13 December 2021
Follow me @LindaDerrick1
Facebook Linda Derrick for Ridgeway East
I have blogged already about Hughenden Parish Council’s intention to give away land owned by the Council to a charity called Hughenden Community Support Trust (HCST). This blog brings you up-to date.
You might have noticed that I prefer to report the facts in my blogs and let readers come to a view themselves.
However, in this case, I have to say that the way in which HPC is conducting itself in managing this major financial transaction is a disgrace. It has been negligent, underhand and secretive about a major financial transaction and about large sums of taxpayers’ money.
Just to recap
The Council intends to give away land worth about £100,000, if sold as agriculture land, and about £15 million, if approval for development was given. This land is a valuable Council asset.
The land consists of the allotment sites at
- North Dean;
- Louches Lane, Naphill;
- Main Road, Walters Ash; and
- Windmill Lane, Widmer End
plus land at Common Road and part of the Common at Great Kingshill.
The Council then intends to lease the land back from HCST.
Since May 2021
Since I became a councillor, I have repeatedly asked the Clerk to provide the Council with a written progress report on the transfer, not least because it is the largest financial transaction managed by the Council for years.
I made it clear this was not a freedom of information request for myself because I had a good idea of what was happening; I was urging Council to inform itself to safeguard public money - something I believed it had already failed to do to the tune of thousands of pounds. A written progress report to Council would also help put residents in the picture.
I didn’t feel it was my place to brief Council – that was the responsibility of the Clerk on the advice of HPC’s solicitors. I had already written to Council repeatedly with my concerns and had received no answer.
The Clerk has failed to provide such a report and none of my fellow councillors has supported my request.
So I am blogging to explain to residents what is happening. I must emphasise that I have no legal qualifications and am trying to make this simple!
The Land Registry
The absolute titles to the land are registered with the Land Registry. For a fee of £3, you can check this out for yourselves on their website. The registration numbers are BM352857, BM358088, BM358090, BM352511 and BM9455.
Registration of the titles of land with the Land Registry guarantees ownership. You can also check this out for yourself at About us - HM Land Registry - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) .
Since the Council decided to give the land away (and it is very unclear when, how or why it decided this), it has expended thousands of pounds on legal fees on its own solicitors and thousands of pounds of legal fees on HCST’s solicitors.
About a year ago, one of the firms of solicitors tried to register the leases for the land with the Land Registry. The leases specified HCST as the land owners and HPC as the organisation which would rent the land. The Land Registry rejected the applications on the grounds that the titles to the land were registered to HPC not HCST – and HPC could not lease land from itself.
In April this year, the solicitors for HCST applied to transfer some of the titles of the land to HCST but not the title to the allotment site at Walters Ash. In October, the Land Registry started to consider that application and as part of its normal process it invited objections to the application. A number of people applied to object, including myself, and were told they were eligible to do so.
As part of the process, those people were then able to ask HCST, or its legal representative, for an explanation for their application to transfer the titles. I did so and believe others did too. I got no response and, as far as I am aware, no one else did either.
The people making the objections have been told by the lawyer in the Land Registry dealing with the case that their objections are “not groundless” . This is the standard description for objections which are deemed eligible for consideration by the Land Registry tribunal system. (One person is waiting to hear about his objection).
Again, as part of the process, the people making these objections were then given the option to negotiate with HCST or go straight to a land tribunal. I opted to negotiate and I believe other objectors have done so as well.
HCST was given until 7 December to decide whether to withdraw its application or, if it wished to continue, to decide whether to negotiate or go straight to a land tribunal. I have had no feedback from the Land Registry on HCST’s decision.
Back at HPC
Meanwhile, the internal auditor has carried out an inspection at HPC. He recommended that HPC’s expenditure on HCST’s legal fees should be treated as a grant. HCST’s solicitors have not been providing goods or services to HPC but to HCST. HCST should have been paying for its own solicitors and, if it wanted any money from HPC, it should have applied for it in the form of a grant.
However, HCST has never applied for a grant. HPC has just paid HCST's legal fees direct to its solicitors and, until I objected, without even itemised invoices.
Under HPC's grants policy, retrospective approval cannot be given except for an emergency (like a grant for a village hall which has been flooded). Moreover, the maximum grant/year under grants policy is £500.
Organisations asking for a grant from HPC also have to show how the grant would benefit the community - and I see no way a grant to enable valuable HPC land to be given away could be for the benefit of the community.
So, it is difficult to see how past expenditure can be treated as a grant. There might be a way round this error but the money might simply have to be written off as a Council mistake.
This is bad news for HPC – tens of thousands of pounds given away to HCST for legal fees over the years in error and in contravention of its Financial Regulations.
Putting events at the Land Registry and at HPC together
HCST now find that their only source of income for their legal fees - HPC - has dried up and just when they face a possible tribunal case.
Well, it might be a co-incidence (but I think not) but this is the time, 30 November, when the Clerk informed Council that the leases for renting the land from HCST had been signed in May and HPC should pay HCST £26,400 of “back rent” stretching back to 1 January 2015.
Now you might wonder why HPC should pay “back rent” to 2015. More importantly however, I questioned whether HPC should pay any rent at all; I thought the leases invalid, given that the Land Registry had declined to register them until the transfer of the titles had taken place. And even if the leases were valid in May, I understood leases had to be registered with the Land Registry within 2 months of signing, otherwise they became void.
I was concerned that if HPC paid out the £26,400 and it then turned out the leases were invalid, HPC would not get its money back.
So late at night on 30 November I e-mailed the Clerk urging her to take legal advice. Naturally I asked to see it.
Well I think this was getting a bit tricky for HCST - and for those in HPC who support the transfer. There was no longer to be any money for legal fees from HPC directly and the payment of back rent was being questioned.
So what happened? Well Cllr Gieler convened an “Emergency” meeting of the Services Committee the next day, 1 December. Well it must have been an emergency because there seems to have been no notice for that meeting, no agenda or papers and no minutes. I certainly wasn’t told about the meeting.
But by mid-day on 1 December, the Clerk had told me HPC’s solicitors had confirmed the leases were valid.
Naturally, I again asked for the legal advice. I was told it would not be appropriate to give “the transcript” to me. I can only guess that the legal advice was obtained on the phone and was then written up by the Clerk.
This “back rent” was due to be discussed on 13 December by HPC’s Finance and Policy Committee of which I am a member. So too was an annual payment for rent of £4750 to HCST (included at line 26 of Appendix 3 of the papers). This annual payment is on the basis of the same leases which I believe to be invalid.
However, Cllr Gieler cancelled the F &P meeting and he is now not responding to e-mails.
The payment of the “back rent” is not on the agenda for Full Council on 14 December. So the £26,400 cannot be paid to HCST until at least the January Full Council (to my relief).
However, the annual payment for rent to HCST is on the agenda for Full Council. Appendix 3 says the recommendation for approval of these payments was made by F&P Committee on 13 December. This of course is incorrect as Cllr Gieler cancelled the F&P meeting. So I assume this item will be withdrawn. We will see.
So I have to conclude that HPC is negligent in not informing itself about the progress of a major financial transaction and it has given away thousands of pounds to HCST in error.
It is also condoning an underhand and secretive way of obtaining legal advice for some but not all councillors. And you have to ask why it is doing this.
If the payments are all above board, why not get proper written legal advice and share it with all councillors to reassure them that HPC is safeguarding taxpayers’ money?