RPRA - Sale & Purchase of HQ

[willie reynolds]

First published on Facebook

A complete fiasco, that is what the RPRA have gotten themselves into over the past 18 months with the purchase of 18D Ley Court. To blame COVID-19 for their problems would be short-sighted and ignore the incompetent and unprofessional handling of the association and its balance sheet, which we all contribute towards as the RPRA’s 15,000+ members.

The buildings known as The Reddings (and Selby Thomas House) and the surrounding site were bought, I am told, by a group of Developers and therefore pending this sale the RPRA needed a new HQ. In October 2019 the Senior Management found 18D Ley Court (comprising of 4,700 sq, over 2,000 sq ft larger than the previous properties; a ridiculous move when member numbers are declining, and technology is being greater integrated into the association). Bevens Chartered Surveyors were mandated to produce a Building Survey Report. That same 60-page report carried out on 27th November 2019 was received by the RPRA and landed on the desk of the CEO on 13th December 2019.

On reading the Building Survey Report and looking at the photos of 18D Ley Court which, incidentally had been left derelict for approximately 4 years would appear that the Boiler, A/C and other services would need a lot of money spent to bring the property up to a standard fit for use. Appendix 2 of the Survey Report lists 13 items that should be investigated.
It is now March 2021. The sale of The Reddings has been completed and the RPRA staff have instead been forced into temporary serviced office space, despite free desk space apparently available at BHW Welshpool offices. Why and how we are in this situation is for the Executive Committee and RPRA CEO to answer directly. However, on behalf of all Members of the RPRA, I am grateful for Ron Shirley (1 of 3 trustees of the RPRA) for preventing the association committing financial suicide with this purchase. Ron should be commended for standing up to do his duty as trustee, a position that makes him personally liable for the RPRA’s management, against a spiteful barrage of correspondence. Those involved should offer him a public apology and consider resigning.

Mr Ron Shirley, an Architect by trade, could see pitfalls in the purchase of 18D Ley Court and decided to investigate further, raising questions on the suitability and details of the purchase. He conducted his own research without any assistance from the Executive Committee or the other 2 trustees who had previously offered inconclusive responses to his questions and attempted to derail his investigation on several occasions, at times questioning his integrity as a professional.
What on earth were the Executive Committee doing for the almost 15 months from receiving the Building Survey until finally stopping the purchase on 19th March 2021. If Ron Shirley was able to uncover all the problems, why couldn’t the Executive Committee? Thanks to a 142 Emergency Rule the Executive committee was able to completely take over the running of the RPRA.

Mr Shirley’s estimated figures regarding the sale of The Reddings and proposed purchase of 18D Ley Court sent by e-mail to the CEO Ian Evans on 15th February 2021 can be summarised below:

• Estimated proceeds from sale of The Reddings including the deduction of estimated costs for solicitors and Estate Agents fees would be £659,400
• Estimated cost of the purchase of 18D Ley Court taking into consideration VAT, Stamp Duty, Land Tax and estimated solicitors fees and moving costs making a total purchase including expenses of £756,000
• Deficit of £96,000 needing to be funded by the RPRA reserves.
In response CEO Ian Evans replied by e-mail on 16th February 2021:
“Ronald as stated previously my thoughts have been well known and it is pointless going down that route again. I am merely implementing Councils instruction. As a trustee that is also your responsibility, to carry out councils’ instruction.
All these figures were discussed when we were deciding whether or not to buy the property. Any shortfall would of course be funded from reserves.
The RPRA finances and proposals to address these issues were presented to Council in November. If implemented this will go a long way towards addressing the budgeting issues. Kind Regards Ian”
A further e-mail from Ron Shirley on 3rd March 2021 to Ian Evans informing him that he had received confirmation from Emily Allen of HCR Legal that; 1. The Property is freehold 2. He had received a copy of the freehold title from the solicitors 3. There was no date for completion. The only items remaining that he needed were a) the included parking available (an assumed 18 spaces), which he thought would be shown on the conveyance plan and b) the cost of remedial works as identified by surveyors – boiler, a/c electrics etc..
Ian Evans replied by e-mail 4th March 2021 at 09.58:
“Ron, the 6th is the date given to me by the solicitor (Cindy) I can only communicate to you what I am told and as and when it is communicated to me.
The Freehold was confirmed but you felt the need to go direct!
Of course, the car parking spaces will be included in the plan.
As for the remedial works the air con and boiler issues are being attempted to be dealt with. Ian”
It is clear in tone and punctuation that Ian Evans was not happy Ron Shirley went directly to the solicitors regarding the freehold. Perhaps foolishly, Ian Evans also assured Ron Shirley that the car parking spaces would be included in the plan. This oversight will illustrate the Executive committees mishandling of the entire process. Unfortunately after reading the freehold title and the plan showing the whole site Ron Shirley then sent a further e-mail to Ian Evans 4th March 2021 at 10.41 that queried which car parking spaces were included in the freehold and was told by Emily Allen that the car parking spaces are subject to leases and there was no separate title for 18D Ley Court.

Les Blacklock, one of the other trustees, then sent Ron Shirley the following e-mail dated 4th March 2021 at 11.17:
“Hi Ronald, Could I ask what you are playing at. You have frequently advised me that you are a Professional Person of high integrity. Therefore, how would you feel if someone went behind your back on a business issue that you were dealing with. As a Councillor and an elected Trustee of the RPRA you have a right to raise issues affecting your members or the RPRA nationally. Those issues must be raised solely with the CEO Ian Evans or in his absence the President, going behind the CEO’s back to the solicitors is not only unprofessional but clearly shows you have no trust in the CEO. I firmly believe your actions are in breach of RPRA rules and I hope Council will consider your conduct at its next meeting. As an elected trustee I find your actions distasteful and not that of a Professional Person.
Les Blacklock RPRA Trustee”

Mr Blacklock how dare you claim Ron Shirley went behind your back when both are personally liable for the management and finances of the RPRA; the Executive Committee should have all been a part of this purchase and carried out suitable due diligence in the process. By not agreeing to sign the purchase contract Ron Shirley, in my opinion, has saved the RPRA up to £800,000.
The outcome of all this is the final e-mail regarding 18D Ley Court dated 22.3.21 from CEO Ian Evans to Council and Region Secretaries:
”On Friday 19th March the Executive Committee along with the three trustees attended a meeting with the RPRA’s solicitor to discuss the purchase of Ley Court. The solicitor provided a detailed overview of negotiations to date. This included concerns over the insistence to include certain provisions with the transfer document relating to service charge that were simply unacceptable.
After careful consideration of the negotiations to date and how these negotiations were proceeding it was considered that the purchase of Ley Court was not in the best interest of the RPRA. It was the unanimous decision of the Executive Committee that we should not pursue the purchase of Ley Court and that with immediate effect we should look for suitable freehold accommodation.
This decision was backed by the three Trustees.
We will have vacated The Reddings by the end of the week. Today we have started the move to temporary serviced accommodation. Kind Regards Ian”
Once again Mr Ron Shirley many thanks from myself and all the RPRA Members, and sincerest apologies that your efforts were not recognised or indeed appreciated by your colleagues.

Moreover, on the subject of the RPRA finances, I have looked at the Combined RPRA and BHW Balance Sheet to October 2020 and am completely baffled as to how the association can for 2019 and 2020 report combined losses of over £150,000. The total 2020 expenditure of £771,344 includes staff salaries with NI and Pension contributions totalling £531,000; here lies the root issue to be resolved. Over 20 years or so the RPRA has gone from 60,000 members to approximately 15,000, such a decline needs to be reflected in staff numbers too, however uncomfortable that decision may be for the RPRA’s longevity. I expect the losses next year will be even greater because of the costs involving this property fiasco. Mr Ian Evans, I await your comments.
In response to my post on the Pigeon Chat website Mr Evans writes in an email directed to all councillors of the RPRA on 31st March 2021 at 17:17 and I quote:
“Here we go again. A lowlife person with an agenda to fit! Leaking information in a way provides a somewhat misleading light on what is and has been done – it does nothing to help the RPRA or its members.”

I can only say it is like a petulant child who resorts to name-calling when they have no defence or answer. The true light is not misleading, the report I shared was accurate in every detail that you the CEO and the Senior Management failed to take due care and diligence when attempting to purchase 18D Ley Court for the RPRA’s new H.Q.

Mr Evans goes on and I quote:
“I am confident I know who you are and I am close too being able to confirm/evidence it – and when I do I will take you to task not through the RPRA rules but through the legal route. This single issue aside; other actions that have been presented in a misleading way, that has damaged my reputation can only be described as bullying. I don’t back down to Bully’s and I have never been beaten by a Bully in any walk of life! Pathetic individual!”
Is this not rather pathetic on your part, sir? Attempting to justify your incompetence by belittling my interests as a loyal member for over 60 years of the RPRA (and previously NHU), labelling me a bully for holding you accountable, shame on you. As I have laid out previously, had the purchase been completed the overall cost to the RPRA would have exacerbated the financial downfall of the RPRA as the losses within the accounts would have been unsustainable.

Since Mr Evans has been employed as CEO the financial losses of the RPRA have increased considerably which cannot all be accounted for by COVID-19 and the decline in members alone. I have requested to see the balance sheet showing income and expenditure of the BHW Show of the Year; this is reported separately according to the auditors from the rest of the RPRA balance sheet, and have been redirected twice and am still awaiting a response from the Chairman of the RPRA, some 6 months later. Blackholes remain in the organisation and financial planning/strategy of the association, and I believe we have a right to a full explanation if Mr Evans claims what I have shared is “misleading” and I quote:
“The membership will eventually hear the accurate side of this story.”
I would like Mr Evans to tell me why there exists this paranoia of secrecy; we are an Unincorporated Association, owned by the Members by whom you are employed and who have a right to know what you are doing on their behalf and to hold you to account, especially when emergency powers were invoked and sustained for long periods of time. I look forward to your public explanation on everything I have raised, rather than having to read spiteful comments second-hand. I have not concealed my identity, nor my frustration with the RPRA and I would encourage you to do the same.

My thanks for the overwhelming support regarding the previous articles I published on Facebook in ‘Pigeon Chat’. For many years now the RPRA has been losing money, which begs the question; where do we go from here? It would appear that the BHW for many years has been subsidising the RPRA without any attempt made to correct this; we must bear in mind that some of the then Presidents, Vice-Presidents and Councillors are still in control of the RPRA – something that all members should question. For the first time in more than 100 years, the RPRA is homeless and forced to rent office space until such time a suitable permanent home is found, further wasting the Association’s reserves.

Admittedly, the blame cannot lie solely with Ian Evans, but also the President and the Association’s 3 Vice-Presidents who, with an Emergency Rule 142, decided to take over the RPRA at the onset of the COVID-19 crisis. The rest of the Councillors must also take some responsibility for the sorry state of the RPRA’s finances for not being diligent enough to prevent the RPRA spending getting out of control. Since Ian Evans joined the RPRA as CEO things have gone from bad to worse. Aside from the fiasco around the attempted purchase of 18D Ley Court the RPRA continues to either waste money or put new claims for money to the fanciers in order to recover some of the losses without addressing the cause of those losses.

As a retired businessman the biggest cost to any organisation is wages. No one likes to see people unemployed, nevertheless no organisation can keep sustaining losses that eventually lead to the demise of an organisation. With membership of the RPRA declining year-on-year and new technology being implemented, the number of staff currently (17 according to the latest reported accounts) is far too high and £531,000 for salaries, NI and pensions in 2020 is excessive and unsustainable.
For the point of this article I wish to focus on some of the other ways the executive committee have squandered money:
• The mandatory insurance imposed on members, at a sum of £2p.a. per member. Personally, I telephoned the Insurance Ombudsman’s office to complain about such insurance and was told that if they received enough complaints in writing then they would investigate this issue. Well, dear readers I feel we must act now. The policy covers equipment only and is frankly worthless as the excess is far greater than most pieces of equipment would cost to replace, pieces of equipment that would also be normally covered by general contents insurance.

• Last year the RPRA sponsored under the direction of the CEO a race called ‘The Masters’ for a south road race from Pau, South of France. This should never have happened as it was unfair to all members who could not compete in it and more importantly the CEO overreached his authority by sanctioning it at a cost of £1000 in sponsorship, another waste of money.
• A professional PR company was paid £9,000 to procure £700k worth of publicity. We are yet to see the bounty of this expense, aside from a brief appearance on a children’s TV channel.
• Furthermore, the more expensive FCI logo rings to be purchased for international races are a ridiculous requirement of members to comply with when only 2% of members enter these races and all foreign rung birds must be registered at a cost of £2.
• The introduction of the 30p surcharge for NWHU rings. The CEO claimed the money was needed to repatriate birds with NWHU rings. In October 2019 I asked a young lad who lives in Newcastle and has a strong Geordie accent to put this to the test and he rang the RPRA with one of my young bird ring numbers that I had registered. He was told it wasn’t one of the RPRA’s and was told the NWHU secretary’s number. What a waste of money. This ring surcharge seems to be a vendetta against the NWHU and no other unions. I wonder if this could be a retaliation for a suspension from the NWHU…
• The Development Officers’ job was initially advertised as a part-time role, but he was taken on full time with a salary of £30,000 p.a. plus up to £30,000 expenses p.a. There has been no increase in the RPRA membership, in fact it has decreased consistently year-on-year. I was told that his salary comes out of the Future of the Sport fund.

• Sadly, the Liverpool Show – now in its first year made a loss of nearly £20,000. In 2019 only 283 people attended the event, which Mr Blacklock suggested would take 3-5 years to become feasible.

• Likewise, the BHW Show of the Year at Blackpool expenses are paid out of the RPRA accounts whilst the Show of the Year has a separate account into which the income is put but we are not permitted to see. I for one would greatly appreciate the opportunity to scrutinise these accounts.
Looking at the situation in Myanmar where the military have taken over the country without any redress to the people, I feel the ‘Gang of 5’ (CEO, President and 3 Vice Presidents) have taken over the RPRA using the Emergency Rule 142 to take away our Association’s Democracy. The President and 3 Vice Presidents will remain in their positions until October 2021 due to ‘COVID-19 delays’ – we need change now.

I have been waiting in vain for some time now for someone from the so-called RPRA executive (the gang of 5) to hold their hands up and take responsibility for the fiasco of the sale of The Reddings and the aborted purchase of Ley Court. As a result of which the financial cost incurred is enormous and the veil of secrecy that surrounded it is still ongoing. I have since heard that they plan to buy another property, a converted chapel, with the details near completion that the majority of the Membership know nothing about as no minutes of meetings have been circulated to the Regions. Why do we need this secrecy, as I have said many times before we are an Unincorporated Association founded many years ago by the members for the member’s. Until any new property is purchased our RPRA employees are now in temporary office accommodation thus increasing our financial losses and I am sure with the uncertainty of where they shall be working the morale of the office staff must be at an all-time low.

Looking through the RPRA accounts with regard to Public Relation and Consultancy fees up until and including 2017 there were none but from 2018, 2019 & 2020 the following amounts were taken £12,159 - £12558 & £10,678 making a total of £35,395. These amounts were, along with the Development Officers salaries and expenses, deducted in the Future of Sport Reserve that whichever way you look at it is still the RPRA money. I also notice that the Future of Sport Reserve is declining year on year from 2018 £116,979 - £112,605, 2019 £112.605 - £94,292 and 2020 £94,292 - £75,970, at this rate of decline this money pot will soon be empty and CO-VID 19 cannot be blamed for all the losses. Perhaps the Executive committee can enlighten the membership by providing details of what the Public Relation and Consultancy fees were paid for with invoices to show.
Woodo.