The recent discovery of a cannabis farm in the “disused” (closed?) public conveniences on New Road in Kendal is a shining example of  South Lakeland District Council’s attitude to local residents, local businesses and visitors.

My office faces these public conveniences which are on the other side of the River Kent. Ever since SLDC decided to close them there has been a steady stream of people urinating (and worse) against the back wall of the building. After a complaint to our local councillor, SLDC erected wire fences at the back and side. It wasn’t a perfect solution but it did reduce the number of users.

Sadly, when the fair left in September they took the fencing with them! I phoned SLDC and told them the area was once again being used as a toilet and was told in no uncertain terms that they already knew about it and they were arranging for the fair to return and re-fit the panels. I did add that I hoped the fair was paying for any costs involved.

A few weeks later the newly replaced panels were removed by SLDC to allow a survey of the car park but nobody refitted them. They were left leaning against the wall! So guess what happened? Somebody threw them into the river! I didn’t contact the council again because of their attitude previously. One of the panels was clearly visible  as it had fallen back against the banking of the river.

Nothing happened until late October when after some very heavy rain it was washed down the river and through Miller Bridge . The recent rain has now washed it further down the river and out of sight.

What puzzles me is why, if as stated by SLDC  “The council inspects its premises on a monthly basis to ensure public safety. New Road toilets were part of a regular programme and when the building was last inspected on November 14, there was no evidence of a breach of security”, has it taken until last Friday for the fencing to be replaced?

Nearly three months and presumably at least a couple of “inspections” to do something!

P.S. I will not mention the cost of replacing the panel which they allowed to be washed down the river! It’s not their money it’s ours.

Next Monday (December 5th) is the start of Mintfest’s appeal to raise vital funds for next year’s festival.

I have said before that there are more deserving causes than Mintfest at Christmas but what really puzzles me is why do they need this money?

I know they have lost £250,000 of funding which was previously provided by the Northwest Regional Development Agency but they did receive £290,000 of “new money” earlier this year from Arts Council England, which in very simple terms means they are £40,000 “better off”, rather than facing “a hole left after the closure of the North West Regional Development Agency”, as reported in the Westmorland Gazette this week.

I am very conscious that I am not in possession of the full facts behind Mintfest’s appeal for “vital funds” but if Mintfest was a charity, which it isn’t, it would have to publish very detailed accounts like the ones from  Multi Cultural Arts .

At least the public would then be able to make an informed decision about how great Mintfest’s needs really are.

The NWDA, through Capital for Enterprise Limited, have replied to my Freedom of Information request which was

Their reply makes interesting reading and doesn’t seem to fit with what the NWDA’s fund managers told Private Eye in Issue 1296 (2 September to 15 Sept. 2011), which was that they are

pursuing repayment of outstanding amounts via the administrators

The important point is that it appears Lucycooks could repay this money but for some reason the liquidators have said it is worth nothing.

Yet again, I just don’t understand!

Julie Tait, a director of Kendal Arts International, is still using the figures prepared by CRESC despite the doubts raised by Private Eye and others about their independence.

This time it’s to encourage the public to give money through The Big Give telling us all that

Mintfest is the flagship festival of Lakes Alive and takes place in Kendal. It attracts 25,000 people a year as well as creating significant economic impact for the local area (estimated at £1.1 – £1.5m), generating massive PR Value for Cumbria and, most importantly of all, bringing joy and happiness to its audiences.

Rather than dispute the calculations I thought it would be better if I “translated” what Julie Tait is saying into plain English.

Mintfest adds £1,500,0000 to the local economy at a cost of (let’s be generous) £100,000. It’s actually less than this but let’s forget that to keep the figures simple.

Which means the audiences spend the rest. So if 25,000 people attend Mintfest and spend in total £1,400,000

every man, woman and child spends £56 each on average at Mintfest

Judge for yourself.

My post about Mintfest – you must be bloody joking prompted this comment from LB 1968:

Many, if not most, arts organisations are limited companies. If they are registered charities, they are probably a limited company as well. This affords them the same protection as any limited company ie it limits personal liability. I don’t know what other structure you would expect them to have, given that they lease property, hire staff, etc.

They are, however, limited by guarantee, not share capital. They are not allowed to distribute dividends to directors, nor are they allowed to make a profit and this will be laid out in their Memorandum and Articles of Association. If this were not the case, they would not be allowed to apply for funding from the Arts Council or many other sources which explicitly state the type of organisations they will support.

If you are a funded arts organisation, funders will pay you when a funding bid is successful or at agreed periods during a funding agreement. This takes no account of a company’s year end so a company with a high level of cash in their bank account will most likely have received funding for its activity over the next few months. It won’t be a “profit” from the previous year’s activities because they are not allowed to make a profit. There are checks in place to ensure this is the case with funders requiring stringent reporting and copies of accounts.

Whether you approve of Lakes Alive or arts funding generally, surely it’s better to have accurate facts to support your argument?

I am always very careful what I say, it’s essential if you’re a Chartered Accountant in practice, so I would just like to make the following points:

1) My comments were not aimed at the structure which Kendal Arts International use i.e. a company limited by guarantee, but were made to highlight the fact that it’s a business not a charity.

2) LB1968 is quite right when she says “they are not allowed to distribute dividends” but they are allowed to make a profit as shown by this entry in their latest accounts

and they are allowed to pay their directors salaries.

3) My reference to the £128,000 sitting in the bank at 31 March 2011 was to point out the money available at that date. I am fully aware that it may have been received to fund future projects and did not suggest it was “profit” (a word which incidentally  I didn’t use at all in my post ).

4) Finally,  and this is one of my worries when public money is handed to companies such as Kendal Arts International, what “checks are in place”? Given that one of of the major donors was the NWDA I hope they are better than the ones applied to this fiasco.

This caught my attention when I was looking at TweetDeck earlier today

Cov & Warks 100in100: Apprenticeships can support all aspects of a business’s operations including support functions like IT and accountancy

November 22, 2011 09:51 via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@CW_LEP

Cov & Warks LEP

It’s a tweet (post) from The Coventry & Warwickshire Local Enterprise Partnership LEP. Forget the content and think about the message; or, more importantly how it was sent and who sent it.

The economic future of Cumbria has to be based on the internet. Our location demands it.

Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership LEP in its own words

provides a strategic lead in all activities contributing to the growth and vibrancy of the county’s economy

Take a look at their website and ask yourself

Is what they say reflected by what they do and, more importantly, how they do it?

Sadly the answer, in my opinion is no. I have compared Cumbria LEP  with Coventry and Warwickshire LEP previously when I mentioned Twitter specifically.  I have also criticised Cumbria LEP for sitting on its **** but nothing has changed.

Until the board members realise that their inaction is costing us and our children dearly in wasted opportunities Cumbria’s economic growth will continue to stagnate.

If you agree with what I’m saying you should do something to change things.

I have sent a copy of this to my MP, the chairman of my district council (who incidentally is a LEP board member) and to the editor of my local paper, the Westmorland Gazette and asked for their help in changing things.

Prompted  by the discovery that the NWDA did not obtain guarantees from both the directors of Lucy’s of Ambleside Limited I asked them this question:

Given that any personal guarantee is only as good as the financial standing of the person giving it, would you please tell me what the due diligence process provided in the way of evidence of Mrs Nicholson’s personal worth to assess the value of the guarantee, i.e. what assets did she own and what value was placed on them and by whom?

Their reply is interesting, to say the least!

An assessment of her assets was made as part of the application process, and at the time it was not considered that it would be necessary to seek repayment under the guarantee as the business was judged to be viable and capable of servicing the loan which was advanced from the Fund as well as its other borrowings going forward. The advance of the loan was not conditional on there being sufficient assets to cover the guarantee but the guarantee was taken as an insurance to enable the Fund to potentially recover some or part of the loan in the event of a default. As important is that the guarantee was taken in order encourage a greater personal commitment from (in this case) the controlling Director within the business and to ensure personal responsibility for decisions taken and implemented.

You will appreciate that a purpose of the Transitional Loan Fund (TLF)was to provide finance to viable businesses which were unable to access funding that they needed from commercial sources, as well as to preserve jobs in the North West region. Businesses applying for loans through the TLF were by their nature ones that could not meet the commercial lending criteria of banks or other institutions for various reasons for instance due to lack of an established track record of earnings growth, or lack of security. The business in this case fitted that profile.

I cannot understand how the “the business was judged to be viable and capable of servicing the loan” when I, with only minimum financial information, said at the time the loan was given:

1. The company’s balance sheet at 30 September 2008 showed net assets of £122 (2007 – £18,100) having taken into account an overdrawn directors’ loan account (included in debtors) of £52,777.
2.  There is a note in the accounting policies “As the company has significant current liabilities at the balance sheet date the going concern basis is dependent upon the continued support of the company’s creditors”. This is “accountants’ speak” for the company is unable to pay its debts. It is also extremely rare for accountants to qualify their opinion. In other words they think things are really bad.
3.  As noted above the company has financed its fixed assets with current liabilities, a situation prophesied by the directors themselves in September 2006 in an interview with the local paper, The Westmorland Gazette. The article reveals Lucy Nicholson, one of the directors, has invested nearly half a million pounds in the project but then she adds “Goodness knows where the money is coming from”!
4.  The “half a million” investment isn’t in the accounts. I think she may be confusing spending (other businesses’) money with investment.

I just wish I could say

Well, at least it’s not my money which has been lost

but I can’t because it’s ours as taxpayers.

South Lakeland District Council’s policy of closing public conveniences has put South Lakeland on the world map.

Just this week, I learned that Staveley’s community run loos have been twinned with conveniences in Cambodia to highlight the universal need for public toilet facilities.

I’m just not certain if this is Cambodia telling Staveley or vice versa.

Bearing in mind the worsening situation in South Lakeland, I think we’re being lectured by Cambodia.

As soon as I start to feed the birds at the office, the squirrel appears.

Not happy with eating (burying?) a kilo of monkey nuts he then decided to steal the bird food.

Earlier today  I asked the NWDA this

Throughout the period the loan application was being processed by the NWDA the company (Lucy’s of Ambleside Limited) had two directors not one.

Will you please let me have the following information:

• How did the NWDA establish the number of directors?
• What information did they have which indicated there was only one director?

They have just replied as follows:

You are correct to state that throughout the application process the Company had two Directors, one of whom was in the process of resigning from his position and severing his links with the Company. This was advised to the NWDA and the Fund Manager by the Applicant and its Advisors during the due diligence process, and the loan application was processed on the basis that the Director concerned would have no further involvement in, or influence over the Company going forward.

Which makes me wonder why, if he was “in the process of resigning from his position and severing his links with the Company” did it take him another 13 months to resign?