Judane

[peeriebryan]

As this has been one of the most contentious Topics ever...

As a relative newcomer to Shetlink you may have missed much of the constructive debate on issues such as Viking Energy, Mareel, Drugs in Shetland and the like in which many people have put forward a wide range of well reasoned views. In my opinion, this thread has been characterised by ill feeling and one sided supposition rather than contention.

[JohanofNess]

As this has been one of the most contentious Topics ever...

As a relative newcomer to Shetlink you may have missed much of the constructive debate on issues such as Viking Energy, Mareel, Drugs in Shetland and the like in which many people have put forward a wide range of well reasoned views. In my opinion, this thread has been characterised by ill feeling and one sided supposition rather than contention.

 

Well said that man.

[swc123]

Looks as if moves are afoot at the factory:

http://www.shetland.gov.uk/planningcontrol/apps/appsdet.asp?Pref=PL2010/17

 

T&N Joinery applying for Change of Use, lets hope that goes a little more smoothly.

[tlady]

Well there's a shock

 

Not bad for a "dead the water" deal

 

But of course it's just a rumour spread by stirrers

[icepick239]

No faith in experienced professionals already present to seek resolution?

No, I never said or meant that.

Usually Audits are conducted in conjunction with the Management and Staff of the organisation.

[ As a relative newcomer to Shetlink you may have missed much of the constructive debate on issues such as Viking Energy, Mareel, Drugs in Shetland and the like in which many people have put forward a wide range of well reasoned views. In my opinion, this thread has been characterised by ill feeling and one sided supposition rather than contention.

I agree there are huge Topics (more important) such as the ones mentioned above.

Basically, what I am trying to say is that the quicker Judane is consigned to history the better and the errors of the past are never repeated in the future

 

As a final footnote: The Judane thread attracted an average of 49 replies per week, since it's inception at the end of November 2009

[snow]

Maybe just Maybe the weight od "Public Opinion" has finally sunk in

[paulb]

Should a potential sale of the Blackhill Industrial Estate factory to local firm T&N Joinery go ahead it would appear that a sizeable chunk of the proceeds, expected to be somewhere in the region of £500,000, from selling the factory will go towards paying off Judane’s creditors. It has remaining debts of £200,000 secured against the factory to priority creditor the Royal Bank of Scotland, and £150,000 to the SDT. The company is also saddled with additional debts of £178,000, including directors’ loans. Judane also owns a second, smaller factory at the town’s North Road.

 

is my maths shot if they flog the factory for 500k they stand to walk off with a 100k. plus the old building.

 

not bad for a broke company.

 

did we ever get the boat back from no catch.

[Ghostrider]

....because of fears of a lawsuit for up to £2.3 million by the firm [Judane] relating to bad advice it received from the planning department when it was seeking to sell the building to budget salesman Chris Hodge.

 

http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2010/01/20/six-weeks-on-council-makes-first-public-comment-on-400000-judane-debt-write-off

 

Anybody care to suggest how a building, sitting idle, but with an apparent current market value of up to £1/2 Million, can somehow translate in to an up to £2.3 Million damages claim?

 

Yes, Judane have a right to some sort of compensation for being misinformed and messed around by Planning, but to try for more than market value plus a modest % extra for "damages" and expenses is pushing it IMHO. Its not like they can claim for loss of income, the place wasn't producing any when the bogus advice was handed out. What is there to claim for unless loss of a *possible" sale, and compensation for the hassle and expenses they had to put up with to sort things out?

 

Yeah, the threat of being stung for £2.3 Million probably had enough of the more timid SDT trustees taking cover, but I'd be very, very interested to hear exactly how the SDT lawyers came to the conclusion that a claim anywhere near the quoted sum was a realistic threat. On the face of it it sounds like Judane have thrown in the maximum possible figure they could (could the £2.3 Million be based on the price they had in mind to try for out of Lidl or Aldi or whoever it was, had they been interested, and had the building been available with full retail sales planning permission, one wonders), just like any good haggler would, on the basis you can always come down a bit, but you can't go higher, but the SDT have taken one look at it and run, rather than throw numbers back at Judane, as any good haggler would do.

 

This is what happens when you get "their lawyer talking to our lawyer" with money as the subject matter, rather than business-minded people brokering a deal. With the council and the country run by lawyers, they're able to understand better, and side with the lawyer ways of doing things, and you get the **** up we have. Its long past time the lawyers left the leadership at all levels, and folk who have talents at negotiating deals, of all kinds, organisational ability to keep it all together, and the decisiveness and drive to secure decisons and take them forward pronto took their place.

[unlinkedstudent]

^^Easy peasy lemon squeezy Ghostrider - no doubt £1.75 million would be legal costs.

[Spinner72]

Given the press release today, and aside from the rights and wrongs so well illustrated by Jonathan Wills letter on the subject, when you ignore the knee-jerk reactions and personal opinions, what we actually have here is the Councillors doing what we all (well, most of us I hope) want - taking a tough decision, and getting the matter out of the way.

 

No, it's not good, arguably not fair, but its done, so lets move on.

 

Well done to them for that.

[unlinkedstudent]

Given the press release today, and aside from the rights and wrongs so well illustrated by Jonathan Wills letter on the subject, when you ignore the knee-jerk reactions and personal opinions, what we actually have here is the Councillors doing what we all (well, most of us I hope) want - taking a tough decision, and getting the matter out of the way.

 

No, it's not good, arguably not fair, but its done, so lets move on.

 

Well done to them for that.

 

I don't think this should be put to bed. Again, I apologise if I'm wrong given that I can be ignorant on Scottish legal matters, but perhaps someone could advise on this small but very relevant point:-

 

In English law, you cannot take Court action to recover a debt if it is six years since the debt came about as it becomes "statute barred" - in other words, a Court deems that 6 years is sufficient time to recover the monies.

 

Now is it the same in Scottish law, that you have 6 years?

 

If it is, THAT would explain why the legal advice is that it would be difficult to recover the monies. Therefore, what I want to know is - why did the Economic Development Unit delay in recovering the monies?

 

Now the paper states that the SDT is now the Economic Development Unit. I was trying to get my head round why Councillors would be discussing a Trust matter so I take it that the Council took over bits - I'm still lost; so the Charitable Trust is different to the SDT, etc.

 

Either way, I believe it is maladministration - you don't leave it 6 years to recover a debt if Scottish law is the same as English law on this point. Why not seek legal advice/act sooner?

 

I've tried to read some more on this whole issue on the internet. Now I understand there was an enquiry into the planning permission saga and that Issue No. 5 of Captain Calamity's publication has an article within from Chris Hodge and that he was still interested in purchasing the property but that the Millers didn't want to know. Now if that was a couple of years ago and if it is true and he was in a position to purchase, then surely that would weaken the Millers' case? Yes, they would still be able to bring a legal action against the Planning decision but their loss of profits/economic loss claim would not be so strong because they had somebody willing to purchase.

 

I want to know why they took so long to even attempt to recover the debt. When was this agreement re Judane signed? It seems to me, on the surface, that the Council had years to recover the debt and chose not to. Was this agreement recently signed? And WHY are so many Council meetings held in private?

[paulb]

its 5 years up here, you still owe the cash just that the creditor can't chase you. i dont know if it applies to compant debt. they must have made some payment in the last 5 years. they were earning income from me hodge so they hade better have been paying.

[MuckleJoannie]

The majority of the debt written off refers to penalty interest on unpaid instalments. The length of time the debt is outstanding does not apply here.

I agree with Spinner 72. It is time to put this sorry mess behind us.

[Shoogler]

Umlimked, I appreciate you are new to these shores and (understandably) a tad confused so here is a summary of answers to your queries.

 

The Shetland Development Trust is in the process of being 'subsumed' back into the SIC Economic Development Unit. In days gone by, before the SDT was created, this was the old Research and Development Department of the Council. The SDT has nothing to do with the Charitable Trust and never did. All monies utilised within SDT eminated from the Reserve Fund of the Council. SDT in prior years built up a portfolio by 'assuming' some of the longer term business that sat with SLAP (Shetland Leasing & Property Ltd).

 

The current EDU reports to the SIC Development Committee, which consists of all councillors (exception being Caroline Miller as she never took up the position due to declaring an interest + 1 other but can't remember who). Previously the SDT had been reduced to, firstly 4 councillors and 4 Independant (paid) Trustees. Laterally this had been reduced to (i think) either 6 or 8 councillors and 2 Independants (unpaid).

 

Many of the longer term loans, equities and debts will have begun in one era or place and transferred at varioous points to the newest body in control. Plenty of scope for the differnet management personnel involved to have their eye slightly off the ball. This would certainly apply to Judane as it is a long term debtor.

 

I hope this helps and I also hope I have it right as I am nothing to do with any of these bodies but follow a keen interest in how the SIC/Trusts work.

 

It is also unfair to pilory existing Councillors over this to any great extent, other than the senior and longer term ones.

[unlinkedstudent]

^^Many thanks Shoogler for posting your response; it is appreciated.

 

I understand your point about the Councillors and do agree that for new Councillors, it is unfair to blame them as they are "picking up the pieces" from the past.

 

However, with regard to new people within a newly formed Unit, I find that harder to comprehend. Most organisations, especially those within the public sector, have so many blooming finance reports generated monthly (if not weekly) that even if there was not a manager in place, then surely in the absence of such would be forwarded up to the next level - say the Finance Officer of the Council?

 

I'm still curious as to why so many decisions (not just re Judane) but other Council business are made behind closed doors. I'm also wondering if advice was sought not just from Solicitors but whether Counsel's Opinion/Advice was obtained.

 

Again, once more, thank you for your detailed posting.