my new email to Harvey Patterson (under a freedom of Information request) follows:
The Task & Finish Panel have recently asked a series of
questions to Dr. Sue McGonical which have now been published on the TDC website
as an appendix to the upcoming meeting on the 31st October 2013. As
the answers are in the public domain I would like to raise some questions under
an FOIA.
Also, I believe, you stated at a previous meeting of the
T&F you said that a full disclosure of all papers was not an issue as only
current negotiations would remain confidential. Is that still the case?
Both Ian Driver and Richard Nicholson asked broadly the same
question as follows:-
Letter from SFP Ventures UK Ltd dated 2 June 2009 page
27: This letter states that Wetmore Investments will be funding the
construction of the hotel through a £5million investment.
What checks did the Council make into
the validity of this claim e.g. obtaining
copies of development agreements with SFP,
and what steps did the council take
to check the bonafides of Wetmore
Investments e.g. securing information about
company registration and ownership of Wetmore Investments and
copies of its accounts. Was Wetmore Investment
ever contacted by the council?
Dr. Sue’s answer
External solicitors were used to validate the ability of
Wetmore to provide the agreed level of finance, and that a binding legal
agreement was in existence.
Having investigated both SFP and TDC over this affair for
many months and accumulated much written evidence Dr. Sue’s answer comes like a
bolt out of the blue and raises more questions than answers.
In the interest of openness please would you answer the
following:-
1.
Who were the External Solicitors?
2.
Who instructed them and the date they were
formally engaged?
3.
What was their brief?
4.
Was their final report to Council Verbal or
written?
5.
Where is this report?
6.
Why wasn’t it included in the Pleasurama file
given to the members of the T&F panel?
7.
Who are Wetmore?
8.
Where are they based?
9.
What was their financial standing?
10.
How long was the offer of £5M available for?
11.
Who owns Wetmore?
12.
How much was the Solicitor Invoice for?
13.
When was it paid?
14.
Who authorised payment?
15.
Why weren’t the findings part of the appendixes
to the 2009 agreement?
Harvey did state all relevant evidence would be given to the panel members so it does seem likely he is unaware of this External Solicitor report else he would have furnished to all members but then it is also likely smoke & mirrors are being deployed.
4 comments:
The first question is always the can opener. The supplementary delivers the killer blow. You got it right on both counts. Congratulations.
What is Wetmore's security for the investment of five million ?
I assume they do not have a dream team, like Harvey and Sue ? I assume they employ people who don't put a quid in without a couple of quid of security against it.
I'm afraid anon you will have to ask Wetmore. As I understand it they are based in Lichtenstein and controlled from an office in Geneva
I admit this is not my subject.
But say I wanted five million to self build a mansion ?
The lender has security on the site freehold ?
Then releases funds by stages as the build progresses and stages are signed off by the architect ?
IE In effect they release more funds as the value of their security is increasing towards completion.
If Cardy are owed money then the value of the site security is reduced by the amount of that liability ?
Then there is what I call the Michael factor. Spot on right about risk assessment re floods and cliff face.
I am thinking Wetmore would have required at least a structural survey of the cliff and its fascia footings. And probably the flood survey which Environment Agency would require in a current planning application.
So I tend not to believe it ...
Post a Comment