| Topic: | Re:Re: Why didn’t the WPCC want you to see the RVR? | |
| Posted by: | Nicholas Evans | |
| Date/Time: | 16/11/17 21:35:00 |
| John - but would it have ever been published if they hadn’t been pushed? I think not. I checked with the Charity Commission in January 2017 whether they had decided as Regulator that the RVR should not be published. They replied that it was entirely the responsibility of the Trustees. This was long before the Interim Manager was appointed. When I applied to see it under EIR they used the excuse that they are not a ‘public authority’ (they are) and that the information was not ‘environmental’ (it is). Then they said that publication would in some way prejudice justice if they did release. How? No one is named and shamed. They had decided to take no further action against advisers or individuals. The Information Commissioner even said the information in the report was mostly in the public domain and pretty anodyne anyway. They continued to stonewall. It was back in February that the board decided that no further action would be taken to recoup the losses. They didn’t actually admit what those losses might have when they did so. This was well before the interim Manager was appointed. Nor did they publish the report to backup the reasons for their decision. Nada. So what didn't they want us to see? Tomorrow I’ll explain what I see as the fatal flaws in the RVR which undermine the Daniel Watney claim that the value of the access was “only” worth £675,000 in 2012. I’ll also consider the instructions, which in my view and the view of experts I have consulted were designed specifically to get a valuation significantly less than the Montagu Evans QSR. The Charity Commission Statutory Inquiry continues. Nick |