Pat Cumbers and the Melton Mowbray Town Estate

Pat Cumbers, Town Estate Townwarden and Feoffee (trustee) from October 2007 until October 2009

1^st OCTOBER 2007

Pat was elected to the Town Estate, thrilled and so proud to be part of the Town Estate and making history as the first woman Senior Townwarden since the charity commenced in 1549. The Town Estate owns beautiful town centre parks, runs the popular street markets and is responsible for much of the local leisure provision. She hoped that her extensive business and voluntary sector experience would be useful to the charity.

The Town Estate is a members’ charity “belonging” to the members (local residents) but managed and controlled by a Board of Feoffees (trustees) who are accountable to the members and other stakeholders.

5^th OCTOBER 2009

Pat was finally driven off the Town Estate. From the moment she was elected in October 2007 she believed some feoffees were determined to get her ‘off the Board’ but somehow she had managed to stay ‘on the Board’. In October 2009 Chairman Ken Saunders refused to allow an election at the Annual Meeting which ensured that Pat Cumbers could not be re-elected. The charity has returned to being an all-male organisation as it was when the charity commenced in 1549.

The lack of an election contravened the Governing Document and specific advice from the Charity Commission. But why? Just what had been going on? Why was chairman Ken Saunders apparently so anxious to get rid of her from the Board of feoffees (trustees)?

Although there are annual elections for feoffees, often the same feoffees are automatically re-elected. So there are very few changes to the Board of Feoffees. Some trustees/feoffees have been on the Board for decades. To see names of feoffees from October 2006 to October 2009

Just what had been happening on the Town Estate ?

Why was there so much dishonesty ?
Why did the BBC broadcast a documentary entitled “Melton’s Town Estate Uncovered”? To view the film
Why did the Town Estate refuse to answer any BBC questions but then add a ‘Response’ to the Town Estate website? The ‘Response’ was apparently intended to refute some of the statements made in the film but included misleading information and untruths. Pat Cumbers and Sue Gowans have now replied to the Town Estate Response.
Why were deliberate untruths used as ‘evidence’ in order to justify ‘suspending’ Pat Cumbers from the Town Estate ?
Why did the Town Estate tell deliberate untruths to the Charity Commission in the hope that the Commission would declare Sue Gowans unfit to be a Trustee.

Why was the charity’s proposed new Scheme of Arrangement (specific Rules for the Town Estate) rejected so decisively by the Commission when the Town Estate expected rubber-stamping? Amongst many comments by the Commission was one that the charity was not as open, transparent and diverse as the Commission would expect.
Why does the Town Estate still not possess a Child Protection Policy which includes the Commission’s “essentials” despite the Town Estate’s history of paedophilia and despite being advised in April 2008 that such a policy was necessary?
Why had the only two female trustees been treated so badly ? Pat Cumbers and Sue Gowans had been bullied, verbally abused, physically threatened, locked out, excluded from information, sexually harassed, subjected to an unmerited court case, censured, subjected to kangaroo courts, there was an attempt to suspend Pat Cumbers , the Town Estate website incorrectly reported that she was suspended and she was wrongly barred from standing for election in October 2009.

There follows a description of some of the happenings and some of the problems particularly during the two years from October 2007. Pat Cumbers has always maintained that there was much which was excellent but after two years there was still much inadequacy and much which was unacceptable. This is a members’ charity and the members are entitled to know about these matters.

1^st OCTOBER 2007

Pat Cumbers was elected as Senior Townwarden, the first woman to be elected to this position of leadership since the Town Estate commenced in 1549. To read about that election,

Three days after her election a meeting was called to remove the Senior Townwarden duties and authority from Mrs. Cumbers – with no prior discussion and no attempt to ensure she could attend. At the meeting she was not welcomed as new trustees are usually welcomed to a Board and the particular duties and powers of the Senior Townwarden were passed to a sub committee to be known as the feoffees’ management committee. This was a misleading title because the term ‘management committee’ usually refers to a governing body which in the case of the Town Estate is the Board of feoffees (trustees). A sub committee can not be a governing body !

The day after her election Mrs. Cumbers discovered there was no written description of the Town Warden’s role. But it was to be some time later that she realised that the Townwarden duties and powers, so hastily and unpleasantly removed from her, had not actually existed since 1989 when the Commission had brought into effect a new Scheme of Arrangement for the Town Estate. Apparently, for eighteen years Townwardens had continued exercising those non existent powers until they were “removed” from Mrs. Cumbers in October 2007. All fourteen feoffees had been equal since 1989 but apparently the feoffees had not noticed.

Mrs. Cumbers was surprised to discover inadequate governance “behind the scenes”. There were not the strategies, policies and procedures in place relating to the Board of trustees, control and management of the charity which one would expect. The Town Estate is an important organisation operating within the community and possessing significant assets including a substantial endowment fund.

JANUARY 2008

At the Board meeting, Senior Townwarden Pat Cumbers highlighted to the feoffees some of the problems she had so unexpectedly discovered ‘behind the scenes’ including the lack of policies and procedures relating to governance, but her justified concerns were dismissed out of hand. (Over the following weeks and months she was to be verbally abused, locked out, told by chairman Ken Saunders she was not wanted on the Board, excluded, physically threatened, subjected to kangaroo courts and censured.)

At the same January meeting the matter of a pornographic photograph was raised. It was of a Town Estate man, naked except for skimpy underpants upon which was written in large capital letters the word ‘CAUTION’. The pornographic photograph had been passed to feoffee Mrs. Gowans inside a file which had been returned to her by the ‘Town Estate person’ . The matter did not appear to shock, surprise or perturb the majority of feoffees who found it amusing and there were jokey references to flashers and men in dirty Macs.

Since October 2007 there had been weekly meetings of the new sub committee which Mrs. Cumbers found to be very unusual and worrying because no minutes were produced despite Charity Commission advice that all trustee meetings should be minuted.

Towards the end of January Pat Cumbers suddenly discovered that she had been locked out of the Town Estate office and a day or two later was upset and then annoyed to receive a letter from chairman Ken Saunders saying he had decided to change the locks in order to lock her out of the office. He had no such authority of course. to read the letter

Chairman Ken Saunders also indicated that in the future he would decide which feoffees he would allow to attend feoffee sub committee meetings, even as observers. He had no authority to do that either of course. He had effectively turned meetings which should be open, into secret meetings. He was chairman of an important charity, not managing director of his own private family company or some sort of supremo in a secret society. In addition to there being no written ‘job description’ for Town Estate Townwardens, there was none for the Town Estate chairman.

Mr Saunders alleged that Pat Cumbers had upset staff which she denied. But if a member of staff had made such an allegation, then there should have been discussion, not locking her out! She believed that locking her out was an additional encouragement for her to leave the charity.

The weekly sub committee meetings continued with the chairman Ken Saunders refusing to allow a particular feoffee to attend even as an observer. Eventually Pat Cumbers ceased attending the meetings which were effectively being held in secret. She could not condone such secrecy.

5^th February 2008

Before the start of the weekly meeting when Pat Cumbers was talking to a member of staff, she was shouted at by John Southerington – SHUD UP! SHUD UP! SHUD UP! - about twelve times. He then called her a silly old woman and approached her with clenched fists – she was frightened he was going to attack her. Chairman Ken Saunders witnessed that but made no comment.

The Town Estate County Court claim against feoffee Mrs. Sue Gowans was due to be heard 25 February. The contract had been made by Mrs. Gowans in October 2006 on behalf of the Victorian Christmas Fayre committee ( including Pat Cumbers who was not at that time a feoffee) and the contract price was £980.

The then Senior Townwarden John Southerington had told Mrs. Gowans in October 2006 that the price would depend on how she voted at the November 2006 Feoffees meeting ! Mrs. Gowans voted against John Southerington’s proposal at that meeting and the price had nearly tripled to an extortionate £2796 which the Victorian Fayre committee refused to pay.

Despite the Town Estate knowing that the contract was with the Victorian Fayre committee and not Sue Gowans as an individual, the Town Estate commenced a County Court Claim against Mrs Gowans on a personal basis in June 2007.

Before entering the County Court Room on 25 February 2008 where the case was due to be heard, the Judge who was aware of the circumstances gave permission for Mrs Cumbers to sit with Mrs. Gowans to help her with her paperwork. Pat Cumbers had become a feoffee in October 2007. But the Judge, having read the file of evidence, decided the case could not be heard that day. It must be deferred in order to establish the correct defendant – it appeared the judge was questioning whether the Town Estate was correct when it was insisting that the defendant must be Sue Gowans as an individual.

APRIL 2008

At this Feoffees’ meeting Pat Cumbers was censured at a kangaroo court. It was considered the actions of Mrs. Cumbers together with a photograph in the Melton Times had brought the Town Estate into disrepute. The motion against her was as follows:

‘The Board considers the Senior Townwarden’s actions to be detrimental to the best interests of the Town Estate and her office and reprimand her for those actions.’

As the Court Case was not heard in February, it was still sub judice but aspects of the case were raised at the Board meeting - apparently that was permitted as the meeting was not ‘in public’.

Dr Bruce Williamson said he did not believe Pat Cumbers should be censured – they were the first pleasant words she had ever heard him say to her or about her. He then added;

‘she is so unintelligent and brainless that she could not have known that she was doing wrong’.

He repeated the words calmly and smugly as though they had been rehearsed. The majority of feoffees did not appear surprised and chairman Ken Saunders made no comment.

Town Estate solicitor Howard Partridge told the Board of feoffees that he had attended the Court in February out of personal interest and that Mrs. Cumbers “had addressed the judge, putting herself in the position of protagonist for the defendant – she was appearing for the defendant and showing disloyalty to the Town Estate”.

Mrs. Cumbers strongly disputed that allegation and when solicitor Howard Partridge was asked what Mrs. Cumbers had actually said, Mr. Partridge declined to answer.

The following feoffees voted to censure the Senior Townwarden:

Ken Saunders, Derek Simmonds, Tim Webster, John Southerington, Peter Roffey, Bruce Williamson, Derek Whitehouse, Richard Sage.

This censure appeared to be part of the increased effort to persuade Pat Cumbers to leave the Board – chairman Ken Saunders had confirmed that was what ‘they all wanted’. Pat Cumbers also believed (correctly) that the reprimand would be reported to the Charity Commission.

It later transpired that Town Estate solicitor Howard Partridge had written to the County Court about Mrs. Cumbers having been in the court room. He also complained to the Court about some of the evidence which had been submitted to the Court by Mrs. Gowans. Despite several requests Mr. Partridge declined to provide Mrs. Cumbers with a copy of the letter.

8^th May 2008

There was the final Hearing of the unmerited court case which the Town Estate had commenced in June 2007 against Sue Gowans. She had been wrongfully pursued on a personal basis by the Town Estate claiming for money which was not owed. But in May 2008 the judge found completely in favour of Mrs. Gowans and the Victorian Fayre committee. He emphasised that, although the Town Estate could request leave to appeal, the matter was so clear-cut that he believed there was not another judge in the country who would disagree with his decision.

He asked how the Town Estate could have behaved so badly – he called them unconscionable. He said it was clear from Day 1 that the contract had never been the personal responsibility of Mrs. Gowans – the contract had been with the Victorian Fayre Committee and he expressed surprise that the Town Estate had not understood that a valid contract had been in place.

30^th June 2008

Was a Board of feoffees meeting. Following the result of the Court Case of the ‘Town Estate versus Mrs. Gowans’ when the Town Estate had been castigated by the Judge, Pat Cumbers and Sue Gowans hoped for an apology to the Victorian Fayre committee and for the unbelievable stress and distress caused to feoffee Sue Gowans who had done so much good over many years for Melton Mowbray.

But instead of apologies it was decided that Sue Gowans would be reported to the Charity Commission. Subsequently the Town Estate sent a letter of complaint which included deliberate untruths about Sue Gowans in the hope that the Commission would judge her to be an unfit person to continue as a trustee.

Pat Cumbers was subjected to another kangaroo court. There were untruths, sweeping allegations and generalities without evidence, examples, explanation or detail. The motion that she should be censured was supported by:

John Southerington, Richard Sage, Ken Saunders, Derek Simmonds, Tim Webster, Derek Larder Derek Whitehouse, John Sanderson, Bruce Williamson, and Peter Roffey.

AUGUST 2008

The Annual Meeting was approaching. Pat Cumbers, very conscious of her duty to the charity and its members, decided she must make public some of the unaddressed problems within the charity, and so she started a website.

SEPTEMBER 2008

The Charity Commission website was still not up-to-date and still did not show Pat Cumbers as a trustee nearly a year after her election, despite a legal duty for the Town Estate to ensure that trustee information is accurate and despite a reminder from the Charity Commission of the trustees’ responsibility.

At the Board meeting, yet again John Southerington refused to agree to produce the records and the Building Society Passbook relating to the Big Picture Appeal.

Pat Cumbers was very worried because John Southerington, who appeared to be in charge of the money raised by the Big Picture Appeal fundraising, was very secretive, refusing access to financial information and important Town Estate records – information which belonged to all feoffees and for which they were all legally responsible. Mr. Southerington had worked so very enthusiastically with the Appeal but the secrecy about the Town Estate funds, contracts, purchases etc was unacceptable and difficult to understand.

These actions bore strong similarities to 1986 when Mr. Southerington had previously been Senior Townwarden and was accused of mismanagement of the Town Estate. The problems then had included his refusal to allow feoffees to have sight of records including bank statements.

When Mr. Southerington’s term had finished in 1986 the Town Estate had been left with indebtedness in the region of £60,000 resulting from the overspending. In addition capital had been spent as revenue and the 1986 accounts included an auditor’s note to that effect. An accountant with the auditors stated it was not the case that assets had been misappropriated. Such secrecy about Town Estate assets was unacceptable in 1986 and was unacceptable in 2008.

In September 2008 Pat Cumbers was still worried about the problems she had unexpectedly discovered behind the scenes. Some very good things had been happening with the charity, indeed much was excellent but parts of the organisation were inadequate, parts were unacceptable. Having been elected as Senior Townwarden she felt special responsibility.

A major issue was that the Board had still not approved a child protection policy despite the Charity Commission having advised many months previously that such a policy was necessary. There was a history of paedophilia within the Town Estate - a feoffee/ex Senior Townwarden/solicitor, one Peter Cox, was convicted in 1988 of sexual crime against young boys whom he had enticed into his house. In 2004 an employee Michael Bonshor, a Town Estate kiosk attendant employed in a Town Estate park, was committing sexual offences against underage girls, including illegal sex. Some offences were committed by Bonshor whilst he was on duty and being paid by the Town Estate.

Bonshor was imprisoned in 2005 when chairman Ken Saunders was Senior Townwarden and in 2008 Mr. Saunders advised the Charity Commission that 55 year old Bonshor’s sexual crimes of assault and grooming of underage girls, could be described as “ six of one and half a dozen of the other.”

The treatment of Pat Cumbers and Sue Gowans, the only two female feoffees, had been inexcusable; they had been bullied, verbally abused, physically threatened, locked out, sexually harassed, censured, subjected to kangaroo courts, forbidden access to information, subjected to an unmerited court case, and not allowed to fulfil their duty as trustees of the charity.

As these and other concerns became public, interest in the Board of feoffees began to grow. New people, “fresh blood” with a love of the Town Estate, and with excellent experience and expertise wanted to help and decided to stand for election.

A letter was circulated by John Southerington emphasising the need for ”continuity of management to remain strong and viable” indicating they wanted nobody new on the Board.

Nobody disputed that there had been much which was excellent within the charity but there were also problems which needed addressing. What was wrong with some new faces, new ideas, new expertise and skills, new experience, new energy and some new female trustees? But the Town Estate appeared just to want “continuity of management”, meaning ‘no outsiders’.

An election leaflet was produced by Pat Cumbers naming some new candidates, people not connected to existing feoffees. New blood and skills with commitment to openness, transparency, consultation, helping and working in a co-operative way as feoffees. To see the leaflet,

OCTOBER 2008

At the annual meeting, despite specific advice from the Charity Commission chairman Ken Saunders refused to allow nomination of John Wyatt for Townwarden. The votes for feoffees and Townwardens, as always, were counted in secret, behind closed doors without independent witnesses. Five existing feoffees were re-elected, including Pat Cumbers as Junior Townwarden.

NOVEMBER 2008

At the first feoffees meeting of the new Town Estate year, the majority of feoffees voted to “suspend” Pat Cumbers at another kangaroo court. It was ultra vires and she was therefore never actually suspended. The ‘evidence’ included deliberate untruths.

MARCH 2009

The Board introduced some “policies and procedures” to the Town Estate which related to governance, the Board of Feoffees and management of the charity. But some of those documents were also inadequate – misleading, contravening the Governing Document and Commission guidance and/or containing mistakes.

Of special note was that finally a ‘Child Protection Policy’ was adopted by the Board of feoffees ( by majority vote) . But that document was almost identical to that which had been described by the Charity Commission as ‘more directed towards protection of the charity’s work-force’ - it did not include the ‘essentials’ as required by the Commission to protect child beneficiaries. Amongst the missing essentials was the commitment to safe recruitment, selection and vetting.

5^th OCTOBER 2009

Both Sue Gowans and Pat Cumbers had started with such high hopes when, at different times, they joined the Town Estate.

But neither could be properly effective as trustees. How could they be? The treatment to which they had been subjected ensured that they dreaded attending meetings although they were never completely silenced.

At the Annual Meeting, Sue Gowans had decided not to stand for re-election – she had served four difficult years, never having felt that she had been accepted as an equal, she felt she had been driven off the Board. Pat Cumbers, after two problematic years, decided she would stand for re-election, believing strongly that the Board of feoffees should not be allowed to continue in their secretive unaccountable way.

The Town Estate had been told in December 2008 by the Charity Commission:

“We have no objection to the feoffees carrying out a selection process. However, under the provisions of the current governing document, other individuals should not be prevented from standing for election”.

In October 2009 in contravention of the Governing Document and despite this specific Charity Commission ruling that nomination and election on the night should be allowed, chairman Ken Saunders decided otherwise. Perhaps for the first time since 1549 feoffees were not to be properly elected.

On the posters for the annual meeting, the wording “To elect” Townwardens and Feoffees had been changed to “To appoint”.
The advertisement for Feoffees and Townwardens did not mention elections but spoke of appointment and selection.
The “application pack” contained no reference to elections or any election process.
There were no tellers or ballot boxes available at the annual meeting

So in October 2009 there were no elections and now the Town Estate has reverted to being an all male organisation as it was when it began in 1549.

The BBC was not allowed into the annual meeting with or without a camera even though other non-members were invited and admitted. So the BBC was unable to hear and record the complaints made by the members.

In particular there were complaints about the sanitised minutes of the 2008 Annual Town Meeting. Matters of major concern to the members and the market traders which had been raised at the 2008 annual meeting were not mentioned in the minutes including the Court Case which the Town Estate had lost so decisively, the lack of openness, the lack of trust etc etc.

Town Estate charitable funds were expended employing a security firm to ensure the exclusion of the BBC. A sheet was draped over the only window to ensure that the BBC would be unable to film any of the actual meeting, even without sound.

When chairman Ken Saunders left the meeting he tried to crouch down and hide behind his wife to avoid being filmed by the BBC.

Vice chairman Peter Roffey was filmed attempting to conceal his face behind a file of papers.

They were just two of the majority of feoffees who had ‘convicted’ Pat Cumbers alleging she had brought the Town Estate into disrepute!

NOVEMBER 2009

The BBC, after 10 months filming and interviewing, broadcast a short documentary “Melton’s Town Estate Uncovered” which examined some of the problems within the Town Estate. To see the film, and follow the link.

The Town Estate, despite many requests by the BBC, refused to take part in the programme or to give any detailed response to the concerns raised.

Nevertheless, following the broadcast a “Response” to the BBC documentary was added to the Town Estate website. This Response was apparently meant to refute some of the statements made in the film but included misleading information and untruths. Pat Cumbers and Sue Gowans have now replied to the Response.

Those particular BBC statements, the Town Estate response and the reply by Pat Cumbers and Sue Gowans can be seen if you

DECEMBER 2009

The Town Estate were advised by the Charity Commission that the Town Estate’s proposed new Scheme of Arrangement ( the rules for the Town Estate) had been rejected.

The Feoffees (trustees) had assumed their proposals would be “rubber-stamped” but the proposed Scheme was rejected by the Charity Commission for several reasons.

The Charity Commission Panel noted:

“the considerable gender imbalance in the trustee body, which has existed for a number of years;
the missed opportunity to set out the charity’s position in the BBC TV programme “Inside Out”;
the “interview” process proposed by the trustees for potential candidates for trusteeship; and
the apparent lack of openness and communication with the inhabitants of the area of benefit.”

The Panel believed that the above:

“indicated that the trustee body was not as open, transparent and diverse as the Commission would expect in a charity of this nature”

The Panel concluded that:

“it is not appropriate for the Commission to make the scheme now. We are not satisfied that making the scheme furthers the Commission’s statutory objectives, in particular those relating to public trust and confidence and accountability. We consider that the complaints and allegations about the charity and its trustees must be resolved to the Commission’s satisfaction before a Scheme can be made.”

The panel made a number of recommendations to the trustees including the need to report back to the Commission on the diversity and accountability of the trustee body.

To read the full Decision Review of the Charity Commission,

(The Charity Commission review is in "PDF" format. If you can't view it, then go HERE to download the free Adobe PDF Reader)

How had this position been reached? And why? How was the Board of Melton Mowbray Town Estate so out of touch with its members and with what its members are entitled to expect in their charity. At the 2007 Annual Meeting the then chairman Derek Larder was asked why the Town did not properly consult the members and he answered, “Because we don’t have to!” Had anything changed ?

The Town Estate is well loved by its members who are proud of its history, the parks, the markets, the leisure activities and the fact that it is almost unique and they want to be part of it. The Town Estate is neither a private family company nor a secret men’s club. It is a charity, accountable to the membership (local residents) and other stakeholders. The Board and the members should work in harmony but that has not happened for many years. And the Town Estate’s apparent dislike of female feoffees (trustees) increases the distance between the Board and the membership.

So what is the future ?

When the Charity Commission rejected the proposed new Scheme of Arrangement the Commission made many observations and recommendations, some of which are as follows:

Does the trustee body adequately reflect the diversity of the inhabitants of Melton Mowbray? If not, what actions do the trustees propose to take to move towards a more diverse body?
Do the trustees engage adequately with the beneficiaries, to ensure that the beneficiaries understand what the charity does, how it operates; and what its plans are?
What mechanisms do the trustees have in place to ensure that they understand the needs and requirements of the beneficiaries, particularly in relation to the facilities provided by the charity?
The Commission believes that a diverse trustee board is more likely to contain a broader range of skills, experience and representation than one which is more narrowly based. It believes that the governance arrangements of charities will be improved where trustees are recruited from a wide range of backgrounds. For some charities, achieving greater diversity at board level might include having some trustees from parts of the community which have traditionally not played a large part in charities such as women, young people and people with disabilities.
The trustees of charities where trustees are elected can (and do) provide information to the electorate concerning the skills and experience of the existing (continuing) trustees and the “skills gaps” which they would be seeking to fill.
The Commission strongly encourages charities to be accountable, transparent and to act with integrity.
The charity provides parks and recreational facilities which, in other areas, would be provided primarily by local authorities. It would therefore be reasonable for the charity to seek (so far as is practicable) to be as transparent as a local authority.
The trustees might consider:
- holding open trustee meetings ( in addition to the Annual Town Meeting);
- publishing minutes of meetings ( e.g. on the charity’s website);
- using the annual report to highlight the charity’s work;
- discussing plans with beneficiaries and, in particular, users of the charity’s parks and recreation grounds;
- carrying out formal consultations on significant issues;
- providing more information on the charity’s website; and
- issuing press releases as appropriate.

Consideration and implementation of the above recommendations could be a start to making the Town Estate “Fit for Purpose” in the 21st century.

Mrs. Gowans and Mrs. Cumbers had both been properly elected to the Town Estate; they wanted to help and did not deserve to be driven off the charity by trustees who appear to believe the charity “belongs” to them, their friends and family. Much needs to change within the Town Estate. How can any Board of trustees believe it to be acceptable that women, young people, those with disabilities and those from ethnic minorities are not represented on its governing body?

The majority of feoffees (trustees) who voted to suspend Junior Townwarden Pat Cumbers knew that the ‘evidence’ against her included deliberate untruths. Are they fit to be trustees?

The ‘Town Estate’ wrote a letter of complaint about feoffee Sue Gowans to the Charity Commission; the letter included deliberate untruths. Are those who were responsible for that letter, fit to be trustees?