CRT chair and chief exec alter annual report
May 2, 2021 13:33:52 GMT
naughtyfox, peterboat, and 3 more like this
Post by Allan on May 2, 2021 13:33:52 GMT
Complaint made on Friday to Allan Leighton, Richard Parry and complaints email address. Still looking to see what else they have changed.
Dear Canal & River Trust
I am writing to complain that the latest Trustee Annual Report (TAR) filed with The Charity Commission on 22 December 2020 and currently posted on your website differs from that approved by your board on 24 September 2020. The approved TAR was previously posted on your website and filed at Companies House on 12 October 2020.
Publication Data relating to heritage (as required under the Defra Grant Agreement) has been altered to hide a substantial drop in condition from previous years.
Bearing in mind -
the communication between your Chair and the Secretary of State relating to this matter.
the notes of the Grant Review meeting on 9 December 2020 attended by your Chief Executive and three other executives (including the executive tasked by the board for filing the TAR with Companies House and the Charity Commission).
the replacement on your website of of the board approved TAR with an unapproved TAR.
the absence of board notification or approval.
- your actions can only be seen as a wilful and intentional act to provide the public and Defra with misleading and inaccurate information.
Due to the current Defra Review into your performance, your actions put not only current but also future funding of the waterways into jeopardy due to a section 11.1.5 breach of the Grant Agreement.
Equally, if not more important, is the reputational damage that you do to yourselves and charities in general by this action. By altering your TAR, you wish to convince that you are maintaining public benefit against your charitable object 2.2.
However, according to the National Association of Boat Owners, you have refused to provide details of listed buildings you have sold over the last eight years.
As you are aware, your current attempt to sell the Grade II listed Braunston Stop House has not gone unnoticed! What possible public benefit is derived from selling off buildings you should be protecting and conserving?
Retrospectively changing information about how you are providing public benefit leads to public loss of confidence. If a charity does that, how can the public have confidence that any information contained in a TAR ot otherwise provided is accurate?
Within the next five working days please provide the following -
Details of any other changes made to your board approved TAR.
Details of how you intent to investigate this complaint bearing in mind the seniority of those involved in altering the TAR.
Regards
Allan Richards
From CRT’s charitable objects as recorded on the Information Commissioners Website -
2.2 TO PROTECT AND CONSERVE FOR PUBLIC BENEFIT SITES, OBJECTS AND BUILDINGS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL, ARCHITECTURAL, ENGINEERING OR HISTORIC INTEREST ON, IN THE VICINITY OF, OR OTHERWISE ASSOCIATED WITH INLAND WATERWAYS
I am writing to complain that the latest Trustee Annual Report (TAR) filed with The Charity Commission on 22 December 2020 and currently posted on your website differs from that approved by your board on 24 September 2020. The approved TAR was previously posted on your website and filed at Companies House on 12 October 2020.
Publication Data relating to heritage (as required under the Defra Grant Agreement) has been altered to hide a substantial drop in condition from previous years.
Bearing in mind -
the communication between your Chair and the Secretary of State relating to this matter.
the notes of the Grant Review meeting on 9 December 2020 attended by your Chief Executive and three other executives (including the executive tasked by the board for filing the TAR with Companies House and the Charity Commission).
the replacement on your website of of the board approved TAR with an unapproved TAR.
the absence of board notification or approval.
- your actions can only be seen as a wilful and intentional act to provide the public and Defra with misleading and inaccurate information.
Due to the current Defra Review into your performance, your actions put not only current but also future funding of the waterways into jeopardy due to a section 11.1.5 breach of the Grant Agreement.
Equally, if not more important, is the reputational damage that you do to yourselves and charities in general by this action. By altering your TAR, you wish to convince that you are maintaining public benefit against your charitable object 2.2.
However, according to the National Association of Boat Owners, you have refused to provide details of listed buildings you have sold over the last eight years.
As you are aware, your current attempt to sell the Grade II listed Braunston Stop House has not gone unnoticed! What possible public benefit is derived from selling off buildings you should be protecting and conserving?
Retrospectively changing information about how you are providing public benefit leads to public loss of confidence. If a charity does that, how can the public have confidence that any information contained in a TAR ot otherwise provided is accurate?
Within the next five working days please provide the following -
Details of any other changes made to your board approved TAR.
Details of how you intent to investigate this complaint bearing in mind the seniority of those involved in altering the TAR.
Regards
Allan Richards
From CRT’s charitable objects as recorded on the Information Commissioners Website -
2.2 TO PROTECT AND CONSERVE FOR PUBLIC BENEFIT SITES, OBJECTS AND BUILDINGS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL, ARCHITECTURAL, ENGINEERING OR HISTORIC INTEREST ON, IN THE VICINITY OF, OR OTHERWISE ASSOCIATED WITH INLAND WATERWAYS