Arnold Meagher, Brent Council's Principal Lawyer, Housing and Litigation Team wrote:
I write to advise that the Council has been informed of the outcome of the investigation regarding Mr Gillick and the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service.
The Crown Prosecution Service has decided that there is insufficient evidence to support any prosecution against Mr Gillick and therefore, no further action will be taken against him.
70 or so fraudulent emails had been sent including one using the name and address of local business woman Kirsty Slattery.
The Council has been advised by the Metropolitan Police that the partnership Brent Borough Chief Inspector, Andy Jones, is aware of this decision. The Metropolitan Police has requested that any queries regarding the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service go through Andy Jones.
Reacting to the news this afternoon she said:
I think the whole process has been purposely drawn out and detrimental to the people and businesses it affected.Kensal Rise Councillor Dan Filson was even more scathing:
So somehow no one is responsible for these acts of fraud (?) according to the CPS and at no point has anyone even received an apology from Brent Council.
The fraud affected my business as it misrepresented my standing in the community. This should never have been allowed to happen, someone ought to have been held accountable for these deceitful actions and the very least I would expect is a sincere apology.
This news seems released by the CPS deliberately at a time when attention is elsewhere. Shame on the CPS.
I am appalled that an attempt - by whoever, though the email thread heading may offer a clue - to pervert the planning process had not resulted in a prosecution.
It would be useful to know if the reason for this decision is insufficient evidence linking the alleged perpetrator to the offence(s) or an unclear charge upon which a prosecution could be hung?
A dangerous precedent has been set, that a fraudulent attempt to mislead a planning authority as to the level of support for a planning application from the community and as to who in that community is supporting it by way of impersonation. We don't now know whether this stunt has been pulled in respect of other applications in this or other boroughs.
Questions should be asked in the House of Commons
The issue of the fraudulent emails has been a long and complicated affair. In September 2013 The Save Kensal Rise Library Campaign wrote on their website:
We are expecting the council to pursue the origins of the fraudulent submissions of support for the planning submission as reported in The Kilburn Times and The Evening Standard last week.The police later appeared to have dropped the investigation but after the demolition of the pop up library in February 2014 both the Council and Muhammed Butt made statements to the Willesden and Wembley Observer:
We have been promised an investigation and report as soon as possible.
Help us to keep up the pressure on the council to find out where this dodgy support comes from by writing to the Leader of the Council and your local councillors asking them to make sure the council makes every effort to find out who is guilty of this fraudulent support. We can’t allow local democracy to be undermined by such abuse of the consultative processes of the council.
A spokesman for Brent Council said:The investigation was reinstated with various sections of the police responsible at any one time and recently there has been a long silence on the matter despite frequent requests for information.
The council undertook its own detailed enquiries before referring the matter to the police and provided the police with a summary of the outcome as part of the agreed referral process through the National Fraud Reporting Centre. The council remains very concerned about the way that the planning portal was used on this occasion and has subsequently made changes to forestall future problems arising. The council wants to continue to maintain the highest level of integrity with its planning process, since the authority continues to have statutory responsibilities to consider planning applications that are submitted.
Labour leader of the council Muhammed Butt said:
It is bitterly disappointing that the police have chosen to ignore the evidence found in the council’s own inquiries and drop their investigation. When the future of the building affects hundreds of Brent residents and the entire Kensal Rise community, any issue of alleged fraud must surely be a priority in order to maintain the trust of local people.
Whilst I know that this Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government has cut the police force by a fifth in the last three years, I am troubled that this investigation has not been carried out as a matter of urgency. Brent Council will be writing to demand that the police review their original decision and launch an appropriate investigation.
I agree that the final outcome is far from satisfactory.
220 comments:
1 – 200 of 220 Newer› Newest»'The Crown Prosecution Service has decided that there is insufficient evidence to support any prosecution against Mr Gillick and therefore, no further action will be taken against him'.
Is this final?
Any explanation?
Does the CPS's judgement have to be taken on trust or are we able to see what the evidence is and whether we think it's insufficient?
Is there anything stopping the people who supplied the evidence on which the CPS have made this judgement now publishing that evidence so that we can make a judgement?'
Will Cllr Butt's interest in justice have survived his election campaign?
Do Capita run the CPS yet? Or is it C4S?
I knew Gillick is innocent
Perhaps some locals were trying to set him up.
Glad it failed!
Agree clearly he had nothing to do with it!
I'm !!! write !!! with you there!!!!!
Me to!!!!!!
And I'm not the same person as him either!!!!!!!!!
'Locals'?
It can't be that difficult to circulate or make available to every local authority, police authority, groups like the Victorian Society, any other interested parties, Private Eye, activist blogs etc etc, the circumstances in which Gillick ( and/or Platinum Bespoke Revolver Dodd G Solutions etc) found himself suspected of fraudulent activity in this case.
I suggest this in a spirit of seasonal goodwill in the hope that this would reduce the risk of the poor man ever having to suffer such embarrassment again.
Now you fancy yourself as a judge
I agree.
The public hatred was as such there was a witch hunt.
I bet he did absolutely nought hence why CPS came back as they did.
Mr Gillick I hope you sell soon they way some people have treated you is an embarrisment to Kensal rise.
God bless you, guv.
Mr Gillick has clearly shown he is in a different league.
He has now won every battle
We need to admit defeat
As a free citizen,yes. Don't you?
Freedom for property speculators!
In the name of Rachman and van Hoogstraten we demand fair play!
'We'?
From FKRL's twitter page:
'CPS have decided not to pursue fraudulent email allegations against Andrew Gillick due to lack of evidence'. Untrue. The CPS 'has decided that there is insufficient evidence to support any prosecution'. 'Insufficient evidence' is not at all the same thing as 'lack of evidence'.
'We' are the people who always leave a big space between the lines,
like this.
Could we all possibly
be the same
person?
Good on Dan Filson. Wonder what his ward councillor colleagues, Claudia Hector and Matt Kelcher think?
Exactly, anon at 20.24. It could just be a lack of clarity of thought or expression on FKRL's part but it nevertheless ends up as form of words which appears to smile benignly on the G man's activities.
Given the history you'd imagine they'd be a little more careful.
No fraud and mr Gillick walks away with half a million.
Nice work!
Shame the community had not the ability to work with this character
He's obviously a successful business man
As someone who supported FKRL's attempt to get to the truth behind the fraudulent emails, I'm dismayed that the council has failed to publish the official Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) official decision notice. Brent police wouldn't have passed its file to the CPS had it not felt there was a case to answer. Doesn't Brent trust its residents? I hope local ward councillors and local residents will pursue an FoI request for publication of the notice.
I've always felt that Brent Council was more concerned with rescuing its own reputation from the sordid business of the email fraud - it was responsible for the leaky online planning comments system which enabled the posting of the emails in the first place - than in establishing the source of the deception. Why else was there was a five-month delay in the council passing to the CPS detailed information it had received?
I understand and share Kirsty Slattery's anger. Not only was her Gracelands Yard business name and address stolen in support of Andrew Gillick's original planning application, 'Gracelands' was used in more than one of the fraudulent texts. She, if anyone, is entitled to a copy of the CPS notice, not to mention an explanation from Brent of why it let her down so badly. She should also have been informed directly by the council of the CPS decision. That appears not to have happened.
Hahahaha - thanks for the belly laugh. Good exercise - recommended!
Somehow I think Gillicks luck is going to run out.
I would suggest if FKRL had not jumped into bed with him, his luck would have certainly run out by now.
Time will tell, but their are angry residents who demand answers.
CPS get referred every case apart from the most basic
It's no indication of evidence it's just the way the justice system works.
With 5 IP address clearly none we're his
Why no statement from James Denselow, lead member for 'stronger communities' which covers libraries?
How do you know there were 5 IP addresses?
Anon 12.51: where do you get your information about the IP addresses? You seem remarkably unconcerned about the fraudulent emails which were deliberately posted to try and sway opinion in favour of Gillick's application.
Here is a link to Brent Council's letter to FKRL about the alleged fraudulent emails. http://1drv.ms/1zhY5W1
Anon 14.45.
You'll note that Anon at 12.51 writes in very short sentences
With big spaces between the lines
This not without significance
He would have got planning regardless of FKRL input.
It's no surprise the possibility of a library has now disappeared.
Perhaps if we treated mr Giliick a bit better we would not be library-less and without hope.
Anon 16.03 - yes, the spacing was noted. Cheers!
Brent Council sent me an update on the police investigation on 5 Feb this year - it was addressed to me, but was otherwise an exact copy of that sent to FKRL on 4 Feb, and posted by Martin, above.
I'm surprised that Anon 12.51 uses the IP info in the way s/he does. Whatever else someone trying to influence the outcome may or may not be, s/he would not have been so stupid as to use ISP addresses that could be traced back to him/her had they wanted to sway opinion in favour of the planning application - internet cafes abound. So it's unclear what point 12.51 is trying to make other than to act as an apologist for the person submitting fake emails.'
Oh, do stop it. FKRL - and Cllr Mashari - gave Gillick all the support he needed. Result? He's run rings around them.
Give over, 16.50 - 'treated mr Giliick (sic) a bit better'. This was the guy whose first planning application included D1 space in the basement in explicit contradiction of an agreement he'd made with All Souls College.
You don't need internet cafes to anonymise IP addresses. Anonymous relays on the dark web are easily available.
According to Company Check Gillicks companies are only worth £120 yes that is what they claim as he is up to his eye balls in debt with claimed assets of over £2 million but debt of over £2 million. http://companycheck.co.uk/director/915796204
So much for the claim Gillick being a millionaire he is drawning in debt. It also seems that establishing a price for Kensal Rise at Auction he could then use it as collateral for more borrowing.
Thanks for posting. The Company Check details make for hilarious reading but we should remember that 'liabilities' can also be cited against payment of tax.
The libraries are worth over 1m a piece and one of the companies has almost 2m in cash. At that stage I gave up looking and paying for reports as there are 5 more companies so needless to say the info above is inaccurate.
Agree with Anon above sometimes liabilities are increased to reduce tax.
What relevance has this to the CPS or Library articles? It just stinks of sour grapes to me, realising we have lost a battle.
Your assumptions are based on your pure personal thoughts not a shred of understanding on company accounting practices.
Another inaccurate WB story, nothing new there.
In case you hadn't noticed, 01.09, the relevance of the Company Check link to the CPS and library/auction stories is Andrew Gillick. Anyone with an open mind would surely welcome as much information as possible about Mr Gillick's business dealings.
The bitterness about posters and WM appears to be yours alone.
As a post has suggested the auction was just to establish a value.
I think you will find while there might be 2 million in cash there are debts of over 2 million so net is close to zero.
People who claim they are worth millions forgot to deduct the debts outstanding.
Not sour grapes as the post is pointing out the huge debts.
A very sensible post as it provides a more accurate picture of the financial situation and the mounting debts.
'Company accounting practices' - what a can of worms.
This is all pure speculation.
Gillicks actions don't strike me of those of a troubled business.
This is all pure speculation, we really don't know if he's worth 5 pence. All we know is he stumped up a load of money for these 2 buildings and I'd say each of the other companies has an asset or two in them, add them up and that's a lot of assets regardless of debts.
If mr Gillick is only worth £120 it is not realistic he gifts the library to the community. Indeed it is not realistic he even supplies the D1 space he has planning for. I'd say he needs the money more than us.
It seems as thought FKRL have even less chance with Gillick in deep debt.
Thanks for info it is useful to make my own mind up on future prospects.
They look very grim unless a Challenge is made to original option agreement as a few have previously suggest. After all it is the community building with ACV listing. We should fight on.
Well it seems he did not stump up much, money the financiers behind Gillick stumped up the money.
Debt is the killer, if the assets can't realize what Gillick thought they should be worth.
Financial Crisis Part 2 is now on the way and this is not speculation it is fact.
Gillick trying to sell up to pay creditors.
Anon 12.16:
'This is all pure speculation .........and I'd say each of the other companies has an asset or two in them'
Mmm.
Anon 12.47
What happened to the spacing?
It amazes me some people still keep up faith in Gillick's ability to deliver on his promise. The evidence is exactly the opposite, as at every twist and turn he has come up with every execuse not to deliver what was promised.
It is not as if the community owe him anything. He owes the community big time. Gillick treats the community as if he is the master and we are slaves. That is how it feels from my perspective.
It would be helpful to understand why there are people who seem to think the community owes Gillick ?
From the Company Check page on Kensal Properties Ltd - via link thoughtfully posted by 10.27
'16/06/2014 Miss R.S. McKinnon has resigned as company secretary'.
This would appear to be the same person listed as a former director of Trehaven Group Ltd, the mortgagee named in the S106 Deed of Agreement Andrew Gillick signed with Brent Council 24 hours before putting the library up for sale:
'Miss Rebecca Sarah Elizabeth Mckinnon
Born 32 years ago: Jan 1982
Company Secretary, Chartered Accountant
15 Sep 2008 — 25 Mar 2014 (5 years, 6 months, 10 days)'
Retired' (https://www.duedil.com/company/05491162/trehaven-group-limited/people).
Both firms share the same Queripel House SW3 address. There's also a Trehaven Portfolio Ltd at the same address and website, with all directors retired or closed.
As for Andrew Gillick's most recent companies - Old House Development Ltd and Tooting Development Company Ltd - Mr Gillick is registered as both company secretary and director. Having problems hiring staff, perhaps...?
Andrew Gillick appears to spend more time creating and dissolving companies than he does running them. Why would that be, I wonder...?
Looks like everyone is jumping ship before it sinks !
Good old Captain Gillick is left without à lifeboat.
It seems Gillicks backers Trehaven Group who changed their name to Trehaven London are in financial trouble
https://opencorporates.com/companies/gb/03328175
Company is being proposed to be voluntarily struck off and accounts are overdue. They should have been filed end September. The only reason for not filing accounts is auditor usually can't sign then off as company is insolvent.
There is also solvency statement filed with company house dated 9 Sept 2014.
http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//wcprodorder?ft=1
http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//compdetails
This looks much worse that anyone could imagine.
It is any wonder the building was put to public auction as they desperately need cash.
Most Directors seem inactive including Ms McKinnon.
Hi 18.39 - I'm Anonymous 15.32, who posted the above re Trehaven.
Thanks for digging deeper. This does look bad, perhaps also for Brent who signed a Deed of Agreement on 5 November 2014 with Trehaven Group Ltd as 'mortgagee' on the S106 with alongside Kensal Properties Ltd. It now seems likely that Trehaven Group Ltd no longer existed on that date, having already changed its name to Trehaven London. Due diligence...? Here's the link to the S106 - remember, it went missing for a couple of weeks
https://forms.brent.gov.uk/servlet/ep.ext?extId=126153&Other1=687150&Other2=1
Send on the links with the info.
'If you have decided that you no longer want to retain your company and wish to have it struck off, the registrar will not normally pursue any outstanding late filing penalties unless you restore the company to the register at a later stage' (from 'Companies House: strike-off, dissolution and restoration'
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/359935/gp4.pdf
But wait a minute.
Is it legal to agree a section 106 and CIL and then soon after disolve the company so the company is therefore no longer liable ?
Brent Council has until 5 Jan 2015 to show cause why the said company should not be dissolved.
Seems to me the developers are trying to pull a fast one. Possibly the auction was all show with transfer of Assets out of company leaving the debts behind such as section 106 and CIL.
Good ask, 13.17. I also noticed that the S106 Deed of Agreement, dated 5 November, names the mortgagee as 'Trehaven Group Ltd' when it already appears that Trehaven Group might already have been re-named Trehaven London (Anon 18.39, above) - link here
https://forms.brent.gov.uk/servlet/ep.ext?extId=126153&Other1=687150&Other2=1
Brent Council has to investigate as a matter of urgency who is liable for section 106 and CIL if company is dissolved.
Requiring developers to front up funds to be held in a Brent Council escrow account until funds are spend is something that is urgently needed when Local Authorities are short of funds and are becoming more reliant on section 106 and CIL to fund local infrastructure.
Developers have go away with not contributing once planning permission is granted.
Probably one of the reasons Brent Council in particular is strapped for cash.
Developers have not been fronting up the money as agreed.
This is a national scandal.
You've been doing intrepid work by the looks of it. Any chance of a 5 sentence resume explaining what appears to be going on and the implications?
Thanks.
Suggest you follow the links, 18.55, and do some thinking for yourself. Here are the links to CIL
https://forms.brent.gov.uk/servlet/ep.ext?extId=126153&Other1=687150&Other2=3
and
Deed of Agreement
https://forms.brent.gov.uk/servlet/ep.ext?extId=126153&Other1=687150&Other2=1
Anon 15.22 and 17.41. A reminder that CIL is only payable 'on commencement of development of planning permission', as in the case of the former Kensal Rise Library:
'This notifies you [Kensal Properties Ltd] that you will be liable to pay £127,198.99 of Community Infrastructure Levy to Brent Council as the CIL collecting authority on commencement of development of planning permission'.
We must get the facts correct, otherwise the spoilers and apologists will think New Year's Eve has come early...
Anon 15.22 and 17.41. A reminder that CIL is only payable 'on commencement of development of planning permission', as in the case of the former Kensal Rise Library:
'This notifies you [Kensal Properties Ltd] that you will be liable to pay £127,198.99 of Community Infrastructure Levy to Brent Council as the CIL collecting authority on commencement of development of planning permission'.
We must get the facts correct, otherwise the spoilers and apologists will pile in trying to undermine legitimate concerns.
While CIL might be payable once development commences.
What happens when busy goes bust or conveniently dusolved.
As the CIL was issued to a company in process of being dissolved, does this mean liability for CIL is vaporized never to be paid ?
CIL is issued against Kensal Properties, not Trehaven Group. It's Trehaven - under the name of Trehaven London - that's applied for voluntary strike-off, not Kensal Properties.
The CIL will never be paid...
There are ways and there are means.
The D1 space will never be built...
I am banking on a revised planning application once the luxury apartments are built!
If a company goes bust, there is no liability on them for CiL. Planning permission is transferable - it relates to the property, not the applicant. Whoever does the development is liable for the CiL contribution.
It's perfectly legal and there is no liabilty until the development comences by whoever eventually does it. There are no debts incurred by the S106/CIL yet.
The company has no liability and there are no debts unless and until development starts and concludes.
Queripel House is an address of convenience. As, I suspect, are all of Gillick's companies.
True debtors and creditors rarely share an office. I doubt he's selling an asset to repay creditors more likely to be a tax structure. Just a guess.
We should have worked with AG. It was the best chance we ever had. Now he owns the building and lightly always will by hacking him off our position just gets weaker and weaker and weaker and then maybe even weaker.
Funny Section 106 and CIL is a company liability, but it seems developer can get away and not have to pay.
Broken Promises that is all I can say and to add insult to injury CPS are not going prosecute on fake emails. This is despite the fact other Boroughs have also reported similar issues with identities being stolen and issued in support of a planning application.
Proof that section 106 will be renegotiated.
2012 Hounslow Borough report a property owned by Trehaven purchased 7 years earlier indicates Trehaven seeking renegotiate section 106.
http://democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk/(S(0jvmmq45oktuyd55cs22ct45))/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=581&MId=6891
Looks like Miss McKinnon knows something.
Another one of the pyramid companies she has resigned from late November's called Trehaven Trustees Ltd
http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//wcprodorder?ft=1
What boroughs? Send on the links?
Seems like a proven business plan. You have to laugh.
7 years ?
My guess now is that Kensal Rise Library will sit unoccupied apart from "Security Guards" for another at least 7 years.
While the property is moved around between legal owners all claiming they are sitting on a valuable assets.
This is totally wrong and should never have been allowed to happen.
Give us our building back !!!
You have to realize the reality; it's not your building. It may have been if you went to the auction who knows. Agree on this info time is not on our side, sitting on assets for years appears to be no problem to these guys and as time goes by the library plight becomes weaker.
It seems Mr Gillick has given us all the run around.
Time to start getting the building back. I am fully behind, as it seems a better option than having the building abandonded for years on end.
09:25 - Chrisfys are registered at the same address of convenience as Trehaven and Gillick's other companies.
If you google on William Woodward Fisher Andrew Gillick as a term, you get some very interesting results, to say the least.
I agree
We are all now wasting our time thinking by developing the building into flats is the solution.
It plainly is not the solution.
Getting 100% of the building back from the clutches of the developers should be top priority.
Not a laughing matter, but it seems a plot from Batman. If only it were all fantasy !!!
This blog should be called Martin and his mates share their backward socialist boring views.Wake me up when you've exhausted all avenues..now we think a building is "ours" and we can take it off the multi million pound owner, good luck on that one. Martin do you write half these comments yourself?
Why d'you think the 'multi million pound owner' put the building up for sale within 48 hours of signing the S106? No, I am not Martin.
Anon 14.51 - not everyone is impressed by filthy lucre as you appear to be. The 'multi million pound' bit of your comment could have been omitted without losing any of its drift.
I agree, 14.51. Talk of 'our' library is sentimental tosh - thanks to Brent Council. But, boy, I bet All Souls is regretting its greed. Hard to believe it couldn't it see which way the wind was blowing its reputation.
14.51 is unlikely to be capable of answering difficult questions like that, 16.03, unless you set out in clear and simple terms what exactly the last 48 hours' discussion on here amounts to. Without that it's very easy for people at the 'backward socialist boring' level of commenting to cheer themselves up by making sour attacks.
Could you set out for his/her/my/our benefit what you think the most recent information on here appears to point to? Write it as if Anon 14.51 has been incommunicado for several days at a Ukip Basildon parliamentary candidate selection booze-up (which, judging by his/her mood, might well be the case).
All souls reputation has not suffered. Giving the library to a load of hippies would never have been clever. Why Gillick went to auction pretty simple to cash in the chips, make a profit, normal business. He bought it for £500,000 less than a year ago so I'd say he's pretty happy. I like 1636 agree it's not "our" library and Gillick is free to sell develop or do as he wishes. Welcome to the free world.
I would call it more a million pound black hole.
I would call it good capitalism if we get the building back not socialism. That is exactly what all the good capitalist do. They find a loophole.
Well the loophole is the original option agreement. A good capitalist would argue the agreement should be null and void if they had the building taken from them.
I do not see why this should be any different, just good capitalism.
Its hilarious. Who wants or cares about a library anyway no one.
Mr G head back to planning and convert the D1 space into 2 apartments is my advice.
You can send me a cheque for the business coaching.,
The community hasn't the ability nor money to run a facility of any quality.
Martin is it your privilege to censor the comments? I agree with Anon 16.03 anything that you don't like you don't print. A bit like a dictatorship. Hardly a community blog is it?
I am sure Martin would publish if it is not offensive.
Martin has previously published unsubstantiated posts such as those claiming Mr Gillick is worth millions, when in fact the opposite is the case.
So on balance Martin is fair and balanced when it comes to moderating.
I moderate comments for my blog in line within the guidelines on the side panel. There have been a number of personally insulting or spiteful comments (on both sides) that add nothing to the debate that I have not published. I think you probably meant to agree with the Anomymous commenter before 16.03 which was of course published although you then claim censorship.
I suggest you go back to the original story which sets out a number of different views on the alleged fraudulent emails - readers are free to make up their own minds. For those who don't like the politics (of this political blog!) hard luck - start your own blog and compete with WM.
I agree Martin Francis gives too much time to the people that still believe it's our library. Also loads of people don't agree with Meg Hogwart so why is there no one comment criticising her and there are plenty criticising FKRL. So 1820 is exactly right.
We don't know how much Mr Gillick is worth. Frankly it's none of yours or mine business. It's not relevant to the topic.
A quick look at the below the line comments on any site would make it pretty obvious why some selection process is needed to avoid aggressive inanity, dumb abuse or simple repetition. Discussion needs to be kept moving if it's to achieve anything.
This blog is an example to all those communities which lack something similar. Well-run, well-moderated, relevant to its readers. It proclaims what it is on its masthead so obviously there's no point in expecting to open up new discussions on whether Enoch was the greatest PM we never had, whether last year's floods were God's punishment for gay/equal marriage or whether libraries are a waste of good retail space and should be replaced by supermarkets. Forums for that stuff are readily available. Go and find them if you're happier there. Or organise, demonstrate, petition and occupy until Mr Butt provides you with one; that's what Martin would do.
(And he sometimes doesn't post my stuff either)
Mike Hine
Unlike you and many others, Meg Howarth has the courage and principle to make comments in her own name. FKRL are free to make a comment at any time and have been offered the opportunity to write a guest blog. Martin
Responding to 14.51 I make no secret of being a socialist. If bored find your excitement elsewhere. As for making up comments I find it hard to keep up with those that do come in. Anything I write is under my own name and I would be over-joyed if all contributors (in,causing you) did the same.
As it would seem despite all the previous attack on her good character, Meg seems to have been more correct than many others.
The building and land was gifted to the people and it should not be something that a private company or individual should profit from.
I would call profiting from a social asset as "Socialism." rather than what we traditionally think as Socialism.
This includes assets such as Royal Mail that were sold with a few private individuals profiting at the publics expense. Call it what you like but making private profit on public assets at the expense of society at large seems more akin to socialism than socialism itself !
'Who wants or cares about a library anyway no one'
Says it all really.
Well obviously someone thought that by impressing how much Mr Gillick is claimed to be worth might help sway in Mr Gillicks favour.
I loath the parading of so called wealth as it is general done to impress others and make others feel small in comparison.
At least we are in a clearer picture that it is now extremely unlikely the promise of a D1 space will ever come to anything.
It seems the best course of action is to review the option agreement as several posters have suggested.
This would at least give some hope that a legal loophole might result in Mr Gillick not being the owner.
If there are posters who disagree it would be helpful to know why ?
Alison seems they are worth a load of money. Sold a company for £75m in 2008 and an industrial estate for £25m last year. All on google and I am sure theres a load more that's private. Street view of the office is pretty impressive too, it's a nice part of town.
Thanks Alison
Thought I would do a Google for fun.
Seems our developers went bust in 2008 running away from a £95 million loan they defaulted on.
http://m.propertyweek.com/3104748.article?mobilesite=enabled
This issue has been examined time and time again. The property was sold before it was listed. Challenging more would be futile and a total waste of a lot of YOUR money.
Maggie thatcher was the best leader this country has had. Progression is the government selling assets. If it didn't there would be no money for health, law and order and progression. Governments haven't got a bottomless pit of cash, even the USA had to hand the space program to industry.
Carvil Ventures lists Trehaven Group as a client along with Fairview Homes
http://carvil-ventures.co.uk/clients-partners
It would seem Carvil are PR for developers. A bit like the disgraced Max Clifford if you will.
I bet this is why no body has been able to speak out against the proposal as developers PR machine has been in full swing.
Until now !!!
Wait a minute the £75 million you claim they sold was a bank foreclosure see post @20:35
Bish, bash, bosh! As I said, Anon 21.09, why waste your time, Martin's time and your own?
Mike Hine
Will you read the documents!
Trehaven have a mortgage. That means they have lent some money. They are a fund not a developer. To put it in context you might as well be chasing Natwest or RBS. Talk about the blind leading the blind. So now we are chasing Gillick for where he gets his funding...
Untrue, 21.01. The property was not sold until on or immediately after 31 January 2014 - this year. It was listed in December 2012. Challenging the Option Agreement wouldn't cost Brent or its residents anything if done through the Information Commissioner.
Sorry you are not correct. The option agreement that could not be disclosed to any other party was "claimed to be signed during the ACV listing process on 26 Nov."
It now transpires All Souls College admit in their letter from Farrer that the option agreement was not actually witnessed and signed where it should have been.
It therefore calls into question the lawfulness of the sale!
This is not a waste as a post has pointed out developers are always finding loopholes in the law and so the community has uncovered a huge loophole and should be challenged.
So Mr Gillick might not actually own the building, if it is found the contract was invalid. Granted an "If."
I should point out the community became divided earlier in the year when half of the community wanted further information on the Option Agreement and did not take it at face value.
The option agreement has become even more suspect given Farrer letter and needs to be challenged.
'Will you read the documents!'
Anon 21.39, I don't know whether this has ever struck you but
1. not everyone has time to 'read the documents'
2. not everyone would understand the documents or the particular significance of particular parts
3. this should not disqualify them from participation in the discussion
4. if you have specialist knowledge of the subject and wish for a particular outcome it might be more useful if you used those things to promote your cause in a form easily understandable by the widest possible section of the community.
How about condensing all your knowledge into as easily assimilable form as you can manage so that you can leverage the greatest possible numbers of supporters behind what you believe to be the case.
Mike Hine
Many folk are chasing RBS, and quite right too. Think you'll also find that Natwest is a subsidiary of RBS. Not so clever as we think, are we?
LOL, 21.39. Trehaven is filing for voluntary strike-off. Does that sound like a company that has funds to back Gillick, or anyone?
Not sure if you fully understand the financial implications of Trehaven London being dissolved !
As a lay person, it seems clear they are trying to do a runner, putting building up for sale a couple of days after planning application docs were received.
They are not going to develop as promised and this seems very clear.
So yes where Gillick gets his funding from is very important, as the community can make a balanced decision on :
A. waiting for a sale and eventually the building is developed with agreed D1 space
B. Wait for new developer, but accept a new developer may negotiate D1 space possibly to nothing, so community loose everything
C. Challenge option agreement with potential a ruling will find the contract was unlawful. Building would revert back to All Souls College. ASC would then review and out of anyone's hands what ASC might do
D. Give up and move on.
These are the four scenarious I have identified, if anyone wants to add you are most welcome.
Given the issues about Option Agreement I am inclined to go with a challenge and see what it might throw up. There is more that can be gained than simply waiting for a developer or giving up now.
Anon 17.09 - how do you know Gillick paid £500k for the former Kensal Rise Library building and site?
Even Maggie understood everyone should benefit from government asset sales and not just the few, as there would be anarchy on the streets otherwise.
So there are limits to what can be sold.
Interesting article today discussing difficulties of selling public assets.
Land Registry was cited under consideration. Although this may result in moral hazard, if for example a big developer owned a reasonable chunk of land registry.
The point is assets that have previously been gifted to the community or may result in unintended consequences should not be sold or if they are sold any profit that us made should 100% be reinvested into the community so than private profit would not be an issue as we all would then gain from such a transaction.
Poster 29 Dec 10:01
If you do a quick Google search you find other Boroughs where fake support of a planning application is alleged
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/investigation-over-claims-letters-supporting-187380
I bet it is more widespread than people realize.
Tesco Leeds planning application found to have fake letters of support.
http://m.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/latest-news/top-stories/probe-into-fake-letter-supporting-leeds-supermarket-planning-application-1-2220495
Why do you say futile.
The Option Agreement has not been challenged. It was only a Barristers opinion.
I bet if Brent had asked another Barrister he would have given a different answer.
So I think the option agreement can be challenged and disagree with you above comment that has no basis in fact, apart from someone's opinion.
Flamin' heck. Does NO ONE do due dilligence any more?
Rhetorical question: obviously, All Souls and Hillingdon Council don't, to name but two.
Sorry, Hounslow, not Hillingdon.
Voluntary strike off is not a company going bust. It's is the owners liquidating that company and taking a profit. Now bear in mind there are 20 plus companies, let me guess but I would say this is a fairly common practice.
Does anyone care?
No they don't
Told you 10 times now. Option C has been exhausted! We are at the mercy of the developer and what he would chose to do.
Not sure what the motive behind Anon post 21:01 claiming the building was sold prior to ACV listing, as this is clearly not the case. Meg has kindly pointed this out several times.
Could the post be developer PR, as they know the option agreement may not stand up in a court of law if challenged ?
Thanks to a post above we now know developer using a big PR machine.
Challenging the option agreement would be something developer would want to avoid at all costs. Even it would seem developer did not submit all documents at Auction and a last minute letter from Farrer solicitors to All Souls College tried to clarify, but it now seems the option agreement WAS NOT signed and Witnessed.
Money money is now on option agreement not being lawful and can see why developer might not want this challenged.
Yes ! We have listened to the developers voice for far too long.
Look where it has got us !
We were all pushed into supporting the development proposal and look how that has turned out !
We can't listen to the developer any more ! We have to make a stand and fight for our building ! That is what Mark Twain would want us to do !
The use of dodgy PR companies to sway public opinion about developments is Standard Operating Practice. London Communications have been doing precisely that at Brent Cross for almost a decade.
The Land Registry isn't a physical asset, it's simply a repository of information. And indeed, much of the important access to it is already effectively private: NLIS and the search gateways for example.
To avoid any confusion could everyone please provide some fact when they make sweeping statements such as a web link to support a fact.
For example : I note a poster yesterday claims Gillick purchased building for £500,000 could they Please provide some form if evidence. If we know the facts everyone will be more informed.
It would also give community greater bargaining power if we all stick to facts rather than opinion.
A case in point is poster claiming option agreement can't be challenged. If they have a legal document that is based on fact could they Please publish so we can all make up our own minds on what is fact and fiction.
I also spotted the unsubstantiated claim that Gillick paid £500k for the building. Evidence, please.
Mark twain was a bankrupt
Do a bit of work yourself.
This info is all on allsops website. I'll give you a hint have a look under lot 88
Agreed, but why do you think Trehaven Group Ltd was named as mortgagee on Deed of Agreement when it had already changed its name to Trehaven London?
Your point, Anon 12.04?
Seems a lot of these comments are sour grapes towards the developer. Facts are these, the council closed the library, the funds were used to make remaining libraries better, the library was freely marketed, the developer bid and bought it, he got planning, now and since he bought it, it is his choice what he wants to do with it. Welcome to a free society.
If you have a problem with the developer making money, that's sour grapes and your problem.
Frankly arguing how some who owns an asset and you think it should be taken off him is just making yourself look like an idiot.
I on the other hand realised when the library closed it was gone. The other libraries have had massive investment and are great.
Do I want a volunteer run shambollic excuse of a library run down the end of my road attracting every drop out. Absolutely not. Will it happen, absolutely not.
Mark Twain just sold a few books here. He didn't build or pay for the library. He didn't even pay for the brass plaque.
Martin, re Anon 16.54: I'd like to make a plea for a little more Stalinist dictatorship-style censorship, please.
Mike Hine
Dear 16:54 . You are J Powney Esq. I claim my five pounds.
Can you show me the evidence option C has been exhausted ?
Why can't you just share the information with everyone ?
Sorry I could not see evidence of £500,000.
All I could see was £1.25 million !
Mike you just don't like the truth. What 1654 has said is valid and honest.
Anon 09.29 Why are you so certain that option C has been exhausted?
For all you know it's a different company
Companies House state name change from Trehaven Group to Trehaven London.
If anyone knows any different please post the evidence
How about you look in the legal pack. What am I to do post you a legal pack or personally read it to you?
Neither did previous owner, All Souls. The library was paid for from a mixture of local taxation and a donation from Andrew Carnegie.
Go on the company number. Name is irrelevant
Lot 88 docs are no longer available on the website, so it would be helpful if you'd share the appropriate information with those who didn't or were unable to download them before they were removed.
Meg as you are well aware. The council have had 2 rounds of legal advice and then another round of advice from a QC and all the advice is the same. The option is valid. Every expert has agreed the option is valid, signed and was taken out in November 2012. If you are expecting me to believe 2 London law firms, a property developer and a top oxford college are all lying I think you frankly my dear have gone crazy.
Sounds like a nice open discussion .......
16.54 - the developer did not 'bid' for the library building. Andrew Gillick's was the only - and an unexpected - commercial interest shown in the property. All Souls shamelessly chose it over the business plan FKRL had proposed and in which the college had originally expressed an interest.
Voluntary strike off is standard practice to dissolve a company. If the company was in debt or owed a lot it's creditors would apply for it to be struck off and wound up. The two are totally different.
Voluntary strike off would indicate taxes etc are up to date and there is value in the company.
Martin is a top man. Hero to the people some would say. Mike save the moaning for the girlfriend.
How do you know what he likes?
Do a search of posts on this topic and look for 'sour grapes', 'welcome to the free world', 'welcome to a free society', 'drop outs' and 'hippies'.
They've been consistently dismissive of anything which deviates from the poster's 'common-sense', narrow, Daily Mail view of the world (I'm not being judgemental, simply descriptive). The point is relentlessly made that anyone who objects to some policy or action which makes some people richer as a result simply of being rich in the first place can only be motivated by regret that they didn't get there first. This is more than just a failure of imagination, it's a (pretended) blindness to the possibility of anything other than narrow self-interest ever motivating anyone to do anything. That's not just a questionable political viewpoint, it's a display of ignorance about how humankind ever achieved what it did in the last few thousand years.
As Martin has said elsewhere, this is a socialist political blog. If you believe that anyone who questions the social/economic/class assumptions of our society is an unrealistic hippy/dropout/sap unworthy of a place in the (NW) free world then maybe you'd be better off exchanging your lounge bar bluster with like-minded people elsewhere.
In fact I'm told there's now a complete political party dedicated to this stuff. 1654 should go and get 'valid and honest' there maybe. They possibly don't object to being called 'idiots' either.
Speaking of 'censorship', 18.20 - have you noticed the self-censorship in which FKRL seems to be indulging? It's Facebook page hasn't been updated to report the outcome of either the auction or the CPS decision not to proceed with a prosecution in the fraudulent email affair - the subject of this blog. As for its Twitter account, it hasn't corrected the mis-information of its latest tweet. Fortunately, no-one has RTd the incorrect comment.
It's abject nonsense for anyone to claim that the remaining libraries are "better". Take a look at Wembley: watch the young people struggle for study space and look at the dumbing down of the book stock.
As to volunteer libraries, what an utter insult. The very many people who use the Barham Park one are parents with children, the elderly and others. It's very busy indeed and well supported, as is Preston.
I know a great many people here who simply can't and don't get to a library any more.
I think I know who 16:54 is, and it's pretty appalling when elected people hide behind anonymity.
Tax-avoidance is a 'fairly common practice', too. Does that make it ethical?
21.40
First 2 sentences, couldn't agree more. And pleased to see from the New Year Honours that Martin has once more turned down the attempt by the establishment to seduce him with their ribbons and bows, gewgaws, baubles and bullshit (at least, I'm assuming that's why he's not down there with Joan Collins and Field Marshall Ashdown).
Third sentence: not moaning at Martin, constructively criticising the Anon 'free world' keyboard warrior. I think you missed the point, understandable given the temptations of the season. And it's a few decades too late to implement the gf advice, I'm afraid, but I'll notify you if the situation changes.
Happy new year!
Mike Hine
21.11 That may be but question remains: why change the name from Trehaven Group Ltd to Trehaven London? This reminds me that Andrew Gillick's Platinum Revolver Ltd also had a makeover to Platinum Land.
Instead of being so uppity, 21.08, please post link to the document showing the purchase price of £500k All Souls charged for the former Kensal Rise Library - for which it paid not a penny. Not everyone will have downloaded the legal pack.
21.27
Why an apologist for company name-changes and 'voluntary' strike-off? If 'there is value in the company', why change its name? Instead of painting a fiscally proper outfit as you try to do, most folk would smell fish.
I recommend some people make a resolution to find a new cause. Let's focus on using the 6 libraries we have. The shambollic volunteer ones will fizzle out probably when the hippies go on the road for the festival season. Kensal Rise will develop into a nice residential development and a community library, come on let's get real. Nostalgia is not a bad thing but let's start progressing. I hope you got kindles and I pads for Christmas. Welcome to 2015.
Anon 21:08
I am a little bemused why you are not particularly helpful and do not seem to want to share documents with others
Or make a resolution to find a new shortlist, perhaps. Or a new set of clichés. Or a name.
Ben Milner
Anon 21.18
Never trust 'experts' - my dear.
Well-said, Ben. It would be refreshing to have more names instead of a continuous stream of Anonymous commentary, akin to identikit Father Christmases, except for shape and size and style.
Lead us into the future, ex-councillor!
Destiny chooses you to be the Marinetti of Norf Weezy!
H'm... 'Hippies'. Seen that word somewhere else in connection with Kensal Rise Library. Anyone else remember it, and where it appeared?
Usually appears close to an interestingly-spelt 'shambollic'. I hear he hasn't got much time for those flower children either. And don't get him started on what them beatniks get up to down his road with their Kenny Ball long-players and their loco weed ..............
Don't worry, he's been grumpy all Christmas.
We could do with some concrete evidence on this hippy issue so here is a link to a picture of me at the height of the era - the Summer of Love. I was working for Reuters Economic News Service at the time... http://1drv.ms/13JPXEO
Bloody hell, Martin. A Special Branch plant if ever I saw one!
Upset someone, did you, Martin - judging by the torn photo?
HaHa. Clumsily torn from old style passport. They used good glue in those days!
Happy New Year to all readers of Wembley Matters.
I will make a toast to securing the Kensal Rise building back for the whole community to enjoy
I will drink to that.
:) (:
Cheers, Prost, Bottoms Up, Chin Chin to Wembley Matters ...
Bah.. sour grapes..... 20.15 will not happen, I'll put money on it.........drop-out loser hippy weirdos...... smelly shambolic volunteers........... wake up and smell the WMDs....rockin in the free world ...........new realism .....forward to the 1930s......I was never breast-fed in public and I don't intend to start now........draw a line, move on, end of.... why isn't Jimmy Shand on the goggle-box tonight?.......BBC now run by long-hared ketamine fiends with a secret agenda........ thanks, mine's a double.....gawd bless you, mr Gillick, sir , you're a gent.....lovely dogs them Kerry Blues..... blah blah.........he speaks a lot of sense that David Icke.....blah...leaner and fitter..blah....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
12:14
I not only smell fish but rats chasing after the fish.
Who might cut off their tails with a carving knife ?
The story continues.
Stay tuned in 2015.
Will the rats run away or will the good community win the day ?
Dear 21.18, Could the 'property developer' in your post possibly be Andrew Gillick whose first planning application included D1 space in the basement in violation of para 15.1 of the Option Agreement?
Martin, In response to yours and the 'hippy' issue above - 17.09: 'a load of hippies', 12.16: 'the hippies go on the road' - the following can be found amongst the online planning-portal comments in support of Andrew Gillick's first planning application:
- 'A hippy commune', 'The hippies with their commune on the corner of Bathurst/College...'.
Other similarities between this blog's and the planning support comments which I spotted:
- 12.16 above writes not only of 'hippies' but of 'kindles and I pads'; 'Amazon/Kindle folks?' appears amongst the planning portal comments;
- 16.54 writes of 'every drop out'; amongst the planning comments the phrase 'drunks and drop outs' can be found (references to drunks appear several times in support of the original planning application);
- 17.14 writes 'Who wants or cares about a library anyway', 09.21 'Does anyone care?'. Amongst the planning-portal comments 'who really cares' can be found.
All the supporting planning comments were posted on 29/08/2013. Some 70 of the 78 were found by Brent Council to be 'fake', and passed to Brent police who in turn passed them to the CPS. Anon 01.09 above asked what some comments had to do with the 'CPS or Library articles'. Hopefully, this comment will return matters to base.
Very interesting. Are you saying that the 1990s-style Daily Mail clichés appear in the fake emails?
I thought Alison at 09.43 had an idea who this was. There are also references to 'at the end of my road' (though there's no way of knowing whether this is a reference to where s/he lives or to the particular point s/he has reached on in life's great journey).
Mike Hine
Judging by the level of argument I'd say the library issue is dying on its feet.....
Time heals all wounds it also dissolves all protests.
I would say the argument has only just got started, judging by the level of community anger.
The issues surrounding the option agreement remain full open and yes time will tell if Mr Gillick ends up loosing the building.
If you believed that it was dying on its feet then it would hardly be the wisest tactic to revive it with your comment, would it?
Smacks more of wishful thinking to me.
A: A rather nasty comment about 'rats' by Anon 31 December 20.16 above and reposted here:
'I not only smell fish but rats chasing after the fish.
Who might cut off their tails with a carving knife ?
The story continues.
Stay tuned in 2015.
Will the rats run away or will the good community win the day ?'
B: The following was posted on 29/08/2013 in support of Mr Gillick's planning application:
'The developer here is going to play with FKRL like a cat playing with a mouse...'.
It's all got very boring. Building is gone I have better things to do with my time that living in a dream.
Bet the building will be sold without us even knowing. Now that it's occupied ACV does not apply and we won't even be invited to bid me guesses.
We certainly won't be opening a community library any time soon.
Looks like he did play with everyone like a cat with a mouse. Certainly mr Gillick is not stupid he got to where he wasted a planning consent. Hasn't given away a penny either. We are living in a vortex if we think the sale will be reversed. I am facing 2015 with the fact the building is gone for good. Either Mr Gillick can't afford or doesn't want to build a community library and with the bickering, lack of funds and likelihood it will be a failure can't say I blame him.
Well if Gillick is claiming it is occupied Brent Council better start charging business rates ?
20.35, 20.41 and another 20.41 are the same person.
20.59 is the regular lower case 'mr',upper case 'Gillick', contributor of 'realistic' comments who thinks the poor man has been wronged by the lack of gratitude of you local troublemakers.
Why entertain these clowns, Martin?
There are always rats.
Do we know if they are or if they aren't?
The easy explanation is predictive text and people that don't car about punctuation. I doubt they are the same person the English style and message is totally different. Some people here have just an over active imagination. Go and have a sit down.
The real clowns are the local troublemakers who have blown the chances of us ever having a local library. These are the clowns. Do I share your suspicions it's the one person? Nope doubt it. The majority I am afraid are not with the troublemakers and are tired of the topic.
There is no way around business rates. So he's either paying them or he'd be taken to court.
Has anyone done on FOI to find out what the situation is.
Gillick obviously sent a letter to Brent informing them that he claims building is "occupied"
Brent responded saying that have not been informed of a lease agreement, or that is my understanding and Brent view the building as "Unoccupied."
Clarification from Brent would be helpful.
Post a Comment