Complaint 1 by otj26205

VIEWS: 11 PAGES: 4

									                                                    Ken Wilkinson
                                                    55 Reedley Road
                                                    Bristol BS9 3TD
                                                    0117 9620455.
                                                    kwilkinson2000@hotmail.com
29/06/2008

Mr Darlow
Caseworker in Charity Commission Direct
The Charity Commission
Liverpool

Dear Mr Darlow.

Complaints against Will Woodlands, registered charity number 1038274

Regarding your recent reply to the series of complaints I raised recently, I am
concerned that certain aspects of the judgements you have given do not follow what
the public would understand as good practice or public benefit.

In particular the various documents that the Charity Commission provide for public
reassurance, such as RR9, have not been followed, and the Environmental Statement
1999, appears to have been dismissed as unimportant. This however was the
document that formed the basis of the donation by the public of around 500,000
pounds. We are particularly concerned that the Commission seems happy to trust the
judgment of trustees who seem to ignore best practice, requests for meetings, and who
have closed land designed for public benefit. Recent publications by the Charity
Commission indicate the need for charities to be transparent, accountable, and have
public benefit at the heart of what they do.

In your letter of 24/4/08, you state

‘our statutory powers of intervention are limited and trustees have a broad discretion
to manage their charity as they see fit, within charity law and the charity’s own
governing document.’

One of the fundamental points of these complaints is that the charity is acting outside
of its governing document. Its is ignoring the basic meaning of the charitable objects,
namely, that the charity has been set up……

‘for the conservation, restoration and establishment of trees, plants, and all forms
of wildlife in the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland
and
to secure and enhance the enjoyment by the public of the natural environment of
those territories.’
I have taken the liberty of copying and pasting the replies you sent me earlier, and
pasting them into my complaint in red. I have also put my response to that in green, to
simplify the scanning of this now rather extensive document.


Here then are the complaints against the judgements that have been made.



Complaint 1 and 2.
Complaint against the judgement
 The Environmental Statement 1999 is a document that formed the basis of the issuing
of around 500.000 pounds of public money. To say that the planning may be subject
to change seems a strange view, as the Charity Commission publication RR9 seems to
clearly indicate that public access is paramount. The Statement was subject to 3
revisions to allay public concerns. As such this decision would seem to be a form of
maladministration. The charity has denied access to more than 50% of the land where
access was promised, for no good reason.


Complaint 3.
Complaint against the judgement

The Charity Commission claims to want to follow best practice, yet is quite ready to
ignore that. As this is contrary to its stated aims this would appear to be a matter of
maladministration. The matter of Health and Safety is not a matter of personal
opinion, it is the judgement of the Health and Safety Executive. (See complaint 9 and
10). As such the Charity Commission should take heed of this opinion.



Complaint 4 and 5.
Complaint against the judgement

Alas the complaint does not concern interpretation of the National Trust’s policy, it
concerns misleading MPs. This is a totally separate matter that the Charity
Commission has not addressed. The policies of the National Trust are available and
completely in contrast with the statements of the charity’s agent, as stated above.
The Charity Commission seems to have missed the point of the complaint. The MP in
question has asked specific questions of a Charity, yet these specific questions
relating to public benefit and the spending of public money have NOT been answered.
Why should the Charity Commission connive in the failure of a Charity agent to
respond to requests from a duly elected representative of the people?


Complaint 6.
Complaint against the judgement

The BHPA is a nationally and internationally recognised body. The complete failure
to account for this seems perverse. It would seem from this that the charity trustees
need to take no account of any science or evidence whatsoever, allowing prejudice
and ignorance to dominate their judgements. This would seem to bring Charities as a
whole into disrepute.



Complaint 8.
Complaint against the judgement.

The point about this complaint is not whether the objects have been stated, but the
misrepresentation of the overall intentions that the charity is supposed to have.


Complaint 9 and 10.
Complaint against the judgement

The HSE has passed its judgement yet the Charity Commission seems unwilling to
take its legally binding message on board. The complaint is valid and yet again has
not been addressed. As such this failure brings Charities as a whole into disrepute.



Complaint 11.
Complaint against the judgement

The charity has an object which says it is to ‘secure and enhance’ the access of the
public, yet fails to even meet with the pilots. The arguments against our continuing
our decades long access and usage have all been shown to be based on whim, and
ignorance.



Complaint 12.
Complaint against the judgement

The charity has an object which says it is to ‘secure and enhance’ the access of the
public, yet fails to even meet with the pilots. The arguments against our continuing
our decades long access and usage have all been shown to be based on whim, and
ignorance.

Complaint 13

Subsequent to the writing of this letter we discovered from Sustrans that the access
for bicycles was a mistake on the original map, and this complaint is therefore
withdrawn.

Complaint 14
Complaint against the judgement
Long term users of the land, in this case horse riders, are also public. One of the
Objects is to secure and enhance public access. This access has been blocked without
reasons being given.


Complaint 16
Complaint against the judgement

We fail to see why a publicly funded and aided body can get away with putting
restrictive notices on the property and then fail to disclose to the public its ownership
of the land, or its charitable status. We cannot reconcile the public proclamations of
public accountability made by the Charity Commission when the public are not given
information pertaining to the ownership and public nature of an area of land that its
has partly funded.


I would appreciate these matters being brought to the attention of the Outreach Panel
who I understand are the body that review these judgements.

Please advise as to the decisions of that body.

Ken Wilkinson,
(representing the Campaign for the Resumption of Free Flying at Ubley)

								
To top