Jump to content

Search personnel required - apply within


D'Artagnan

Recommended Posts

Our intrepid PZJ is in need of assistance – anyone with a modicum of search experience would be most warmly welcomed. That GCC geotechnical report for Westhorn and other sites, alluded to in my previous blogs on behalf of PZJ – has proven it’s adept ability for elusiveness.

On the 16th October, 2013, PZJ wrote to GCC as follows :

“I have asked, and you have constantly failed to provide solid proof, that the geotechnical report be fully disclosed to the general public for perusal.”

GCC responded as follows :

“As advised in our earlier letter to you of 11 September 2013, in accordance the decision of the Court of Session set out in Glasgow City Council and Dundee City Council v Scottish Information [2009] CSIH 73, you have the right to the information set out in a requested document, but not to the actual document itself. We therefore provided you with an extract from the geotechnical report and set out the basis upon which a valuation was agreed for the site. I agree with the decision that was made in our earlier response to release an extract of the report to you “

Only that extract was never received in the subsequent correspondence. PZJ’s attempts to obtain same thereafter were met with a stony wall of silence.

Perhaps we should all come to PZJ’s assistance and ask for an extract into the geotechnical report regarding Westhorn – one which reveals the level and nature of the bio-checmical (or otherwise) contamination at Westhorn as calculated by the Council’s surveyors.

This can be done be sending an e-mail to

foi@glasgow.gov.uk

But I’m afraid there is more work for those of you with a penchant for searching and finding things, as PZJ appears to have found another anomaly in his investigation.

The London Road School was acquired by GCC as part of a Compulsory Purchase Order (dates and costs have been requested under FOI). Having decided in due course that they no longer required this land, GCC were bound by what is known as Crichel Down Rules

...down_rules.aspx

to offer first refusal on the subsequent sale of the property to those from whom the land was acquired – in this case Celtic FC.

A GCC Executive Committee document dated 19th January, 2007 confirms same.

19-january-option-given-on-lrps-3-yrs.png?w=750

This is further confirmed by a later GCC Executive Committee meeting.

http://www.glasgow.g...

Note section 4 of this report where it refers to the London Road School.

GCC Executive Committee of 19th January 2007 approved an option for

Celtic PLC to acquire the former London Road Primary School at a cost of

£300,000 with the price being uplifted from the date of the option contract

( 01 April 2009) until the date of settlement.

Celtic PLC has confirmed to the Council it wishes to exercise this option.

Celtic PLC has agreed to pay £300,000 plus RPI from the 01 April 2009

until the date of settlement. The RPI has been calculated by City Property

at £57,000 (to 31st October 2013) resulting in a total sale price of

£357,000. The RPI figure will require to be further uplifted following formal

agreement on the date of settlement.

The RPI is based from ist April 2009 until 31st October 2013. There is no mention or explanation regarding the apparent ignoring of the previous commitment to the 3 year option of 19th January 2007.

But the confusion does not end there.

On the 8th October, 2013, PZJ wrote to GCC seeking clarification on the London Road School.

He received the following response on the 12th November, 2013..

“You have been advised in previous correspondence from the Council that the former London Road School site has not been sold to Celtic Football Club. As you are now aware, an option to purchase has been granted to the football club and expires in April 2014

Therefore anyone who can find minutes of a GCC meeting approving an extension on the previous 3 year option to buy from 19th January, 2007, and the grounds for such an extension being granted – your help would be greatly appreciated.

foi@glasgow.gov.uk

Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone mentioned earlier that there may have been related Health and Safety issues regarding these agreements hence the lower valuations.

Perhaps some of the posters on here who live in the general area could ask questions of their local MP or the HSE to find some clarification of what these issues were, and if they existed in other places in the local area ?

http://www.hse.gov.uk/foi/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone mentioned earlier that there may have been related Health and Safety issues regarding these agreements hence the lower valuations.

Perhaps some of the posters on here who live in the general area could ask questions of their local MP or the HSE to find some clarification of what these issues were, and if they existed in other places in the local area ?

http://www.hse.gov.uk/foi/

I asked in a prvious blog bud

Someone mentioned earlier that there may have been related Health and Safety issues regarding these agreements hence the lower valuations.

Perhaps some of the posters on here who live in the general area could ask questions of their local MP or the HSE to find some clarification of what these issues were, and if they existed in other places in the local area ?

http://www.hse.gov.uk/foi/

I asked in a previous blog bud if this was the reason they appeared so reluctant to disclose details.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked in a prvious blog bud

I asked in a previous blog bud if this was the reason they appeared so reluctant to disclose details.

Difficult working round these buggers and ultimately they are paid by us and should be working for the common interest without bias.

Is there any clear identification of this "Celtic Triangle" anywhere, and who owns all that land and property. That could help, as it would appear to have areas which did not and do not have any ownership by Celtic, yet they are being given special privileges/discounts to buy in those areas without competition and at discounted prices. Effectively a monopoly interest by agreement, equivalent to price fixing.

Anyone with any interest in property or investment should be legally entitled to bid on those, especially at the discount rates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Difficult working round these buggers and ultimately they are paid by us and should be working for the common interest without bias.

Is there any clear identification of this "Celtic Triangle" anywhere, and who owns all that land and property. That could help, as it would appear to have areas which did not and do not have any ownership by Celtic, yet they are being given special privileges/discounts to buy in those areas without competition and at discounted prices. Effectively a monopoly interest by agreement, equivalent to price fixing.

Anyone with any interest in property or investment should be legally entitled to bid on those, especially at the discount rates.

In fairness to GCC T - they have followed correct procedure on the London Road School as per the Crichel Down regulations - thought the obvious extension to these agreement and the grounds for it being granted are yet to be disclosed.

Only they can answer why the other properties were not marketed for sale to the general population

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have had a quick read though and the bit that sticks out or m is the following.

Plot D

This was formerly part of a slightly larger site for which the Council could

not find any ownership details. Celtic PLC subsequently proved title to a

part of the site, however, further property searches carried out in respect

of the remainder were inconclusive.

Just how much of that site did c****c actually own and just how hard did GCC try to find out who legally owned the rest? Perhaps I'm being a tad naïve here, but surely c****c should only be granted the re-purchase option on the percentage of the land that they had originally held deeds on?

Is my understanding that the section of this plot that could not have ownership details located was then taken by he GCC for free and then sold on to c****c? If so what happens if somebody comes along and can prove that they owned the land and alleges that insufficient effort was made to locate and contact them? I know that this may be a rather thin point, but so much of this business seems is totally knew to the bulk of folk like myself who have no previous knowledge of how the system works with regards to compulsory purchase, land valuations and so on.

Should be a dawdle for the average property lawyer or historian to do a land search on what are some of the most well known areas in Glasgow. Anyone willing. (I would not have a clue unfortunately, but would be happy with some advice on this thread perhaps ?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

D, just so I'm following this.

Are GCC saying it was sold at a very low price because it was contaminated which would mean it would cost any buyers a considerable amount to fix hence the low price?

Are GCC also saying that PZJ was sent information about the contaminants and their toxicity levels?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tannerall - it's not always possible to work out who owns a bit of land, especially if it hasn't been conveyed for years. In this case I'd be very surprised if you could come up with anything definitive without a lot of searching, and even then you might draw a blank.

What will have happened is that the council will have conveyed the land without a demonstrable title. The council won't have given that lot any title warranties or title guarantee. The scum wouldn't have cared though - all they would have wanted is a title capable of being registered so as to start the process of prescription. Basically, once their title has been on the registers for 10 years if no one has challenged it then it becomes bullet proof.

It used to be pretty common for dispositions to be granted without a proper title but this was so open to abuse and Registers of Scotland have tightened up on it. Now, before they will accept a disposition in these circumstances you normally need to demonstrate the enquiries you have carried out. If an owner can be identified Registers will tell you to go speak to the, and won't accept your disposition.

If the land was truly without an owner then it should arguably have fallen to the Crown. In this case however I suspect the council and the scum were arguing that one of them probably owned it and it just wasn't clear from the old descriptions in the title deeds - all a tidying up exercise...

If an owner was to come along they could challenge the scum's title within the 10 years. The council would be clean because no guarantees have been given to the scum. Registers of Scotland almost certainly excluded their usual indemnity in respect of the land so they'd be in the clear as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/18009/1/GlasSoilOR08002.pdf

At the top of page 40 there is a table relating to Westhorn suggesting that the land contains Bismuth.

This is a general geotech report as far as I can make out and not done for the land valaution as far as I am aware.

When I checked this substance out on wikipedia it seems to be a heavy metal with little toxicity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://nora.nerc.ac....SoilOR08002.pdf

At the top of page 40 there is a table relating to Westhorn suggesting that the land contains Bismuth.

This is a general geotech report as far as I can make out and not done for the land valaution as far as I am aware.

When I checked this substance out on wikipedia it seems to be a heavy metal with little toxicity.

Dont stop PZJ and D;art all these low count posters trying to suggest Savco fc are in the clear is almost proof in itself

keep digging guys and let us know what we can do to help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

D, just so I'm following this.

Are GCC saying it was sold at a very low price because it was contaminated which would mean it would cost any buyers a considerable amount to fix hence the low price?

Are GCC also saying that PZJ was sent information about the contaminants and their toxicity levels?

Yes thats about it Peter. However they refused to disclose the Geotechnical Report which apparently details what they refer to as the "abnormals" or contamination at the site - instead promising an extract of that report which PZJ states was never forthcoming

Link to post
Share on other sites

amazing all these low count posters trying to say nothing to see here. :pipe:

(tu) thanks for all your hard work and ignore those above trying to stop you in your search

Exactly what I was thinking, seems to be more of a cant do than can, surely worth trying to actually do it before saying searches would be unsuccessful etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies if my original post and the point I was trying to make were confusing.

The point I was trying to make in my post, is that the cost of the land was potentially reduced due to 'contamination'.

Although I don't post a lot I do read the BD posts every day. The topic is 'search personnel required' and the results I posted were only meant to reflect the request around geotech reports.

The only thing I could find in a general geotech report was Bismuth which is a heavy metal similar to lead but with very little toxicicty.

My thoughts were that a metal with very little toxicity (ie not particularly problematic) could not have been cited as a reason for the reduction in cost of the land.

So it it wasn't Bismuth what was it that caused them to reduce the costs?

I find this strange, if this is the only unusual substance found they perhaps got a reduction for something which was insignificant.

Is this another dubious part of the transaction?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be over the moon if they are shown to have been in cahoots with GCC and get a heavy fine. Justice could never be more poetic.

Further up the thread it was suggested that it would be easy for a reader to trace the title. It was also asked what the deal would be if it turned out the scum didn't actually own the land. Pre-recession I was involved in this type of work for more than ten years and just tried to answer those questions. It's somewhat self defeating for the guys trying to publicise this stuff if, when posters like me get involved, folk question our motives.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...