The Charity Commission are using their powers under Section 69 of the Charities Act 2011. We know this from an automatic alert sent to us by the Land Registry.
Due to a legal complications and alleged irregularities or fraud, the money offered by the property developer has already been banked by the charity (probably around November 2020) and spent by the trustees before the Charity Commission’s interim managers became more closely involved (March 2021), even though the property developer didn’t get ownership of the building as a result, only gaining a Unilateral Notice in the land register. It would be legal and proper for the Charity Commission to receive the funds from the angel and to reimburse the property developer, which is exactly what the Unilateral Notice provides for and why it was added as a backstop.
The Charity Commission have placed Gilbert Deya Ministries under formal investigation twice: from 20 September 2004 to c.2006; and again from 28 July 2016 to date, with Interim Managers appointed on 22 March 2021. No findings from either investigation have yet been published to the best of our knowledge.
On 4 June 2014 the High Court ordered that a multi-million pound network of 14 property firms in south London to forced into liquidation following an investigation by the Insolvency Service. Commenting on the Court’s winding up decisions in 2014, Chris Mayhew, Company Investigations Supervisor at the Insolvency Service, was quoted on their official website as follows: “The prolonged and systematic abuse of both the insolvency and the corporate regime enabled [this property developer] to facilitate his personal business interests … Nobody should be left in any doubt that we will act whenever we discover there are serious failings, as here, in particular by confidence tricksters such as [this person].”
We have further legal details on the reasons given by the Land Registry for their rejection of the TR1 dated 11 January 2021, including that it was signed by only one of the three named property trustees in their attempt to transfer the Hulme Hippodrome to the property developer. The other charity trustees and property trustees have subsequently recorded their non-consent to the attempted transfer. It was non-compliant in charity law as well as in property law.
The rich social history of the Hulme Hippodrome is summarised on its Wikipedia page.
2 thoughts on “Open Letter Briefing”