Archive for August 2013

OIA request to charities commission

donating-to-charityI am extremely concerned with   the  standards  that the  Charities commission adopts when it comes to  trusts, it appears that the notion that all you need is a trust deed is  correct.   even to the extent that you  can lose your deed or claim to have lost your deed and make up a different deed years later and back date it.  this to me creates a legal fiction     where are the standards. ?  When you park for  5 minutes in excess of your  time these standards are very real  but for charities   near enough is apparently good enough.

The  following is  my latest OIA to the charities commission with regards to the  fictional trust which operated in Waitakere city  using  rate payers money.

I have in the past made a number of complaints with regards to  the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand.

 The charity commission somehow condones what this   charity  gets up to  base on  documents which are years old   and without considering the facts.

 I am  therefore  making this an official information act request to seek the information on which the charities commission relies upon to    give credibility to the actions of this  charity   I will   give  you the evidence then I will ask  for the information  throughout  the  document.

 Please note that this document  has hyperlinks which open the evidence on which I rely .

 I will also be posting this on Transparency .net .nz for transparency purposes.

 The Animal welfare Institute charity   trust deed  1.3.2000   .  Allegedly revoked by  trust deed  5/12/2006became  a charity in 2007  and has used its charitable funds to  pay for litigation  which  this trust was not part of.

 Reliance of the existence of the charity CC11235   has been on the foundation document of the animal welfare Institute Of New Zealand   trust which was allegedly revoked by a trust deed  5/12/2006

 Documents sent to the law society by Neil Wells on 25/5/2011  are the governance documents which he calls the “  the relevant supporting documents”  being

  1. minutes  10/5/2006
  2. Resignation of Giltrap
  3. Resignation of Grove
  4. Email to  Wyn Hoadley
  5. 13 July 2006 telephone meeting  
  6.  Minutes 14/8/2006

An  audit report received by me early September 2011 dated 20/7/2009 did much to unravel the truth behind AWINZ   due to the information it contained..

 This audit report had been made in the course of an official government enquiry  into  the activities of this  alleged trust

1.       The audit report under point 4.1.2   states:

We found that despite being set up in 2000, AWINZ did not hold any trust board meetings until June 2004.  Since its inception (and at time of the audit), AWINZ has held 4 Trust Board meetings. The deed of trust and Revocation required 24 meetings between the financial years of 2001/02-2007/08. There were no meetings for three of the 7 financial years of operation.”

2.       There were therefore no other meetings of the alleged trust other than the four occasions mentioned up until August  2008  when the audit was conducted .

3.        The documents from the law society accounted for all four meetings as follows.

  1. 2004  referred to in the minutes  10/5/2006
  2.  The  meeting 10/5/2006 
  3. 13 July 2006 telephone meeting 
  4. 14/8/2006 meeting
  • We therefore know what happened at each of the last three meetings. The first meeting June 2004 is not recorded but its time frame speaks volumes.   
  • 5.       Section 7 of the trust deed  1.3.2000   – Term of Office and Vacancies (a) The term of appointment of each Trustee shall be 3 years provided that upon the expiry of any term of any term of appointment each Trustee, unless a person to whom any of the provisions of clause 7.3 (b) {i), (iii), (iv), (v} or (vi) applies, shall be eligible for reappointment.

    a.       The deed was signed 1.3.2000 when Tom Didovich drove to each trustee and witnessed their signatures.

                                                                  i.      It is significant that Didovich is now a trustee  according to the trust deed  5/12/2006

    b.       By the terms of the  trust deed  1.3.2000   “ term of office “ the trustees term expired 1.3.2003

    1. There were no meetings there were therefore no reappointments.
    2. This means that from 1.3.2003 the trust which had no assets, had no trustees and therefore ceased to exist.
  • Unincorporated trusts do not have perpetuity they only exist through their trustees and their deed.  Therefore no trustees.. no trust .
  • Why the deed 5/12/2006  is not a deed of Revocation

    1. The  deed dated 5/12/ 2006   is  therefore not  a deed of revocation  because
    1. there was no continuity of trust- there was nothing to revoke
    2. there was no meeting  to  alter  the deed
    3. there was no resolution to change the deed.
    4. If anything it is the deed of an entirely new trust.
    5. This trust became a charity and used the charitable funds to fund litigation which commenced before this trust was formed.- see statement of claim

    OIA question  1  If there is an argument for the trust continuing to exist  after t1.3.2003  could you please advise what  evidence you considered   being  case law  . legislation  or  any other evidence ( other than an assumption)  which gives  the trust  established 1.3.2000   any  legal  continuity after  1.3.2003.

    OIA question  2  If the trust  ceased to exist  on 1.3.2003   because  by  its own trust deed  the trustees were not re appointed  how can the trust deed  5/12/2006have any legal standing  since it is revoking a non-existent trust. Please provide all evidence which you considered which would  give a legal foundation to the deed 5/12/2006  being a deed of revocation or any deed  which gives continuity of trust.  ( please refer to the  minutes of the meetings  it appears that there was no meeting when this deed was signed and no resolutions  to change the deed.)

    Appointment of HOADLEY

    1. With regards to  the appointment of Wyn Hoadley  if the  trust had existed legally (by  acting according to its deed ) or by any evidence which you may  rely on ,   then her appointment should have been made in accordance with  Section 4 of the  Charitable trust act  1957 which provides for  the appointment of trustees ,

    4 Evidence of appointment of trustees

    ·         (1) For the purpose of preserving evidence of every appointment of new trustees to which section 3 applies and of the persons in whom any estate or interest in property from time to time becomes legally vested, every such appointment shall be made to appear by a memorandum under the hand of the chairman for the time being of the meeting at which the appointment was made, and shall be executed either in the presence of that meeting or at any time after that meeting, and attested by 2 or more witnesses.

    (2) Any such memorandum may be in the form or to the effect of Schedule 1, or as near thereto as circumstances will allow, and may be given and shall be received as evidence in all courts and proceedings in the same manner and on the like proof as deeds, and shall be evidence of the truth of the several matters therein stated.

    1. The only record of Hoadley appointment are the minutes  10/5/2006 , these minutes were missing in 2008 according to the audit report recorded as follows

     Neil Wells was unwilling to allow MAF’s auditors to sight all AWINZ papers and records on the basis that some papers and records were either confidential or unrelated  to AWINZ role  as an approved organisation. This limited the evidence available to us to for our opinion. We were advised that AWINZ does not own any computers or other assets and that Neil Wells uses his own personal laptop for AWINZ business. Neil told us that ,a recent computer problem with his personal laptop meant that many of AWlNZ governance and  business activity records (e.g , emails concerning agreements and discussions-between Trustees) had been lost.

    4.1.3During our audit visit, we were unable to review all records of commitments and decisions made by the organisation. Neil Wells told us that many of the electronic copies of these records had been lost in a computer hardware accident.”

    1. The minutes which allegedly confirm Hoadley’s appointment were created in 2011 (right click  on the  open document and select properties )   .minutes  10/5/2006
    2. The  Deed however sets out criteria for legal minutes  and these  minutes are not legally acceptable minutes  according to the trust deed  as they have not been signed according to the  provisions of the trust deed

    11.11 Minutes of Meetings:

    Minutes of all resolutions and proceedings of all meetings of the Trustees shall be prepared by the Secretary and. if confirmed at a subsequent meeting of the Trustees, shall be signed by the chairperson of the meeting as a true and correct record of those proceedings

    1. Additionally the deed ( singular )   was missing  and she was appointed under a section number  ( 7a) which  does not appear in the only deed relied upon as being a copy of the true deed 

    OIA question  3   Please provide all evidence on which you rely for the  valid appointment of  Wyn Hoadley as a trustee  in 2006  which enabled  her to  use charitable  funds to pay for litigation ..

    Decision to obtain charitable status

    1. If there were only four meetings prior to August 2008, how was the decision made to become a charity in September 2007?  Who made that decision, how was it a resolution of the trust?

    OIA question  4   Please provide copies of  evidence which you rely upon which show   that the trustees  consented to the application for charitable status and  that this decision as not  just made by one person.

    OIA question  5   Please provide  the evidence on which you rely   that would enable  the charitable trust which formed by way of trust deed 5/12/2006  to pay for  litigation for a group of people  who pre-existed the formation of that  trust .

    OIA question  6   Please provide  copies of he legislation  or case law which you rely on  which allows  trusts to   exist  in circumstances where by they do not   comply with their deeds in  any manner or form and stilt be considered a valid trust. .

    OIA question  7 Please provide the minimum standards of compliance to a trust deed  which the charity  commission considers   necessary for a trust to exist.e.g.   if I say I lost  a trust deed    and re-sign  a  deed   to replace it  & the trustees don’t meet  at all  is that  trust still  considered valid ?

    OIA question  8   Please look at the invoice which has been made out to  AWINZ  June and July 2006 these total  $9099    then look at the chronology below   which incorporates the details on those invoices ..  Please provide the evidence  which the  charities commission  relies upon to  validate the   expenditure  to Brookfields ( which shows in the  financial statements as well ) as being consented to by the trustees in a lawful manner  when the  minutes  show that there  was never such a  consensus.   

    OIA question  9   Please provide the guidelines   which  the charities commission refers to for determining if there is any misappropriation of charitable funds.

    OIA question  10  In view of the charities commission    having found the activities of this  trust to be legitimate  could you please advise if the  charities  commission will have a need for trust deeds in the future as they appear to serve no useful  function.

    10/05/2006

    Awinz board meeting  Wyn Hoadley is allegedly appointed.

     minutes  10/5/2006

    22/05/2006

    Sarah resigns  when Brookfileds send the letter on behalf of AWINZ  Sarah had already resigned  yet an out of date deed was supplied Resignation of Giltrap

    2/06/2006

    Vivienne Parre legal executive for Brookfields harasses me,  how was she instructed, the trust had no mandate !   No meetings have  occurred to allow her  to be acting for the  ” trust ”

    13/06/2006

    Telephone to Neil Wells invoice referenceAWINZ invoices charities

    13/06/2006

    Internal conferences invoice referenceAWINZ invoices charities

    14/06/2006

    Drafting letter to Grace Haden invoice referenceAWINZ invoices charities

    15/06/2006

    E-mail to Neil Wells invoice referenceAWINZ invoices charities

    16/06/2006

    Internal conferences invoice referenceAWINZ invoices charities

    21/06/2006

    Registrars letter – advises of the procedure  to challenge the registration of the legitimate incorporated  trust  and charity

    26/06/2006

    E-mail to  Grace Haden invoice referenceAWINZ invoices charities

    27/06/2006

    E-mail to and from Grace Haden invoice referenceAWINZ invoices charities

    27/06/2006

    Telephone to Neil Wells invoice referenceAWINZ invoices charities

    27/06/2006

    Facsimile and email from Neil Wells invoice referenceAWINZ invoices charities

    27/06/2006

    LETTER_TRUSTEES.from Brookfield’s   to Plaintiffs.

    27/06/2006

    Emails  from Wright  continually refer to AWINZ as though it  is a real person, in reality he had no mandate to act for or on behalf of the trust AWINZ formed by way of trust deed 1.3.2000   so who was he acting  for ?

    28/06/2006

    Telephone from Neil Wells invoice referenceAWINZ invoices charities

    28/06/2006

    E-mail to and from Grace Haden invoice referenceAWINZ invoices charities

    28/06/2006

    Research precedent invoice referenceAWINZ invoices charities

    29/06/2006

    E-mail to and from Grace Haden & Neil Wells invoice referenceAWINZ invoices charities

    4/07/2006

    Nuala resignation   Resignations take effect 30 days  after notification  Grove was  therefore still a trustee  when litigation commenced, Hoadley was oversees and absence, How did they get a quorum to  instruct the lawyers ?  And there is no record of  any  meetings which   allow for lawyers to be instructed. Resignation of Grove

    4/07/2006

    amending the SOC invoice referenceAWINZ invoices charities

    9/07/2006

    Email to  Wyn Hoadley  this is a strange email, It doesn’t look like an email and it tells Wyn that she became a trustee,  she was  allegedly the chair person at that meeting.. This is very odd. She is also asked to approve lawyer’s fees for up to  $10,000 how come this was not done at a meeting ?

    13/07/2006

    13 July 2006 telephone meeting  

    18/07/2006

    Statement of Claim Parties to the claim

    14/08/2006

    awinz meeting• Minutes 14/8/2006

    5/12/2006

    deed 5/12/ 2006 

    1/05/2007

    minutes awinz meeting MAF  

    29/05/2007

    Didovich affidavit

    30/06/2008

    AWINZ Financials  2008

    Aug-08

    date of  Audit  by MAF  by this  time there had  only been 4 meetings of AWINZ  EVER

     

    I look forward to a response on these matters

    Committee for Auckland

    Committee for AucklandFew Aucklanders are aware of the  role of the committee for Auckland in the formation of the super city  .

    It comes as no surprise that when the committee for Auckland is looked at a bit closer  there are many things which do not stack up  neatly  and it is  even more revealing to look at the members of  the committee for Auckland  and  see what role they play in the city.

    lets look at some facts.

    The committee for Auckland is a charity  , not  just one charity , its three charities

    CC43500  Committee For Auckland  group

        CC43499 Committee For Auckland Limited

        CC43498  The Committee For Auckland Trust

    There  is a lack of transparency in its accounts  as it only lists one set of books which is for the  CC43499 Committee for Auckland Limited.

    The company was registered as COMPETITIVE AUCKLAND LIMITED it changed its name 23 Dec 2002 to Committee For Auckland Limited   . The shareholder is a group of people who may or may not be a trust there is no indication of this other than the fact that the shares are jointly held.

    The beneficiary of the company / charity proceeds is COMPETITIVE AUCKLAND Trust   this is not a charity it is not a trust registered under the charitable trust act 1957, no trust deed is visible.

    Documentation which relates to the competitive Auckland   entity indicates that the purpose is not charitable and it has been created to inspire business growth.  It is very much a commercial venture.  the  crucial documents are located at the following links

    Transparency New Zealand has made a complaint to   the charities commission  with regards to  these charities  see the complaint here   Complaint by Grace Haden with regards to the committee for Auckland

     One of the earlier documents relating to   Competitive Auckland is found on   a council web site  which is a page which had the origins on the Waitakere city  council web site. Indeed many of the members of committee  for Auckland  and their associates appear to have common connections thorough the  Portage trust  and the  Waitakere licensing trust

    Early documents  relating to   the who is who and  the intention behind the project can be found in the internet archives  it speaks of Auckland being a ” one stop shop ” Investment attraction agency  and it comes as no surprise that one of the key drivers of the project  is Richard Didsbury of Kiwi Income Properties   and  another is Bryan Mogridge   who is well connected with  travel industry and   liquor industry   see  the  Proposed strategy document here  and the  Interim report dated 4 may 2001  here  the opening remarks state

    Competitive Auckland is a charitable trust that has been established
    by a group of Auckland’s business leaders concerned about:
    – The poor economic performance of the region;
    – The loss of businesses;
    – The loss of talent.
    • They established Competitive Auckland in March 2001 to:
    ‘Deliver a well articulated competitive strategy to enhance Auckland
    as an internationally competitive location to undertake business’.

    Transparency New Zealand   has noted  that over the years  the members of  the committee for Auckland  have  done exceedingly well in comparison to  the  average person in Auckland. their focus  has ensured the development and expansion of the casino  .

    Many of the   members  or their associates from  other businesses  which they are involved in   have made it on to    boards of CCO’s  such as Auckland Transport , Auckland property  etc.

    Transparency New Zealand is concerned that some of these members   seem to have a very  close relationship with projects which   the companies which these persons are  involved with  will also benefit from  once the   project gets the go ahead.e.g. Peter Wall , the  harbour access trust and BROOKFIELD MULTIPLEX

    We are continually told that ” New Zealand is a small place ”   it is not that small that   those who lobby for a project  should end up on the decision making  authority which gives the go ahead to the project  which is then  contracted to  the company which  the  lobbier owns or controls.

    Conflicts of inertness appear to have no meaning  and to declare a conflict of interest  apparently makes it OK.

    So we go over budget and over time   who cares there is  a bottomless pit of ratepayers out there,  they can come  up with more rates    and if they cant afford to live in Auckland well they can move   because the marketing that has been  done  by the committee for Auckland  internationally   ensures that there are plenty of   buyers  for your property  people who can afford to live here.

    Its time we put an end to this conduct   we need  more transparency   and  more accountability.

    Strangely enough Businesses don’t  get a vote  , they are not   who council is there for.  Council appears to have lost sight  on  who put them in power and who they serve.

    Another  oddity is the   CEO of council  Doug MC Kay    who with no previous  experience in  local government came straight into the hot seat from  companies which the  members of the committee for Auckland   were involved with mainly  the liquor industry . check him out here 

    We have to have people in  Governance  who   represent the   people  and do what is best  for Auckland as a whole   not just  the Auckland   based business of  multinationals.

    see also

    Council CEO Conflict of interest none of our business ??????

    Why do we bother to vote for Auckland Councillors?

    The Ranfurly Home for War veterans .. what does the furture hold?

    ranfurlyLast week I went to the movies I saw “now you see me”    excellent movie, it is about magicians and magic.  The by line in the movie was “Look closely, because the closer you think you are, the less you will actually see”.

    As a fraud Investigator  I have found  this  to be true for fraud as well , I have narrowed it down to “  you will find fraud where the assumption is” I usually find  that  this is  somewhere between  the roles of  lawyers and accountants.

    Last week I watched Campbell Live   “When your employer proposes a pay cut”  by Rebecca Wright  it go me looking at the  Ranfurly Home. My question being  how can a home  historically intent for war veterans  end up becoming  flash residential  ‘own your own homes“ retirement village for the   general public?   

    The logical place to start is with the History

    Ranfurly was founded under a deed of trust in 1903. The then Governor of the Colony of New Zealand the Earl of Ranfurly sponsored a National Patriotic Appeal to establish a National Memorial in Honour of the servicemen who laid down their lives in the South African War.

    A Board of Trustees administered the home until 1915 when it was transferred to the Auckland Provincial Patriotic and War Relief Association. This situation continued until 1941 when a new constitution and rules were set up under the approval of the Minister of Internal Affairs. At the same time the name of the administering body was changed to the Auckland Veterans Home Board. In 1950 the capital interest in the property was transferred to the New Zealand Patriotic and Canteen Funds Board of Wellington.

    A name change took place in 1954 to Ranfurly War Veterans Home in  memory of the Earl of Ranfurly and his foresight in founding the home.

    Considerable expansion of services took place over the next 30years with the homes capacity being increased to its present situation of 82 bed Rest Home, 35 bed Hospital and a 24 bed Stage 3 Dementia Unit. The home now provides the highest quality of service for 141 veterans. Since March1995 Ranfurly has held accreditation by the New Zealand Council on Healthcare Standards. Source ranfurly.org.nz archives.

    The New Zealand Patriotic and Canteen Funds Board was a body established under the Patriotic and Canteen Funds Act 1947. The function of the Board is to expend its monies to best advantage on the relief, assistance, and support of discharged servicemen of certain wars who may be in need, and their dependants, and the dependants of deceased servicemen, or any purpose approved by the Minister. See source

    Until 2002, the Board’s main activity was the administration of 4 war veterans’ homes. In that year, the Board decided that each home stood a better chance of financial survival if its governance was localised and community support and responsibility encouraged. To this end, the Board agreed to devolve the administration of the homes to 4 separate trusts.

    By the end of November 2002, the transfer of assets and liabilities to each of 3 trusts was completed, and 3 of the homes were operating under new administration. The trust arrangement for the Levin Home for War Veterans did not proceed and it was sold to Presbyterian Support Central, a charitable trust set up under the Charitable Trust Act 1957. The Board retained residual funds only to cover remaining administrative expenses. Source

    These boards were repealed by legislation  in 2005  by which time  three of the four homes administered by the fund were transferred into  ownerships of trusts set up to  take over the  care  and administration of the properties.

    • Ranfurly Home in Auckland, administered by the Ranfurly Trust;
    • Rannerdale Home in Christchurch, administered by the Rannerdale Trust; and
    • Montecillo Home in Dunedin, administered by the Montecillo Trust.

    The Ranfurly trust was set up in 1999 by trust deed    

    The deed is of particular importance and it can be seen that the trust was set to include the following intention of the settlor.

    The Settlor considers it desirable that a Trust be established to achieve the continued existence of Ranfurly War Veterans Home and Hospital, the continual provision of existing services, and the enhancement of these services, and the ancillary objects hereinafter set out in detail.”

     

    The Objects referred to are listed as :

     

     The Trustees shall stand possessed of the Trust Fund UPON TRUST to pay or apply so much of the capital and the income thereof as the Trustees think fit for or towards any one or more of the following exclusively charitable objects and purposes which are hereby declared to be the objects and purposes of the Trust, namely:

     

    3.1.1 The benefit of discharged servicemen and servicewomen (as defined in the Patriotic and Canteen Funds Act 194 7) presently resident or at any time in the past resident in Ranfurly, and their dependants;

     

    3 .1.2 the benefit of other persons in the community lawfully and properly admitted to Ranfurly;

     

    3.1.3 The work of any public charity or any organisation dispensing charity or relieving or caring for discharged servicemen and servicewomen or persons eligible for entry to Ranfurly;

     

    3.1.4 The promotion or support of and participation in medical research of benefit to those eligible for entry to Ranfurly as may be approved by the Trustees;

     

    3.1.5 the furtherance by any means and in any manner as may be approved by the Trustees, of works for charitable purposes, which in accordance with the law in New Zealand for the time being, are charitable whether such purposes relate to the relief of poverty, the advancement of education or any other matter beneficial to discharged servicemen and servicewomen their dependants and those persons eligible for entry to Ranfurly.

     

     

     The property was transferred into the trusts control in 2002 Land title , this means that the property became part of the trust fund .

    In 2007 the trust set up a company to employ the staff in the care facility  this was called Ranfurly Veteran Care Limited.

    Both the trust and Ranfurly Veteran Care Limited became charities in 2008. Their charity records can be seen on the charities web site Ranfurly Veteran Care Limited  and The Ranfurly Trust.

    I instinctively feel that there is something very wrong   in what has happened at the Ranfurly home. I have no more interest in this than any concerned member of the public should have. It appears to me that this land which is now very valuable is being exploited  by  developers  who do not  care about the residents or the terms of the trust deed.

    I know that houses in Epsom on   lease hold land owned by the Cornwall park trust board are paying  huge sums  for proportionately smaller  sections  1297sq m  pay  $70,000 .  see Brian Rudman: Founder’s great gift may need rethink   In this case the   entire site  has been leased for  $203,125  for 2.7892 hectares being 27892 sq meters  and 21 times   the size of the Cornwall park property.

    If the developers were leasing the land from Cornwall park trust board  they would  be paying $4,368,205   per year   now I am not saying that  Cornwall parks rates are   fair   , what I am saying is that there is a massive difference between lease hold   rates on land which is  some 5 kilometres apart.

    It may be an idea for the  residents  and   potential future  users of the facility  to test this matter in  court   as  it appears to me that the trust has lost all control over the assets and   by “ selling the business”  to developers   the trust board appears to me to have  walked away from their responsibility as trustees.

    A judicial review of their action   may protect veterans of the future. Who says there are not going to be any more wars ?

    If you have any more information which will assist with this chronology please provide it to me and I will include it.

    Chronology

    16/07/1999

    Ranfurly trust formed  

    17/8/1999

    Trust incorporated charitable trust act

    2/10/1999

    Soldiers’ home launches $10m funding drive

    3/02/2001

    web capture  Ranfurly trust web site

    4/03/2002

    Property transferred from Patriotic and canteen fund to the trust for administration. title trust

    2003-2004

    Provincial Patriotic Councils audit

    7/01/2004

    Tour of duty nears an end

    30/03/2005

    Old soldiers’ homes are fading away

    mid 2005

    Patriotic and Canteen Funds Board ceased to exist

    22/04/2006

    In the company of battlefield brothers

    14/12/2006

    EQUITY PARTNERS RETIREMENT ASSETS (RANFURLY VILLAGE) LIMITED incorporated  director  Graham Ross WILKINSON  shareholders  Graham Ross WILKINSON  & Richard Stewart MCKNIGHT ( joint )

    16/03/2007

    RETIREMENT INVESTMENTS LIMITED changes name to RETIREMENT ASSETS LIMITED

    27/08/2007

    RANFURLY VETERAN CARE LIMITED  formed  directors 
    Graeme Mackenzie MCKAY  Peter Jon SKOGSTAD shareholder THE RANFURLY TRUST

    24/12/2007

    Ranfurly veteran care constitution filed with  companies office

    9/01/2008

    Retirement village opposed

    14/05/2008

    The Ranfurly Trust became a charity officers listed as ………… David McGregor  01/04/2001
    Graeme McKay  16/07/1999
    John McGuire  01/07/2003
    Gregory Moyle  01/06/2002
    David Turner  01/11/2006  states the purpose of  the trust is Older people  this is not in accordance to the deed

    30/06/2008

    Ranfurly Veteran Care Limited registers as charity  lists officers as  Graeme McKay  27/08/2007
    Anthony Hay  22/07/2010
    Rebecca Macky  22/07/2010
    Christopher Mullane  22/07/2010
    John Mcguire  22/07/2010
    Peter Skogstad  22/07/2010  past officer Marilynne Wakefield resigned   12/07/2011  lists their  beneficiaries as
        (Older people), People with disabilities, General public    , this  is in direct conflict with the trust deed  which specifies  war Veterans . this is not in accordance to the deed which they   rely on

    23/01/2009

    Objectors call in mediators on Ranfurly redevelopment

    30/09/2009

     The Ranfurly Trust 30 Sept 2009 accounts

    21/10/2009

     RANFURLY VILLAGE LIMITED created through name change of EQUITY PARTNERS RETIREMENT ASSETS (RANFURLY VILLAGE) LIMITED 

    30/09/2010

    The The Ranfurly Trust 2010 accounts The trustees of The Ranfurly Trust have been negotiating with developers, Retirement Assets Limited ,to build a new retirement home & hospital facility on its Mt Albert Road land. It is anticipated the facility will be completed approximately 1 year after construction commences. The operational assets of the Ranfurly Veteran Care Limited will be sold to the developers at either assessed market value or book value upon completion of the new facility. The land will continue to be owned by the trust. An estimate of the financial effect on the carrying values of the assets cannot be made at this time.

    30/09/2011

    TheThe Ranfurly Trust 2011 accounts The trustees of The Ranfurly Trust have been negotiating with developers, Retirement Assets Limited, to build a new retirement home & hospital facility on its Mt Albert Road land. It is anticipated the
    facility will be completed approximately 1 year after construction commences. The operational assets of Ranfurly Veteran Care Limited will be sold to the developers at either assessed market value or book value upon completion of the new facility. The land will continue to be owned by the trust. An estimate of the financial effect on the carrying values of the assets cannot be made at this time.

    1/10/2011

    date of commencement of lease  to Ranfurly Village Limited

    22/08/2011

    web capture Ranfurly trust web site

    16/03/2012

    Big plans for vets’ home “A $100 million project to improve care at the Ranfurly War Veterans Home and Hospital is under way. “

    7/08/2012

    RANFURLY CARE LIMITED (3943501) – Director& shareholder director  Graham Ross WILKINSON  shareholders  Graham Ross WILKINSON  & Richard Stewart MCKNIGHT ( joint )

    9/08/2012

    lease hold title  100 years   for entire complex to  Ranfurly Village Limited 

    30/09/2012

    Ranfurly trust  accounts 20124. Ground Rental
    The Trust has granted Ranfurly Village Ltd a lease of the the land at Mt Albert Road. The initial ground rental per the lease agreement for year 1 is $101,562. Ground rental commenced 1 October 2011. Ground rental for year 2 is set at $152,344, and annual rental until the first review date is set at  $203,125 pa. The first review date is the seventh anniversary of the commencement date, 1 October  2011. The term of the lease is 100 years.
    5. Ranfurly Veterans’ Home and Hospital
    Ranfurly Care Limited purchased the Ranfurly Veterans’ Home and Hospital business and took    possession on 30 September 2012.

    30/09/2012

    Ranfurly Veteran Care Limited   assets sold to  Ranfurly Care Limited

    28/03/2013

    RANFURLY CARE & VETERANS FACILITY LIMITED incorporated   director  Graham Ross WILKINSON  shareholders  Nathaniel Tolleth CRAIG   & Richard Stewart MCKNIGHT ( joint )

    4/06/2013

    RANFURLY VILLAGE registered as  a retirement village

    3/08/2013

    RANFURLY VILLAGE HOSPITAL LIMITED created through name change of RANFURLY CARE & VETERANS FACILITY LIMITED   

    15/08/2013

    Staff protest

    I am calling for an independent commission agaisnt corruption  we need a body which  can  monitor and look into public issues  such as  this.

    We have to ask ourselves is it OK to effectively give away a veterans facility for 100  years to companies that do not have a constitution which priorities care of veterans ?

    How is the Ranfurly trust going to be able to ensure that the current residents are going to be provided for ? Sure they will get an income of $203,125 per year  but how are they  going to ensure  the continued care of  the residents  ?   what has been put in place?     what obligations do the  new owners have   and what stops them form liquidating and transferring assets as developers   frequently do.. what then ?

    It would be wonderful if the current trustees of the trust could be more transparent and provide a copy of the agreement between themselves and the developers. It appears to me that the trustees have given away all their rights and are left with obligations which they cannot fulfill.

    Council CEO Conflict of interest none of our business ??????

    BNZAucklandCouncil        BNZ                                                                 

    Sent:Thursday, 11 July 2013 4:40 p.m.
    To:
    len.brown@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
     Cc: ‘Councillor Alf Filipaina’; ‘Councillor Calum Penrose’; ‘Councillor Cathy Casey’; ‘Councillor Noelene Raffills’; ‘Councillor John Walker’; ‘Chris.Fletcher@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Mayor Len Brown’; ‘Councillor Penny Hulse’; ‘Councillor Ann Hartley’; ‘Councillor Arthur Anae’; ‘Councillor Penny Webster’; ‘Councillor Sandra Coney’; ‘Councillor Cameron Brewer’; ‘Councillor Mike Lee’; ‘Councillor Michael Goudie’; ‘Councillor George Wood’; ‘dick.quax@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Councillor Wayne Walker’
    Subject: Who governs Auckland

     Open letter to Councillors  and LGOIMA

     I  have just updated  the  blog site with an article Why do we bother to vote for Auckland Councillors?

     It is very clear that you are the democratically elected members    you are  according to statute  the  Governing body, So  how come  the hired help is dictating to you

     I see the plight of Sandra Coney   and I also know of other Councillors  who have had the same issue .

     What is the point of voting for any of you  if you cannot   hold your proper place with the    council employees.

     I also have to wonder how effective  your CEO is when he  holds so many directorships including  one for  the BNZ  and wonder if this is not a conflict of interest  depending on who you are banking with.

     Also by way of LGOIMA could you please advise if the  directorship   of Doug McKay  as director  of BNZ was disclosed to you  . Please provide all documents which   were provided as a back drop for you to consider any potential  conflict of interest in  his appointment.  

     Regards

    Grace Haden

     transparency NZ

     

    Phone (09) 520 1815
    mobile 027 286 8239
    visit us at www.transparency.net.nz

    Response Response_council re McKay  

    It would appear that his right to privacy  is greater than our right to democracy .  How and Why is it a breach of privacy to advise us if  the conflict was  disclosed or not ?

    Your request has been declined. We are withholding the information requested pursuant to
    section 7(2)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act.
    7. Other reasons for withholding official information
    (2) Subject to sections 6, 8, and 17 of this Act, this section applies if, and only if, the
    withholding of the information is necessary to—
    (a) Protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural
    persons;