Occupy Sheffield have come to an agreement with the proprietor of the Citadel of Hope building. At the application for Possession hearing taking place at Sheffield County Courts on 18th January, both parties will agree an end date for the occupation set for one month’s time. This stay of execution will enable negotiations to continue between the occupiers and the proprietor, to determine if there can be a proper legal basis for the use of the building. This agreement, which has only been possible due to direct and open discussions between Occupy Sheffield and the proprietor, will be ratified by tomorrow’s court proceedings.
We are pleased to have been able to engage the proprietor constructively in a progressive and forward looking manner and that the time and energy of costly legal wrangles has been averted and our energies can be more effectively focused.
It is worth noting that the council have an active ‘temporary use’ strategy in this part of the city, and we certainly hope that the use of the Citadel by Occupy Sheffield would be supported by Sheffield City Council.
Occupy Sheffield is also engaged with Sheffield Cathedral in another legal action due in Court on 26th January. We would like to be able to engage with the Cathedral in a similarly progressive and open manner, and save all parties the considerable time and energy of a prolonged dispute. Therefore our invitation to the Dean Peter Bradley to visit the camp remains: We would love him to engage with us directly, and experience some of the love, enthusiasm and generosity of spirit which has marked the Occupy camp. In recent radio interviews, Mr Bradley has raised his concerns over attending the camp, and has cited his fear that he would be subject to ‘the anger of 30 people’. We would like to reassure Mr Bradley that this will not be the case. We certainly do not see him as a Daniel and ask him not to see us as Lions!
Occupy Sheffield
It is worth noting that the council have an active ‘temporary use’ strategy in this part of the city, and we certainly hope that the use of the Citadel by Occupy Sheffield would be supported by Sheffield City Council.
Occupy Sheffield is also engaged with Sheffield Cathedral in another legal action due in Court on 26th January. We would like to be able to engage with the Cathedral in a similarly progressive and open manner, and save all parties the considerable time and energy of a prolonged dispute. Therefore our invitation to the Dean Peter Bradley to visit the camp remains: We would love him to engage with us directly, and experience some of the love, enthusiasm and generosity of spirit which has marked the Occupy camp. In recent radio interviews, Mr Bradley has raised his concerns over attending the camp, and has cited his fear that he would be subject to ‘the anger of 30 people’. We would like to reassure Mr Bradley that this will not be the case. We certainly do not see him as a Daniel and ask him not to see us as Lions!
Occupy Sheffield
Homepage:
Comments
Hide the following comment
Why would someone want to kill the Citadel of Hope ?
19.01.2012 21:10
I am not a journalist - I have no proper training.
I am not alleging anything or accusing anybody of anything.
I am only providing information publicly available on the internet and without knowledge of its accuracy or completeness.
I am sharing this information with others by way of exploring possible connections and motives in relation to recent reported legal action by Tandem Properties Limited.
Following the trail ...
-------------------
Online report on Mon 16th of legal action by Tandem Properties Limited
-------------------
Companies House information for Tandem Properties Limited
HOLYWOOD HOUSE
WOLSINGHAM
BISHOP AUCKLAND
DURHAM
DL13 3HE
-------------------
People connected with this Company
Mr Robert Angus Hill
-------------------
Charge/Mortgages against this Company
AIB Group plc. (Dublin, Ireland)
-------------------
Other Companies connected with the name Mr Robert Angus Hill
Chartpoint ltd
DL13 3HE
-------------------
Official legal docs for Chartpoint ltd
Other people connected with this Company
Emma Hill
Andrea Cassidy
It would appear this Company ran into some 'trouble'
Firstly 3rd Feb'09 > 1st notification of strike-off action
... then again last year
1st Apr'11 > 1st notification of strike-off action
26th Jul'11 > 2nd notification - Struck off & dissolved
-------------------
Online news article 25th May'10 :
"Mr Hill built many of the huge mansions on the Holywood estate after buying the land, formerly a sanatorium, from the NHS in the 1990s."
"The regulator began an investigation after it received information which suggested that fraud and/or other criminal activity was being perpetrated against the assets of the Scheme by Mr Robert Angus Hill and his two daughters Andrea Cassidy and Emma Hill."
"wholly unsubstantiated and highly-damaging allegations"
-------------------
Pensions regulator excercises emergency powers: suspected pension fraud
The Pensions Regulator’s Determinations Panel has appointed an independent trustee to the Hugh Mackay Retirement Benefits Scheme, using the “special procedure”, which does not require advance notice. This emergency procedure was used because the Regulator had received reports of alleged fraud and other criminal activity by the shareholders and directors of the principal employer, Chartpoint Limited (a Mr Robert Hill and his two daughters).
The Regulator had been granted warrants by the Magistrates’ Court to enter the premises of the principal employer and of its accountants without notice in order to seize documents and preserve any relevant evidence. It is the first reported use of this power by the Regulator.
The allegations against the directors of Chartpoint include:
• fees and charges paid to Chartpoint by the Scheme totalling nearly £1 million
• £900,000 investment by the Scheme in a company associated with Mr Hill, which entered administration only seven months later
• rent-free period granted by the Scheme to a company associated with a trustee
• suspect valuations of Scheme properties
• 85% of Scheme assets invested directly in freehold property and none in investments admitted to trading on regulated markets, in breach of the 2005 Investment Regulations
• borrowing of £24.7 million (to finance the property purchases) in breach of the 2005 Investment Regulations
• loans to employer in breach of s40 PA 1994 and reg 12 of the Investment Regulations
• repayment of £1.9 million surplus in breach of s37 Pensions Act 1995.
-------------------
Pensions regulator Special Procedure Determination Notice
Directly affected parties include :
> Mr Robert Angus Hill – employer-appointed trustee
> Chartpoint Limited – Principal Employer
Some extracts :
Details of Scheme and the principal employer
This is a closed defined benefit scheme with 460 members. The fund on
the PPF basis was approximately £28million at 5 April 2007.
Chartpoint Limited (“Chartpoint”) is the Principal Employer of the Scheme.
Mr Hill and XXXXXXXXXXXXX are the sole shareholders and directors of Chartpoint (whose Registered Office is located at Mr Hill’s residential address).
This is concerning, given the recent excessive concentration of the Scheme’s assets in property investments ...
The Panel determined to exercise the function immediately because they were satisfied on the evidence presented that if a warning notice had been issued to affected parties there would have been an immediate risk to the scheme assets and to the interests of the scheme members. They were so satisfied because having regard to the ongoing pattern of behaviour in relation to scheme assets and the transferring of monies, there would been a consequent risk XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XX if the trustees had become aware of possible action.
-------------------
Pensions regulator Final Notice
Some extracts :
Chartpoint purports to provide three services to the Scheme namely the introduction of investment opportunities (which are property related), raising finance in order to exploit those opportunities and administrative services. In consideration for these services Chartpoint has received approximately £1 million in fees from the Scheme between 2006 and 2008.
The Panel found that the Original Trustees had committed serious breaches of the Investment Regulations and had completely failed to appreciate this in breach of Section 247 of the Act. As a result the Scheme was heavily in debt (by reason of borrowing approximately £25 million) and had a concentrated asset portfolio which exposed the Scheme to risk.
-------------------
Joining Dots