• The Vale of Glamorgan Council quoted Section 45 of the Local Government Finance Act, 1988 as apparent legal proof that rates were due on the quoted property, but all the assets of the Charity will be passed on thus making the Charity’s assets, properties and goods being set in place to pass on to those who will continue the work and vision of the Charity, as far as we are concerned forever. The designated gifts of many years must not be given over outside of their intended purpose. It is in this context the legal responsibility of trustees to protect these assets which we do from a basis of all staff being un-waged, the staff numbering three, two of whom being in our seventies and one on minimum wage working with special needs people for another Charity. Neither the Charity or the trustees of the Charity have savings and so a £6,000 “non-domestic” rates bill to us for a property no present trustee has ever worked from or taken money from is a huge pressure on us, and so ask for law to be applied here with “law and justice in mercy” as the Coronation Oath demands.

We pointed this out to the Council looking for dialogue on this but got a summons in return, which with respect we regard as a strange response. It is not as if this Charity although battling for funds in the context of so many of its givers passing away with the events of the last four years has any record of a court penalising it for not paying its bills, despite of us battling because of the events of the last few years.

We put to you that many charities are battling, but also put to you that we are very responsible when it comes to handling our finances being registered both in England and Wales and in Scotland. Each year the accounts are audited by a recognized Chartered Accountant in Wales and presented to the Charity Commissions both in England & Wales and in Scotland.

In this context we put to you that whenever you have issued a bill for “non-domestic rates” we have consistently challenged it and appealed against it being completely open and transparent with you being fully in line with the UK Nolan Principles of Government which both my wife Lindsay and me are fully familiar with having been voluntary councillors on Bay of Colwyn Town Council, I having been Chair of Policy and Finance where the aim was to help and give grants to charities rather than issues summons to a Court.

It is therefore our considered conviction that based solely on these grounds that no "non-domestic rates" are due, simply by placing the Council’s quote from the law in relation to the context on which it is given, noting the Charity’s assets will be passed thus placing them in the context of the hereditary requirement, many of the Charity’s assets having come from legacies thus placing them under the category of gifts having been giving in the hereditary context of times gone by as well as them being in line to be passed on in the future. We will not let the sacrifice of ourselves, and others be removed from us, and we believe the context of the law quoted from us protects us from this very clearly, the law therefore being ethical and moral. You quoted this law:

Section 45 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 that says this:

In accordance with the provisions of section 45 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 as amended by the Non Domestic Rating (Unoccupied Property)(England) Regulations 2008, the owner (ie the person entitled to possession) of an unoccupied non-domestic property is liable to pay 100% of the basic occupied business ...

Reading further on from your quote however we find this:

F145AUnoccupied hereditaments: zero-rating

(1)Where section 45 applies in relation to a hereditament, the chargeable amount for a chargeable day is zero in the following cases.

(2)The first case is where—

(a)the ratepayer is a charity or trustees for a charity, and

(b)it appears that when next in use the hereditament will be wholly or mainly used for charitable purposes (whether of that charity or of that and other charities).

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/41/section/45A

​

We have a copy of the relevant form in relation to charitable relief which we returned to David Seal of the Council dated 18th. January 2019. (OUR REFERENCE DOCUMENT 1)

​

Further legal support for our position is provided by the Charity Tax Group who intimate the following: Business rates – Property wholly or mainly used for charitable purposes

​

Charity ratepayers are granted a mandatory 80 per cent relief from non-domestic rates where the property is wholly or mainly used for charitable purposes by that charity or by that charity and other charities. They do not need to be a registered charity in order to claim the relief,  but must be able to show that they are established for charitable purposes. A distinction is drawn so as to exclude from relief use for the purpose of getting in, raising or earning money for the charity.

https://www.charitytaxgroup.org.uk/tax/business-rates/property-wholly-or-mainly-used-for-charitable-purposes/#:~:text=Business%20rates%20%E2%80%93%20Property%20wholly%20or%20mainly%20used%20for%20charitable%20purposes,-See%20latest%20updates&text=Charity%20ratepayers%20are%20granted%20a,that%20charity%20and%20other%20charities.

​

Further to this we have taken relevant solicitors’ advice in relation to all of this and can quote from letters and in the latter case verbal advice. To be blunt The Charity and its trustees are in no position today to employ solicitors and barristers due to the cost and having lost so many of our givers due to the events of the last years. We continue united however and in line with the Nolan Principles will be completely transparent with you, looking to work with you and form relationship outside of legal threat. That is our aim.

• Over the last week Trustee Pamela Masih contacted her brother who is a Solicitor. He informed her of the six-year rule when such matters like this are written off. There is also the custom of charities not paying business rates (seemingly now non-domestic rates) and also the custom when a property is empty there is no charges, the equipment in the shop belonging to the Landlord and not us!

There is also the principle that taxes should be paid on profit. Here we have suffered loss before even considering the £6,000 demand. We are now over six years.

This Solicitor also stated to Trustee Pamela Masih that within the context of the lease, there is a requirement on the Landlord to be actively involved looking to pass on the lease. The following witness statement from former tenant Carole Mackintosh most certainly questions that commitment, this we believe relieving us from obligation here. Her statement also relates to the activities of Clive Bate whose ordination with us was removed.

• THE VALIDITY OF THE WHOLE LEASE OF THE SHOP has been questioned by Solicitor Dylan Moore of David Jones Solicitors, Llandudno. In a letter of 11th. March 2020 Solicitor Moore declares that he does believe in view of the circumstances that there does seem to have been a “close connection" between Clive Bate and the Landlord. (OUR REFERENCE DOCUMENT 2)

This suspicion of Dylan Moore, trustees believe to be confirmed by former tenant Carole Mackintosh in a communication with Solicitor Dylan Moore:

Carole MacIntosh, Former Tenant of the Shop

From: carole mackintosh
Sent: 16 March 2020 14:26
To: mail@davidjoneslaw.co.uk <mail@davidjoneslaw.co.uk>
Subject: 50C Holton Road Barry/Vince Driscoll

FAO of Dylan Moore

Good afternoon....I had a very interesting conversation with your client David Griffiths last week and he has asked me to send you any relevant information that could help your case regarding above property.

I was a tenant of the property from Feb 2014 until Jan 2018.I had a good business  but decided to end it due to the stress being caused by Vince Driscoll. Since vacating he has continued to harass me. He claims I owe him money which I certainly do not. My last contact with him was about a year ago when I simply said via his solicitor Max Wooton of CJCH Thompson St Barry that I was not paying money I did not owe. Since Jan 19 I have been pursued by BES Utiiities for electric dated from 1st Feb 18. I vacated Jan 18. They have asked Vince for confirmation that I left property but he would not do this....eventually he lied and said I left Jan 19. I have informed BES there was a new tenant from approx March 18 and they have requested a copy of the lease. David tells me you can provide me with this which will be an amazing help as I am quite literally at my wits end with the hassle from this company.

I have read Davids link re your complaint against Vince/Clive/Council and would be happy to help in any way I can.

I can confirm business rates at zero....I paid nothing in 4 years. I can confirm that Vince will have stated that he would not hold you to a 3 year lease....just 2 months to find a new tenant as he said exactly the same to me. I live approx 50 yards from the property....there has been someone inside painting...I presume a new tenant. Two weeks ago the tall stand up drinks fridge had been put outside for collection by rubbish men.

In relation to the sale of the shops equipment from myself to your client then Vince was middle man. I paid Vince £3500 when I took lease for everything in shop.....this was apparently price asked by previous tenant. I did not question it. Vince told me your client offered to buy same items from me for £750. I refused however said I would accept £1000 as I really wanted to be done with the whole situation. David tells me that Vince charged him £1500 for equipment ! 

My final year at property was made increasingly difficult by Vince. I had called Welsh Water out and it came to light that I was paying the water bill for two other businesses in the building. Vince was aware of this. One had a sub meter but WW had not been taking readings and deducting....one had no sub meter and WW told Vince to put one in as it was his responsibility. He agreed but never did. I therefore made deductions from his rent to balance this. He became quite aggressive with me over this. The water heater broke....Vince said he would replace but didn't. Told me to get a new one and he would pay. He then never. Once again I deducted from rent. Vince had major grant work on outside of building. My shutters were removed but never replaced. When I questioned this with council Mr Viv Hinds-Payne told me Vince had said all tenants had said they no longer wanted them at a meeting he held. No meeting ever happened. No shutters affected my security and insurance plus let in a lot of heat....this caused problems with my large deli fridge failing ...more cost to me. Vince told me to sort blinds which I did.....again refused to pay bill so I deducted. Mr Hinds- Payne eventually refused to work with Vince as he was causing problems with him at council.

Vince is very well known in Barry but not for good reasons. He received a very hefty fine a number of years ago due to bad hygiene practices when he had the Fresh Bacon Company. Another tenant of his had him banned from entering his business due to hassle caused. He made headlines not so long ago when he opened dog kennels at his home in Dinas Powis without the relevant planning permission. He has numerous court cases over the years where he tries to sue people. He is locally known as a crook and a swindler. People that have done work for him are always chasing him for payment. He can be aggressive....threatened to ruin my business and run me out of town. I know of someone he offered money to to 'beat' another person. However he is a local councillor for the conservative party also!

In relation to Clive Bates....although I do not know the man well he had offices above shop for a number of years. I generally kept my distance as found him odd. The african lady he mentions as volunteering in his shop is a local lady called Rita. She approached me a while back asking what I thought of Clive as he had started attending her religous/community group but was not very popular with others. She said he had suggested taking a group of children to North Wales head office but she said CRB check would have to take place. He got angsty and refused ......very suspicious in my opinion. An elderly lady one dropped something into the offices for Clive (asked another tenant to pass on for her) he said she was very distressed and anxious to leave building without seeing him. When Clive had shop I would often see him sat in there although the shop never opened. Often there was boxes of vegetables and other foodstuffs/stock on counter.

I'm not sure how relevant any of this information is to you? But happy for you to call me if you have any particular questions. My number is 07970014995.

Regards

Carole Mackintosh

SUMMARY OF POINTS HERE AND OUR REPLY

This witness statement in our view illustrates LIES, LIES, LIES and UNDERHAND DEALING.

• History here stated by a previous tenant – a testimony consistent with verbal statements to me (DPG) by Angela of Knights and Joe Turner.

• A Drinks Fridge being thrown out – but we had paid £1,500 for this equipment minus a final payment of £333-33 which we had never paid – yet equipment we had partially paid for was being thrown out!

• If this witness statement is correct Vincent Driscoll had lied to us and to Carole over the purchase of equipment running one against the other, we being assured by former Trustee Clive Bate of Vince’s honesty.

• Carole gives account of inconsistency of Vince’s behaviour. We can see this in our dealings too combined with the assurances of Clive Bate, it is our position that we were conned into this lease.

• Carole mentions a Mr Hinds-Payne who seems to have had difficulties with Vince.

• Carole mentions the poor reputation Vincent Driscoll had and this is borne out by others in testimony to. The Wales On Line website gives a case of bad practice –

• ​

Carole goes onto declare gangster style tactics to beat others, we being a ministry who have had to endure threats in the past, on one occasion we having all the evidence on someone who was protected by the Irish “no prosecution” list and wonder whether this is the same here! There is a pattern coming here in the witness statements, of our experience, of Carole’s, of the statements of Knights Estate Agents, Joe Turner and so forth all going alongside an on-line reputation. Is has to be asked whether this man is protected as we have experienced in the past.

• Carole makes two points of concern in relation to Clive Bate. Please note from the Charity-Ministry Clive Bate had received our ministry manuals in relation to conduct. We have a principle of operation that looks to bring the conditions for individual themselves to hear from God, not give words from “God” over what they should do. Our manuals are at https://www.thebiblecollegeofwales.org/bible-assemblies

We knew nothing of Clive Bate wanting to take children to North Wales, this seeming to be at a time after his meeting with Fanta Fofana, who we have heard has had her own children taken away by Social Services. We are deeply concerned about this and ask professional opinion over what we should do about these concerns.

It is clear that Clive Bate had taken an anti-nomian approach to our manuals, procedures and policies and so we removed his ordination from us. When asked who his ordaining body is now, he refused to answer except say which is a kingly title. It is our belief he operates now with a false title “Reverend” and we have proven still uses our Ministry name on the door of 50 Holton Road, this being the case as at Summer of 2019. We believe him to be a danger to vulnerable people thus our warning to government bodies who were advertising his services.

• Carole gives evidence of vegetables/foodstuffs in the sandwich shop and we have record of such items being paid for on the charity credit card – but we have had no return on sales and do not know where the stock went.

• 24 02 18 CAROLE MACINTOSH confirms being threatened by utility firm BES for payments for a time we apparently hold the lease for.

A further witness statement followed from former trustee Barry Trayhorn, which proves without doubt that we never had a key to the property and so if we never had a key, how could we gain access to the property to make income to pay “non-domestic rates”. The keyholders were always Clive Stanley Bate and the Landlord and none of the property ever belonged to us for stock that was bought by Clive Bate was ever accounted for and the equipment of the Landlord in the shop ever paid fully by us. To quote Rev Trayhorn: Attitude towards the Charity shop was very disturbing. It was not open even though Clive Bate had the key, a key he has never handed over on resigning as a Minister and Trustee.