Member update July 2024

18 July 2024 update to members

Dear Members,

Ministry for Transport confirm they will progress the case

We now finally have confirmation the MfT will investigate our concerns about asset
value and incomes extracted from the Statutory Harbour Authority [SHA] to other
companies owned by its shareholder-directors, rather than being reinvested in the
harbour.

Ten key areas of concern

1. £650,000 value of the SHA’s aggregate extraction rights passed on to another company (Bembridge Investments Ltd) for £0. (2020)
2. £750,000 loan interest charges on a loan of £1.2m (from Hawk Property
   Developments Ltd). These funds were never available to the SHA for the purposes of the undertaking. (2012-2023)
3. £100,000 approx of payments made over some 8 years (by Bennetts Ltd) went to another company (Bembridge Investments Ltd) (2012-2020)
4. £93,000 proceeds from houseboat plot sales that should have gone to the SHA. (2012-2016)
5. £90,000 as a result of a sale by the SHA of a houseboat plot at £1. The buyer resold the plot on the same day for £87,500. (2014)
6. £50,000 estimated loss of harbour dues revenue over 10 years, because another company (Bembridge Boat Storage Ltd) retained and discounted harbour dues. (2012-2023)
7. £40,000 failure to charge interest on loan balance to Bembridge Investments Ltd. (2017-2020)
8. £4,900 value of benefits provided to a SHA tenant, but charged as rent by another company (Bembridge Investments Ltd). (Disclosed 2017)
9. Further unquantified losses to other companies owned by the shareholder-directors of the SHA, including rents apparently not charged, and fees paid by the SHA on account of reports commissioned for another company.
10. Imminent and future losses resulting from the claim of land ownership within the SHA’s title and used for harbour purposes, by another company owned by the shareholder-directors of the SHA. (estimated at 100,000 to £200,000)

On that basis over £1.75M should be returned to the SHA so that it can be properly applied to its Statutory Purpose, thus allowing the SHA to prosper.

The Trustees are advised that these funds should have been reinvested in the harbour in compliance with Section 31 of the Pier and Harbour Order (Bembridge Harbour) Confirmation Act,1963.  Such extractions reduce the profits Section 31 protects.

The JR process upheld Section 31 of the local harbour Act by which the profits extracted from the SHA are tightly restricted, whereas we note that funds extracted to other companies can be distributed without any such restriction.

How did we get here?

Previously The Undersecretary of State for Ports had advised the MfT lacked powers to intervene, and this left us with the JR route as the only way forward. The judge at JR advised that the MfT did have powers and the MfT have now confirmed they will progress the case based on the 10 points above. We have now submitted our supporting evidence.

Only decisions made or disclosed within the previous three months could be addressed at JR. Hence the need for our approach to the MfT, to consider issues that could not be dealt with at JR and, where there is any overlap, to address new evidence that has now come to light.

Thanks for your support in this very protracted process, but it looks like we are finally making progress and need your continued support.

Chris Attrill, Jonathan Bacon, William Bland , Jeremy Gully (chair), Phil Jordan, Norman Marshall, Sara Smith, as Trustees

For and on behalf of
Bembridge Harbour Trust
www.bembridgeharbourtrust.org