spoken to good friend of mine who runs her own HR company, she was surprised when I said that you intended to have the review meeting by Zoom, as that is frowned upon in HR & ACAS circles. Whilst that might have been acceptable during Covid, it is definitely not acceptable practice now.

Your comments on Annes resignation from the CIC in the newsletter 80 were uncalled for and exhibit a prejudice against her having a fair hearing before the Trustees.

So far neither Anne, nor the Trustees have been given details of the evidence against her, nor was her case discussed by a full board at a trustee meeting, before initiating the action against her.

As far as I can see this is a case that has been put together by yourself, perhaps in conjunction with certain other trustees, but definitely outside of any properly constituted and minuted Trustee meeting and with no prior discussion with Anne. So your current proposals can have no legal standing under the Trusts disciplinary procedures and to proceed as such will have the appearance of a Kangaroo Court.

As I have said before, I suggest that you quietly drop this charade before it backfires on you.

Chris

C G Duffell TD BSc CEng MICE MCIHT

For the Lynton & Barnstaple Railway Trust

Phone 01335 390216
Mobile 07527167047
Chris.duffell@lynton-rail.co.uk
On 20/04/2023 17:53, Peter Miles wrote:
Dear All



I have received a response from Anne as below.



We need to meet to discuss this matter giving 28 days notice of the meeting. I would suggest Monday 22nd May, time to suit. (By Zoom)



We do have evidence relating to these three aspects which should be circulated to all before the meeting.



I would stress that we must deal with this problem on a fair and reasonable basis and respect the efforts put into the L&B by Anne.



Please let me know your availability.



Regards



Peter




From: Anne Belsey []
Sent: 14 April 2023 09:39
To: Peter Miles
Subject: Re: L&B letter daed 12 4 23



Dear Peter,



The people I contacted with my email calling for a no confidence vote were either on Exmoor NG, or were people who had provided me with their email addresses, such as fellow volunteers, or had contacted me in 2021 in support of my emailing them about the misdemeanours perpetrated by Trustees during the Trust election of that year.



I did not make use of the Trust's membership database on this occasion.



I have not called upon anyone to divert funds away from the L&B Trust and towards either EA or YVT, although I am aware that some people are considering that course of action, It is far better that people, who might very reasonably suppose that funds given to the L&B Trust will be wasted by yourself, should send money to the EA or YVT with whom 'we have a good working relationship' (to quote your words) than to not support the L&B Project at all.



Regards,

Anne



On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 10:19 PM Peter Miles <mr.petermiles@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Dear Anne



The attached letter has been sent by post and email.



Regards



Peter

_______________________________________

And a third from Chris Duffell to the Trustee on Thu, 27 Apr, 20:21

As you have now declared the rest of the Trustees culpable please provide copies of the correspondence between you and the trustees, where this was agreed, because I have certainly not seen it.

On 27/04/2023 19:50, Chris wrote:
So apart from me you are all culpable. So I expect to see all your resignations. Mind you, by including the other trustees in your illegal act, whether they actually have agreed to it or not, will reduce the excess costs of informing the membership to you!

Chris

On 27/04/2023 19:04, Peter Miles wrote:
The Trustees




From: Chris []
Sent: 27 April 2023 18:49
To: Peter Miles
Cc: 'Ian Cowling'; 'Geoff Hunt'; 'Paul Curson'; chas.summers@btinternet.com; Martin.swainson@lynton-rail.co.uk; john.barton@lynton-rail.co.uk; 'Brom Bromidge'; 'Tony Nicholson'; 'Keith Vingoe'; 'Malcolm Smith'; 'Michael Grimoldby'; 'Michael Grimoldby'; 'clive robey'; 'John Morson'
Subject: Re: Anne Belsey



Who is we

On 27/04/2023 18:01, Peter Miles wrote:

Chris



We do not believe that the current AGM papers are at all invalid. The meeting will continue as intended



Regards



Peter




From: Chris []
Sent: 27 April 2023 17:53
To: Peter Miles; 'Anne Belsey'
Cc: Ian Cowling; 'Geoff Hunt'; Paul Curson; chas.summers@btinternet.com; Martin.swainson@lynton-rail.co.uk; john.barton@lynton-rail.co.uk; Brom Bromidge; Tony Nicholson; Keith Vingoe; Malcolm Smith; Michael Grimoldby; Michael Grimoldby; clive robey; Mike whiteaker; 'John Morson'
Subject: Re: Anne Belsey



Peter

I refer to my email below. I am still awaiting your admission that your actions have rendered the current AGM papers invalid and confirmation that you will be informing the membership of that fact.

Any cost associated with informing the membership and printing and dispatching papers for any rearranged AGM must not be bourne by the Trust.

Chris

On 26/04/2023 12:44, Chris wrote:

Dear Peter

As Chairman you have no remit to send Anne such a letter, nor have you any power to exclude her from the ballot paper. You cannot override the Trust M&As which are quite clear on the subject. The Trust's Company Secretary is also culpable by acquiescing to your demands that Anne is excluded.

What you have done is to make the Trustee election invalid, because you have chosen to exclude Anne's valid nomination.

You must now inform the membership that the current voting papers for the Trust elections at this years AGM are invalid and that new Trust elections will have to be arranged which include Anne's nomination.

If you continue to proceed with this illegal vote, the relevant regulatory authorities will have to be notified.

As far as I am concerned you should be considering your position, as should the Company Secretary and resign.

Regards

Chris



On 26/04/2023 10:59, Peter Miles wrote:

Dear Anne

Further to your enquiry regarding your nomination as trustee for the forthcoming AGM.

This is unfortunately unacceptable for the following reasons.

You are currently under a disciplinary hearing for the reasons previously given.

You were removed from the board of the CIC last month following concerns that you did not respect confidentiality.

Finally, the guidance from the Charities Commission is that Trusts should ‘select and recruit’ new trustees.

For the above reasons your nomination is not considered acceptable.

Regards



Peter

 

In light of the evidence Chris Duffell provided, I wrote back to Peter Miles and the Trustees on 1 May 2023 at 22:23.

_____________________________________________

Dear Peter, cc all.

I want to thank Chris Duffell for such a prompt and comprehensive response to my question of earlier today; I note I have not heard from you or any other Trustee.

The picture painted by Chris's email and the emails he encloses is very clear, and very, very disturbing.

It is evident that Anne Belsey filed a valid nomination for the 2023 Trusteeship election.

It is also clear, Peter, in your email of 10:59, 26 Apr 23 that you personally - and by your email of 19:04. 27 Apr 23, the Trustees other than Chris Duffell, have indeed connived with Tony Nicholson to exclude Anne Belsey's nomination from the ballot without any authority to do so.

Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the case against Anne - and I cannot see how the Trust can possibly have a fair process given the high prejudicial comments on page 1 of Newsletter 80 - the rules are clear that Anne's name should be on the ballot.

It is critical not to conflate two issues: if a properly constituted disciplinary procedure subsequently finds that Anne - or any other Trustee - is guilty of actions that are incompatible with being a Trustee, they should then be removed if they do not resign; but the threat of pending proceedings must be based on the presumption of innocence, and so a pending disciplinary procedure cannot in some way 'trump' a valid nomination.

It cannot be any other way, as a pre-emptive veto based on disciplinary proceedings that have not even begun would incentivise the unscrupulous to levy spurious disciplinary proceedings to veto nominations of people whom they dislike. This is clearly unacceptable.

What is therefore unbelievable is the position that Chris's email and the attached evidence exposes: that you, Peter, as Chair, Tony NIcholson as Secretary and the Trustees other than Chris Duffell have breached the Trust's own rules (either overtly or by inaction) in rejecting Anne's valid nomination. This is a cut-and-dried case of the abuse of power, and it cannot be allowed to stand.

The Charity Commission's Discretionary Disqualification Power Q&A (attached as .pdf) sets out a series of tests for Disqualification of Trustees. Your actions, Peter, and those of the Trustees other than Chris Duffell are a clear violation of Condition D, which reads:
"Condition D: a trustee, officer, agent or employee of a charity was responsible for, contributed to or facilitated misconduct or mismanagement in a charity or the person knew of the misconduct or mismanagement and failed to take any reasonable step to oppose it."

This test is clearly met.

However, Peter, it is clearly preferable for the Trust's reputation not to be soiled by having to get the Charity Commission involved to disqualify you and the other Trustees to allow the railway to move on from this sorry saga; I dare say that you too would not want your personal reputation tarnished by being banned as a Trustee for any UK charity for up to 15 years as a result of malfeasance in office.

By far the best way forward for the railway, is for you, Peter, Tony Nicholson and all Trustees other than Chris Duffell to resign with immediate effect to spare the Railway's reputation.

However, if you choose not to do so, I will have no option other than to make a formal complaint to the Charity Commission requesting an investigation with a view to removing you, Tony Nicholson and all Trustees other than Chris Duffell.

Given the short period before the AGM, I would like confirmation in writing of your collective resignations by 17.00, Thursday 4 May, 2023.

Yours,

Toby

 

Peter Snashall and Geoff Hunt wrote individually to explain that they had resigned. I thanked them for their service.

 

Having heard nothing from Mr Miles, I wrote again on Wed, 3 May at 13:06

_____________________

Dear Peter, cc: all

You will recall that I wrote to you and the Trustees at 11:44 on Monday, 1 May asking you specifically:

Did you, or any of the Trustees, imply/suggest/direct/require/collude with/or in any other way attempt to influence Mr Nicholson to remove Anne Belsey's valid nomination for the 2023 Trusteeship election from the ballot?

You did not deign to respond.

You will also recall that helpfully Chris Duffell did respond at 21:11 on Monday 1 May presenting incontrovertible evidence that you personally and the Trustees other than Chris were active or complicit in the exclusion of Anne Belsey's valid nomination from the 2023 Trustee Elections.

I replied at 22:22, Monday 1 May laying out how this evidence of malfeasance and abuse of office meets the test for removal and disqualification of Trustees by the Charity Commission. In the interests of the railway, I made clear that it was much more preferable for you and the Trustees other than Chris Duffell to resign. I gave you individually and collectively until 17.00 Thursday 4 May 2023 to provide written confirmation of your resignation.

Again, you have not deigned to respond.

However, I have been pleased to receive emails from Geoff Hunt and Pete Snaishall noting their resignations from the Board; you will have seen that I have thanked them for their service and I am happy to confirm that they will not be referred to the Charity Commission, because there is no need to seek Disqualification to remove them.

Your resignation, Peter, and those complicit in the veto of Anne Belsey's valid nomination remains my preferred option, and I strongly encourage you and them to do the decent thing and resign to spare the railway the further reputational damage of having you forcibly removed and disqualified as Trustees by the Charity Commission.

For the avoidance of doubt, I will be requesting the Charity Commission to investigate, remove and disqualify any and all Trustees other than Chris Duffell who have not committed in writing to resignation by 1700 tomorrow, Thursday 4 May 2023.

In order for the Board to remain quorate, I expect Chris Duffell to co-opt temporary Trustees to serve solely until a free and fair Trustee election can be arranged.

You will also note that I have not published this correspondence on NatPres and Exmoor NG, despite the obvious public interest. Therefore, if you do not resign by 1700 on 4 May, you will appreciate that transparency and accountability demands publication.

It's time to do the right thing and go quietly, with some dignity for what has been achieved during your tenure.

Sincerely,

Toby

 

Mr Miles finally responding at 17.05 today:

Dear Mr Fenwick



Further to your various emails regarding Anne Belsey’s nomination for trustee and your requests for the trustees of the L&BRT to resign.



At a meeting of the named trustees it was agreed that no such action will be taken.



If you feel you should contact the Charity Commission regarding the non-acceptance of this nomination it has to be your decision. However we have already been in contact with the Charity Commission for advice and have further written to them.



The action taken is as noted in the guidance documents provided by the CC which as our governing body we have to follow. This guidance was followed owing to the lack of clarity within the Trust Articles of Association which are silent on this and in the course of review.



I hope this is helpful in providing clarity in this matter.



Regards




Peter

 

So: we now know that:

- Anne Belsey did indeed file a valid nomination for the 2023 Trusteeship elections

- Peter Miles, some of the Trustees with the notable exception of Chris Duffell, prevailed on Tony Nicholson to remove Anne Belsey's name from this year's ballot

- At no stage have either Mr Miles or Mr Nicholson been able to point to any provisions of the Trust's governance which allow this.

This is an abuse of power, pure and simple and should be a resigning matter for all concerned.

The AGM "election" for Trustees is therefore null and void.

 

See latest Yeo Valley Trust newsletter - with luck (and cash) a 50-place parking area will be available at Chelfham reasonably soon.

 

I have to admit I did not see this coming:

https://yvt.org.uk/chelfham-mill/?f...Znz3amidhSDWHvYhTRrKIG5cpyePTuJYMLJ9yKu9L5onk

 

One down one to go, I am pleased this is happening, it is so much more important to buy these plots of land as and when they come up. I am not going to open up my mouth with a suggestion since I think most of you know what I think this site could offer for the whole railway.

Just need to try and win the Euro Lottery now.

 

I do hope that those of you who can see past this current issue will still think about investing in the Yeo Valley Trust as I am sure there is more trackbed and land to come.