Trustees Financially Liable

[steveL]

There's bad news for the Trustees of Manor Residents including the two fleeing Councillors. We've checked with the Charity Commission and despite resigning, the two Councillors, along with all other Trustees, remain financially liable for all debts of Manor Residents, including compensation claims. MR is a Charity; not a limited company and there are no limitations on the liability of Trustees.

This means that that if Angie doesn't pay up, then legally both Stephen Akers-Belcher and Paul Beck could be sued for their share of up to £40,000 in compensation claims alone.

I bet Angie didn't tell them that either

[fred c]

I hate to say it ( I don`t really ) But i did mention this at the time of The Consort & Becks abdication from MRA........ You Can Run, But You Can`t Hide

[The Great Dictator]

Who else is on the board, i thought Jason Anderson was ??

[Kitchnstauff]

Not to burst any bubbles! but there is a clause in the governace of MRA board, "that all trustees are only liable for £1:00 of the debt acrued from the charity" 

[fred c]

The amount is irrelevant to be honest, but if it was awarded against the trustees, it would show them up for what they are.

They didn`t know any of the possible consequences before they abandoned MRA in the middle of this Scandal, but for me it was even worse that they abandoned "Employee`s of MRA, they displayed not the slightest care for working peoples rights & welfare & they call themselves "Labour Councillors".

[steveL]

Not to burst any bubbles! but there is a clause in the governace of MRA board, "that all trustees are only liable for £1:00 of the debt acrued from the charity" 

'Fraid not, m'lord.

As I have said, Manor Residents is a Charity and nothing else. The Trustees of a charity are liable for its debts. They cannot simply limit their liability in the constitution(even if Angie told them otherwise); to do that they would first have to also register as a company which Manor Residents never did.

Also, ignorance is no defence in the eyes of the law. The responsibilities of a Trustee are quite clear and are detailed on the Charity Commission's website. If any Trustee plans on saying that they were unaware of what was going on then they will find themselves out of luck - in the eyes of the law (and most other people I suggest), it was up to them to make the effort to find out because they are still liable, like it or not.

[fred c]

Does "The Dear Leaders" resignation from the Board of Who`s Cares take on a new perspective now ?

[steveL]

only in the sense that he's moved from one bucket of s**t to another.

[fred c]

only in the sense that he's moved from one bucket of s**t to another.

With his track record i don`t suppose he will notice much difference...lol

[Mr Mister]

So, if I have this right..


We could find in the fullness of time, that although the Scabs are backing up Wilcox, she could cost them personally thousands of pounds.

I don't think I would like her to much, if I was them, in the not to distant future.