RSPB £6 Million

[johnb]

As the OP I did not start this tread just to "bash" the RSPB. There are other threads which had already gone down that road, and I could have just attached a comment to those. I felt that as the RSPB seem to have influence in and around the Broads, this was a legitimate question. My question may have been a little judgemental, really trying to show the relevance to the Broads.

[marshman]

Whilst I know many will disagree, you have to accept that things can change - what may have seemed an ideal spot 20 years ago, may have changed and what is of little value to wildlife, is a small 20 acre isolated pocket of habitat. Urban sprawl may well have altered the dynamics of the site, and indeed probably have especially if it is even likely to get planning permission, and selling that land for housing at substantial value will enable the RSPB to buy considerably more land, probably adjacent to an existing reserve where ,not only will it be of more value, but give a proper and realistic chance of management and proper access.

 

The lady clearly died quite a few years ago and I can see their point - why continue to hold a small parcel of land, probably not even big enough for a barn owl, when that 20 acres can probably be swapped for 500 acres elsewhere. I suspect the motives of the local people owe nothing to the wishes of the deceased, rather than a good old dose of nimbyism and the loss of dog walking land!!! Indeed I suspect it was them who dredged up this story and got the newspaper involved just to "protect" their interests!! And the papers as usual would not let reality get in the way of a good story!!

 

So i think on balance they may well have done the right thing - they clearly left it for many years but now see it of little value as a wildlife habitat and can use that money perhaps by buying more valuable habitat elsewhere  -  isn't that called proper management and what they should do???

 

No - don't all shout me down at once!!!   I am entitled to my probably more realistic view and the belief that things cannot be perpetuated forever and sometimes need to change!!!!

 

 

[Soundings]

Johnb, I never accused you of RSPB bashing did I? I said and I quote "RSPB bashing 'cause they seem to be disliked by some on here".  It is a case of if the cap fits.

 

Marshman, I agree with you 100%, as can be seen from my earlier post.

[MauriceMynah]

Marshman,

 

I think your "set of assumptions" are probably as near correct as needs be, and I say that as one whose dislike of the RSPB is well documented. You make a good argument and you make it fairly, but there is still a moral issue to be considered here.

Lets say she left that plot of land to a relevant and universally loved charity with those conditions attached.

Does that charity have the right to disregard those conditions as and when it suits them?

and if not,

What can that charity reasonably do about it?

[Soundings]

Being an ex charitable trustee, the charity is acting within its rights and is acting as far as we know with the interests of the charities overall objectives at heart. It would be a significant breach of trust if it were to continue managing the asset in question when it had no chance of making that asset perform. It would just be knowingly wasting money.

 

In this case the charity has gone back to the surviving family and executors and agreed a way forward. I have no problem with that and I doubt that the Charity Commissioners would either.

[BroadScot]

Take away the letters RSPB and change it to say a local Hospice. To me, a charity always in need of funds. Would it be right then to stop that legacy money getting to said charity? I sometimes think, Lawyers make up new rules as they go along!

 

 

Iain.

[MauriceMynah]

Tricky to do that Dave.

Take me for example (or just make an example of me!)

I could leave something to "We protect birds.com" but later someone could "discuss" this with my executors and transfer it to the RSPB for whatever reason. This would have me turning in my grave!!!

 

To be honest, I can see the moral question, but no satisfactory answer.

[Timbo]

There's a large problem with the argument that the land is of no value to wildlife. On the 11th March a large wildlife organisation was involved in a debate on Radio 4's Costing the Earth condemning the eradication of green belt and the infilling of small 'green' areas with housing as they are extremely valuable staging areas for wildlife, particularly birds. The organisation supported their argument with extensive, up to the minute, scientific research which warned of the disastrous impact of infill and the removal of small 'green' areas along with the green belt on small mammals and birds.

 

The large wildlife organisation was the RSPB. 

[marshman]

Timbo - what you have heard on the radio IMHO is about half right - small plots of land ( 20 acres ) are excellent if you can use this to add to other small plots to form a "wildlife corridor" - very valuable if used to link other large open spaces. But in isolation it is of little value except to that scourge of countryside near towns of horseyculture and open areas for dog walkers.

 

Look at the area in question on Google Earth - its hardly in wide open rolling countryside it being just outside Congleton in Cheshire - I personally cannot decry towns expanding - new houses have to go somewhere and if it's designated for growth then thats for the elected Council to decide. What it is not is a purely rural area away in the middle of nowhere!!!

 

Soundings is absolutely right - the charity has done nothing especially wrong and seem to have bent over backwards to be seen to be doing the right thing and accommodate some others wishes and as he rightly says the Charity Commission will not get involved because they (RSPB ) are probably doing what they should in utilising their assets to obtain the best results and benefits for the charity. The C C would only get involved possibly if they did NOT do this.

 

What no one seems to have highlighted is how long has this been held by the RSPB - if they valued it at £60k in 2001 it would seem that the very generous lady concerned has been dead a long time and if that is the case just how long do the charity have to hold the land before doing anything with it? 10 years, 20 years or 50 years? 

 

Methinks I smell a distinct case of nimbyism here where all of a sudden, someone has remembered the origins of the bequest and wheeled it all out just to keep the land from being built on  -  all sounds a too familar story when people already privileged to living on the outskirts of a town bandy together to stop others less fortunate from moving in and enjoying it too!!! In reality not a lot to do with the RSPB who for once, seem to have done it by the book (unusually!! ) 

 

I could, and probably am, wrong but thats just my take on the whole issue. i don't particularly support the RSPB but neither do I support "trial by Forum" without all aspects being considered!!!

[Baitrunner]

I dont have any gripe at all with the RSPB as I am sure they have done a heap of good since their inception.

 

But I can see the moral issue here and am going to quote which are probably some assumptions in the various posts on this thread - not digging at anyone, but just using what may be good knowledge or an assumption.

 

1) The land was left to the RSPB to be used as a wildlife habitat and not to be built on - it said nothing about whether it actually could be used by a barn owl or a tiger - wildlife comes in all shapes and sizes.

2) As Timbo says, having small pockets of green in housing estates is encouraged to support point 1.

3) The executors were no doubt the ladies solicitor and not family. I have no idea how rich she was, but if the RSPB came to me as an heir/executor and ask me to let them sell the land for £6m that my aunt had given them, I would be well miffed thinking maybe I should have had a chunk of that. The solicitors are no doubt happy to encourage a change so they earn more money with the paperwork and maybe sale (cynical maybe...)

4) How much does it cost to keep a patch of land for wildlife? I am sure it is a fairly insignificant amount compared to what they have in their coffers. If it was not cost effective to keep this and protect the ladies wishes then they should have refused the donation years ago.

 

I am of the opinion if you leave something with a stipulation on it then you have a right to assume your wishes will be heeded. Not wait a chunk of time then decide you want to change it cause it suits you.

 

Next it will be someone who leaves their £10m house to someone on the proviso they look after tiddles. A year later decide tiddles is a pain, so off to the cats home with tiddles all nicely looked after and hey presto a free mansion and annoying cat gone - OK a bit extreme but you get the point.

[Soundings]

At the end of the day the RSPB, indeed any charity, has to manage its assets in a way that meets its overall objectives. The RSPB is not in the business of maintaining non performing assets (in this case presumably maintaining land that has minimal scope in turns of wildlife). It would be wrong to spend cash maintaining land because it might be home to some common wildlife, like ants, spiders, rats, when that money might be better spent on something else. As I understand it the good lady left the RSPB land but not the cash to maintain it. It is not self financing. True it may not cost much to maintain (or it might) but it matters not for the trust is not in business to manage non performing assets no matter how big or small. Its job is to meet its own objectives as set out in its founding documentation and not those of a beneficiary who's well meaning gift has not worked out.

 

I'm sorry but this really is RSPB bashing now. They have done nothing wrong and have manage a tricky situation in a very reasonable manner. The scenario is not unique and is one that has doubtless been faced by many charities large and small. 

[BroadScot]

A very good spread of comments on this thread, yes, we all have our thoughts etc. I feel we could go on and on and start ending back where we started. All charities are to be applauded in their own way IMHO. Perhaps its time to put this thread to bed?

 

 

Iain.

[JawsOrca]

A very good spread of comments on this thread, yes, we all have our thoughts etc. I feel we could go on and on and start ending back where we started. All charities are to be applauded in their own way IMHO. Perhaps its time to put this thread to bed?

 

 

Iain.

 

Well said Iain.. time to close the curtains... 

[Soundings]

They might have been able to comply in the first instance but things do change or they might have thought they could comply. That happens, its called life. Equally the land could have been subject to a compulsory purchase order and that would have killed the benefactors wishes as well.

 

These things happen. No need for any conspiracy theories. In any event we do not know all there facts.

 

As Iain says, Matter closed.

[BroadScot]

 Thank you.

 

 

Iain.

[Paul]

Just to clarify, the Executor of a will has no authority to make changes to it, with or without the agreement of the beneficiaries. I know this for fact as I was called to execute a will recently where the spouse of a deceased child of the testator was not included in the will. The three remaining beneficiaries all agreed that the person originally omitted should receive an equal share of the capital assets of the will, however after taking legal advice I was advised that making such a change was not in my power and the will was settled in accordance with the testators written testament and the three beneficiaries each made a private settlement on the "spouse".

 

The executor has power to make judgement calls on occasions where the provision of the testament is unclear, but should this be necessary it is best to agree this course with all interested parties and have them sign a oath at an approved commisioners in order to protect the executor from any future charge of Failure to Discharge a Fiduciary Duty should one of those parties subsequently change their mind.

 

Listing a "wish" in a will is not legally binding, in fact a decent solicitor would not have drafted such a will, the correct process would have been to place a covenant on the property at the time of drawing up the will. This would not absolutley protect the land but would have made it more difficult for the RSPB to use it contrary to the original owners wish. They would need a court to lift the covenant, and that court would need a compelling reason to do so.

 

That said, if the land was willed to the RSPB on the grounds that the testator wished it to be protected in perpetuity then the RSPB should respect that. If they no longer wish to manage the land then they should enact that covenant and sell it with the protection in place. It will of course be worth only a fraction of the price. The other alternative they had was to decline the gift.

 

It is not the place for the RSPB to decide that other places might be of greater value and dispose of this land. It was obviously special to it's previous owner who made the wish that IT, and not some moorland or fen many miles away should be protected. Neither is it the place of the will's original executor or beneficiries to pass comment on what the testator might or might not have wanted. What she wanted was made clear in the will, albeit, it would seam, in a manner which was not legally binding.

 

Totally shoddy and underhand practice from a totally shoddy and underhand organisation, IMHO.

 

Anyway, what do they need the money for, financing a certain legal action about the naming of a National Park family member perhaps?

[marshman]

This topic is now closed - apart from the fact that the info in the previous post is almost all totally wrong!!!!

 

Back to the Broads now!!! 

[Soundings]

You are wrong, Paul. I have just been a party to a will where a deed of variation has been executed by the Executors with the blessing of all beneficiaries. This variation actually "changed" the will significantly and some beneficiaries therefore received less. It can be done where a good case can be put forward and who is going to challenge that variation other than the beneficiaries (and they won't as they agreed to it).

 

What we have to remember re charities is they are not there to look after peoples estates or part thereof (not unless that is the objective in the deed). I doubt if this gift to the RSPB was a legally binding arrangement in perpetuity. To be honest I do not think any charitable trust would accept a gift on that basis for they must remain free to manage that asset in line with their overall objectives. That is why trusts sometimes sell assets off.

 

Sorry Marshman we crossed but this post is more about varying a will.

[JawsOrca]

Guys please Iain has asked for this to be enough as we can rightly or wrongly talk for ever please...

 

[BroadScot]

Hi folks,

 

I have never locked or deleted a thread yet, and would not like to begin now. I IMHO could see where this thread was going, so I asked I think politely, to let it rest.

 

So I will ask again, please its zzzzzzz time. Thank you.

 

 

Iain.