tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-79367181454779028.post8674837353581935623..comments2023-10-18T13:49:04.792+01:00Comments on Virtual Lancaster News Blog: Council Leader responds to Storey questionsAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09111099866285188994noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-79367181454779028.post-40781017044003715962012-12-06T08:08:18.440+00:002012-12-06T08:08:18.440+00:00How could a company that didn't exist before t...How could a company that didn't exist before the recession, be "struggling even before the recession"? The SCIC opening was in May 2009, by which time the UK was in recession. Would be good if Virtual-Lancaster got obvious facts right ...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-79367181454779028.post-26895599869260554652012-09-18T09:18:26.495+01:002012-09-18T09:18:26.495+01:00Virtual Lancaster is absolutely right to question ...Virtual Lancaster is absolutely right to question why this £90,000 loan was granted. Unfortunately the answers above don't answer some key questions. These are:<br /><br />1. Why loan taxpayers money to a technically insolvent company?<br /><br />At the time of the loan SCIC Ltd had a credit rating of 8 out of 100; two unpaid County Court Judgements (CCJs) and a huge hole in its balance sheet. Furthermore its Chief Executive had an outstanding personal insolvency (IVA) against him http://bit.ly/O8VMnj. Given all this was a company you should really loan money to?<br /><br />2. Why not wait until the next Cabinet meeting?<br /><br />Only with the disastrous decision to close the Tourist Information Centre have the City Council rushed to make a decision on the Storey so why rush this one? The loan was agreed on the 20th of December. With Christmas and New Year the next Cabinet meeting was only two weeks away. SCIC lasted over a year being technically insolvent and not paying staff on time, why not wait another two weeks?<br /><br />3. Councillor Blamire says, "the Council's aim in all this has been to support creative industries". Was this really the case?<br /><br />It is understood that one of the conditions agreed between SCIC Ltd and the City Council was to seek to claim SCIC's losses from the tenants. As a result, once the loan was in place, bills went out to tenants for up to £14,000 each. It increased the charge for rental and service charge from roughly £14 per sq foot to £27 per sq foot. As a comparison White Cross works out at around £11 per square foot. With no consultation prior to receiving invoices the Storey went into meltdown with solicitors appointed and tenants leaving in droves. Surely the City Council and SCIC should have realised the effect of their actions?<br /><br />4. Have the Council really questioned SCIC's finances? Councillor Blamire says, "[The City Council] has known of the company's difficulties and has challenged that company over its performance and prospects". There is no evidence of this except one Cabinet meeting. For example, tenants have never been consulted by either the City Council or SCIC Ltd over the last two years. At a Cabinet meeting, under questioning from a Green councillor, the then Chief Exec of SCIC Ltd struggled to answer questions and there was shown to be significant holes in the finances, yet they were still accepted by Cabinet and a loan granted.<br /><br />5. Was the the Chair of Overview and Scrutiny in possession of all the facts? "Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee agreed that call-in should be waived".<br /><br />Given the above surely they would never have waived a call in.<br /><br />The loan was granted so SCIC Ltd so they could pay particular creditors. Those creditors were never paid and the City Council subsequently made further payments to cover utilities.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com