Jump to content

Canal and River Trust no longer trustworthy?


Featured Posts

4 hours ago, matty40s said:

Wouldnt take much for the 2nd one.

 

4 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

That's probably what they were relying on - hoping that everyone is as lacksadasical as they are.

It's slightly more complicated that that, chaps ...

Parry/Leighton made two changes to the approved Annual Report -

- In the approved report, the 'heritage condition'  measure showed a substantial drop from the previous year. The altered report shows that  CRT were unable to collect the data due to COVID.

- The approved report showed a significant drop in the 'visitor satisfaction' figure. The altered report halved the drop.

Under it's grant agreement with DEFRA, CRT is required to publish certain info called 'publication data' by July 1 each year. If it fails to provide that info by September 1 then the Chair is required to write to the SoS and Council of Members.

Leighton wrote twice to the SoS. His first letter was to confirm that CRT had failed to publish within then September 1 timescale.

His second letter was to explain that CRT had failed to publish 'heritage condition' 'publication data' that had already been published! In other words he wanted to retract the published data and gain agreement for a position that the data was not available. In his second letter he did not inform the SoS that CRT had also changed the visitor satisfaction figure. He also failed to copy Council with his second letter as required under the terms of the grant agreement.

My view is that Parry/Leighton were concerned that Defra would pick up 'heritage condition' as it formed part of publication data. They took the chance on 'visitor satisfaction' because it did not form art of the publication data.

Happy to publish Leighton letters if anyone is that interested.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Orwellian said:

Just received the latest edition of Private Eye and was hoping to see an item on this but sadly there wasn't. I would be interested in those letters though Allan

Maybe next edition ...
 

Here are the two letters. In the second, Leighton was concealing from Defra that that the Annual Report had been falsified (because the Board of Trustees had not resolved to accept the changes). Even now, six months later, the Board refuses to accept the changes and, instead, is asking the Charity Commission to replace the falsified report with the approved Annual Report.

 

Leighton-SoS-Letter1.pdf Leighton-SoS-Letter2.pdf

 

 

****** Edited to add that that it has been pointed out to me that CRT's response attempts to minimise Leighton's involvement by suggesting that he was just 'aware' rather than an active participant in the deception. 

Edited by Allan(nb Albert)
Link to post
Share on other sites

A new development today as Tom Deards, acting on behalf of CRT's Board of Trustees, has written to the Charity Commission admitting to a second falsification of CRT's approved Annual Report. This relates to the changing of figures relating "visitor satisfaction" where CRT have altered the approved annual report to halve a significant drop from the previous year.

In mitigation, the Trustees say that this and the change to heritage data were "to put right errors that had been made".

Edited by Allan(nb Albert)
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

A new development today as Tom Deards, acting on behalf of CRT's Board of Trustees, has written to the Charity Commission admitting to a second falsification of CRT's approved Annual Report. This relates to the changing of figures relating "visitor satisfaction" where CRT have altered the approved annual report to halve a significant drop from the previous year.

In mitigation, the Trustees say that this and the change to heritage data were "to put right errors that had been made".

 

 

Its a good job they noticed all these errors, otherwise the incorrect figures would have been reported and no one have known about the errors.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Its a good job they noticed all these errors, otherwise the incorrect figures would have been reported and no one have known about the errors.

A great analysis.
They published incorrect figures and then corrected them. When this was pointed out they asked the Charity Commission if they could publish the incorrect figures again.

  • Greenie 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.