7 invoices during Wirral Council’s “spending freeze” are they all essential spending?

7 invoices during Wirral Council’s “spending freeze” are they all essential spending?

7 invoices during Wirral Council’s “spending freeze” are they all essential spending?

                           

Wirral Council’s Cabinet recently voted to consult on closing Lyndale School because of a projected shortfall this year in Lyndale School’s budget of £15,667 and next year of £72,000.

The Wirral Council invoices below are all for 2013, after Wirral Council instituted a freeze on “non-essential spending” in the Autumn of 2012. As usual you can click on the thumbnails for larger versions of the invoices. What is or isn’t “essential spending” is quite subjective, but if you have a strong opinion on way or the other please leave a comment.

Invoice 1

This is for £64,800 to a London-based company called The Ten Group Limited. The invoice is for answering governors questions at a one hundred and twenty Wirral schools. Surely Wirral Council could either direct governors questions to the Wirral Schools Forum or its own officers to answer? Even hiring someone full-time to answer governors questions would be cheaper than outsourcing it!

Invoice 2A/2B

The first of these two invoices is to a Rotherham based company called U-xplore Ltd for £23,256 for renewal of twenty-four full U-Explore licences. It’s for online careers advice. The company also charged £1,720.80 for “one month hosting” although what they’re hosting isn’t specified on the invoice. As part of the Greater Merseyside Connexions Partnership Wirral Council already contract with Connexions for careers advice who provide a jobs explorer database to schools and colleges, access to software, as well as face to face careers advice. So why the duplication?

Wirral Council U Xplore invoice February 2013 Wirral Council U Xplore invoice February 2013 (2)

Invoice 3A/3B

These two invoices total £10,368 to Theatre and Ltd (based in Huddersfield). It is for a four-day safeguarding think family training workshop. The money is for development, scripting, rehearsal and includes £249.60 in travel & mileage costs. Couldn’t Wirral have hired a more local company (which would’ve meant a saving on mileage) & surely everything anybody needs to know about safeguarding could be covered in a course of less than four days? I’m sure a local college or university could have put on a bespoke workshop for less than £10,000! Finally how many people actually went on this workshop?

Wirral Council Theatre and invoice January 2013 Wirral Council Theatre and invoice March 2013

Invoice 4

This invoice is from Wirral Metropolitan College for £3,240 for 27 hours of training about home based caring for up to twenty people for a course run over ten days for staff in the Wirral Council’s Surestart team. It ties in with my point about the earlier invoice that Wirral Council can get training from local providers cheaper and with the added bonus of supporting local employment!

Wirral Council Wirral Metropolitan College invoice March 2013

Invoice 5

This is for £1,194 to Veryan for a “Veryan WorkPlace annual licence”. Veryan is a Hampshire based software company and workplace is a piece of software to manage work experience placements. I don’t have a problem with using software for this, although it’s the kind of simple application based on a database that Wirral Council could easily write in-house (which would save the cost of an annual licence fee).

Wirral Council Veryan invoice February 2013

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

Is the Lyndale School call in going to the wrong Wirral Council committee?

Is the Lyndale School call in going to the wrong Wirral Council committee?

Is the Lyndale School call in going to the wrong Wirral Council committee?

                        

Labour's Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) explains at a Wirral Council Cabinet meeting why he thinks the Cabinet should agree to consultation on closure of Lyndale School
Labour’s Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) explaining at a Wirral Council Cabinet meeting why he thinks the Cabinet should agree to consultation on closure of Lyndale School

The start of this story goes all the way back to my teenage years when a Labour government was elected in 1997 having used the slogan “education, education, education” during their election campaign. A few years after being elected, Labour’s Estelle Morris, a Minister in the Department for Education and Employment brought in legislation called The Education (Parent Governor Representatives) Regulations 1999. As explained in the explanatory notes, “These Regulations make provision for representatives of parent governors at maintained schools to be included in the education committees of local education authorities” and “Regulation 10 sets out the voting rights of a parent governor representative. Such a person may vote, broadly, on any matter related to the local education authority’s schools and pupils, save that he may not vote on the determination of the authority’s budget.”

Two years after these regulations became law, there was a judicial review case involving them Transport and General Workers Union and Hilary Hollington v Wallsall Metropolitan Borough Council [2001] EWHC Admin 452. Wallsall Metropolitan Borough Council’s Education and Community Services Committee had voted eleven to nine to outsource the school meals service to P Martin & Sons (Trefonen) Limited which had previously been provided by the Council’s Direct Services Labour Organisation. The parent governor representatives (numbering three) had been told at the meeting that they couldn’t vote on the catering contract decision, but had wanted to vote against contracting the service out. If the parent governor representatives had been allowed to vote the result would’ve been different.

The result of this case was that the High Court Judge in the case quashed the decision of the committee and granted a declaration that the contract between Wallsall Metropolitan Borough Council and P Martin & Sons (Trefonen) Limited was void. Wallsall Metropolitan Borough Council (as the losing party) had to pay the other sides’ legal costs of £15,649.83 and permission to appeal was denied.

Wirral Council is a local education authority and its Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee has the legal minimum of two parent governor representatives (with voting rights on education matters). The Church of England diocese representative is currently vacant but it also has one Roman Catholic representative with voting rights.

When the decision to consult on closing Lyndale School was called in (there are previous blog posts on the original Cabinet decision and some reasons why it should be called in) under the new constitution agreed by Wirral Council last year, the call in (at least at the point of writing) is down to be reviewed at a meeting of the Coordinating Committee on the 5th February.

The Coordinating Committee (comprising 15 councillors) has a split of 9 Labour councillors, 5 Conservative councillors and 1 Lib Dem. The Labour Chair also has a casting vote in the event of a tied vote.

The Families and Wellbeing Committee (comprising 15 councillors plus co-optees) has a split of 9 Labour councillors, 5 Conservative councillors and 1 Lib Dem. There are also two parent governor representatives (Mrs Nicola Smith and Mrs H Shoebridge both of them have voting rights) and a Roman Catholic Diocesan representative Mr Damian Cunningham (who also has voting rights). The Chair (who has a casting vote in the event of a tied vote) is a Conservative.

If the call in goes to the Coordinating Committee, the nine Labour councillors can just vote to uphold the Labour Cabinet’s decision as nine is a majority on a fifteen person committee.

However if the call in goes to be decided at the Families and Wellbeing Committee, then Labour councillors only have half the votes (nine out of eighteen) on that committee. If the call in went to this committee and Labour councillors voted to uphold the Cabinet’s decision that would be only nine votes. If the Conservative councillors, plus the Lib Dem councillor, plus the parent governor representative and Roman Catholic Diocesan representative voted to send the decision back to Cabinet to be changed, then there would be a deadlock of nine votes either way. In this case the Conservative Chair would have a casting vote, which is usually used in the same way that that councillor originally voted.

Regulation 3 of the Education (Parent Governor Representatives) Regulations 1999 states “A local education authority shall appoint at least two but not more than five parent governor representatives to each relevant committee of the authority” and “relevant committee” is defined as here as “a committee appointed by a local authority, or by two or more local authorities, in accordance with section 102 of the Local Government Act 1972 wholly or partly for the purpose of discharging any functions which are conferred on the local authority or authorities in its or their capacity as a local education authority or authorities, but it does not include any committee the decisions of which are subject to scrutiny by another committee which is itself a relevant committee.”

So, is the Coordinating Committee making a decision whether or not to uphold the Cabinet decision to consult on closing Lyndale School a function conferred on Wirral Council in its capacity as a local education authority? Yes it is.

Does the Coordinating Committee have parent governor representatives on it? No.

Regulation 10 of the Education (Parent Governor Representatives) Regulations 1999 seems to be quite clear:

Voting rights of parent governor representatives

10. (1) Subject to paragraph (2), a parent governor representative shall be entitled to vote on any of the following matters—

(a) matters which relate to schools maintained by the local education authority;
(b) matters which relate to pupils who are educated in schools maintained by the local education authority, or who are educated by the local education authority otherwise than at school.

(2) A parent governor representative shall not be entitled to vote on the determination of the local education authority’s total revenue expenditure on education or the determination of its total capital expenditure on education.

So I handed the following letter to the Chair of the Coordinating Committee Cllr Stuart Whittingham on the evening of 29th January, who has passed it to Surjit Tour. I had a brief discussion with Cllr Stuart Whittingham after the end of the Transformation and Resources Policy and Performance Committee. Despite reading my letter, he felt confident that the call-in would be decided by the Coordinating Committee on the 5th February.

Strangely a new meeting of the Families and Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee appears in the calendar for the 6th February, however as no agenda has been published I cannot say whether this is related to the call in.

Jenmaleo,
134 Boundary Road,
Bidston,
Wirral,
CH43 7PH

29th January 2014

RE: Lyndale School call in

Dear Cllr Whittingham,
I notice that a meeting of the Coordinating Committee is scheduled on the 5th February to consider the Lyndale School call in.

The Education (Parent Governor Representatives) Regulations 1999 require each “relevant committee” of Wirral Council to have between 2-5 parent governor representatives with voting rights.

“Relevant committee” is defined as a committee that discharges any functions conferred on the authority through it being a local education authority. The Coordinating Committee has no such parent governor representative on it, therefore why is this call in not being decided by the Families and Wellbeing Policy and Performance Committee?

I would appreciate an answer to this point as soon as possible. My email address is john.brace@gmail.com .

Yours sincerely,

John Brace

So far at the time of writing this (on the afternoon of the 30th January) I have not yet received a reply.

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

Politicians Paint A Picture to Public of Plenty of Pavement Parking Problems at Policy and Performance Committee

Politicians Paint A Picture to Public of Plenty of Pavement Parking Problems at Policy and Performance Committee

Politicians Paint A Picture to Public of Plenty of Pavement Parking Problems at Policy and Performance Committee

                       

Cllr David Elderton shows photos of pavement parking problems to the politicians on Wirral Council's Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee
Cllr David Elderton shows photos of pavement parking problems to the politicians on Wirral Council’s Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Video of the item on parking on pavements and grass verges starts at 5:00

Councillors on Wirral Council’s Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee received an update on parking on pavements and grass verges.

Some councillors were most put out at what they saw as a lack of enforcement action on pavement parkers in the patch they represent. Officers of Wirral Council said that apart from places where there was a traffic regulation order, single yellow or double yellow line that enforcement of pavement parking was down to the police.

However the police saw matters such as pavement parking as a low priority. Wirral Council had piloted nine areas where traffic regulation orders restricted pavement parking. Since the summer, they had also placed over a hundred warning notices on cars parked on the pavement.

Damage to grass verges, pavements, underground services and the Council’s insurance costs for highway related tripping accidents were also discussed. Councillors eventually decided (as there was nothing in the budget for this item) to refer the matter to the next meeting of Constituency Committees to deal with as they see fit.

Cllr Jerry Williams said, “In Bebington this is one of the major issues. We get more complaints about verges and parking issues than anything else at all and it’s because you know people are parking on verges, pavements not where we’ve got difficult circumstances of 1920s houses, it’s where you’ve got a road where it’s five car widths wide and they’re parking their cars on the pavements and verges and a good example in Bebington is Teehey Lane shops, just had a few thousand pounds spent on it in relation to broken pavings. Again the issues of people with disabilities tripping and other people. The next thing you know the milk lorries are driving on at seven o’clock in the morning when I’m running down the road, driving on the pavements damaging the pavements again.”

“Let’s also have a go at these utility companies. We all know who are the worst offenders. Who do I think is the worst offender? Without any question of a doubt BT Openreach. They are the worst, every time the Council officers go onto them to ask for some sort of regulation, they certainly say we’ve discussed it with the operatives, things are going to be done. The next thing you know, we’ve asked the officers you see them parking on the pavement!”

Cllr David Elderton said, “I’d put this on the screen but frankly I can’t put a USB on at the moment. That photograph of … situation where he showed the problem of putting stickers on people’s cars causing a major obstruction. That did help and the press release that came out on the 18th July last year did also enhance things for a while and as you will know I kept this next to my heart in my wallet even the ticket that you’re supposed to put under the windscreen of a car.

So that wasn’t a good idea. In my opinion we’ve lost the way, we’ve lost the emphasis on it completely. It’s no longer being managed and controlled in the way that I believe it should be.”

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

Merseyside’s Chief Fire Officer Dan Stephens answers councillor’s questions about proposed closures of Wirral’s Fire Stations

Merseyside’s Chief Fire Officer Dan Stephens answers councillor’s questions about proposed closures of Wirral’s Fire Stations

Merseyside’s Chief Fire Officer Dan Stephens answers councillor’s questions about proposed closures of Wirral’s Fire Stations

                         

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service's Chief Fire Officer Dan Stephens Answering Wirral's Councillors Questions About Fire Service Cuts On Wirral
Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service’s Chief Fire Officer Dan Stephens Answering Wirral’s Councillors Questions About Fire Service Cuts On Wirral

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Dan Stephens, Chief Fire Officer for Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service gave a presentation to Wirral Council’s Regeneration and Environment Committee on his “least worst operational response options”. He explained that due to budget cuts, if they could get the land (and money from government) to build a new fire station in Greasby that this would lead to the closure of fire stations at West Kirby and Upton.

He described in detail the various options to save money instead of station mergers, which ranged from only crewing stations during the day to just having firefighters on call (which would lead to a further five-minute delay in responding to emergencies and less time for training).

Dan Stephens in his presentation said that on fire station closures “as much as this is a very unpalatable option it may be inevitable especially in light of forecasted cuts until 2020”. During his presentation at each point he mentioned cuts to the fire service’s budget by the government Cllr Harry Smith (who wasn’t on the committee but just there to watch) heckled with a loud one word heckle of “criminal”.

The Chair asked Dan Stephens a question about how response times would be affected if they closed Upton and West Kirby stations and built a new one in Greasby. Dan Stephens said that it was difficult to predict, but there would be a slight increase in average response time to both areas. Some areas would see a faster response time and other areas would see a longer response. He believed the average response time would increase by an extra ten seconds to five minutes twenty-five seconds.

The Chief Fire Officer was then asked by the Chair about the likelihood of getting capital funding for a new fire station at Greasby. Dan Stephens answered that Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service would be bidding for the money along with other fire authorities, however the bids would be judged on projected efficiencies.

Cllr Steve Foulkes thanked Dan Stephens for his presentation. Cllr Steve Foulkes asked why the cuts to Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service were more than the cuts to other fire authorities and asked what percentage change in the precept would be needed to prevent the need for any cuts.

Dan Stephens said it would take a thirty-seven percent increase in the precept to prevent the need for cuts. He said that for every one percent increase in the precept they would raise an extra 67 pence per a Merseyside household.

On Cllr Foulkes’ other question he said that after World War II, the fire service moved from central government control to the control of local authorities. At this time they set national standards of fire cover. In the 1950s there had been lots of heavy industry on Merseyside for example docks. Call outs to industrial areas required a response of two fire engines within five minutes and one within eight minutes. The Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service was therefore designed to combat the risk that existed back in the 1950s. The Merseyside population in the 1950s was 1.7 million, now was only 1.385 million.

In 2004 the old Fire Service Act was repealed and the standards of fire cover went too. Population based funding came in, which made Merseyside very expensive per a head of population. Although Merseyside got extra funding based on deprivation this didn’t totally offset the loss of funding.

Cllr Brian Kenny (not a member of the committee but Cabinet Member for Environment and Sustainability) thanked Dan Stephens and asked when they would make final decisions on the cuts. Dan Stephens answered that the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority would set its 2014/15 budget at its budget meeting on the 22nd February 2014. He explained that although the changes to Wirral’s fire stations wouldn’t happen until 2015/16 that they needed to start now on implementation as it would take between eighteen months and two years to build a new fire station. Dan Stephens said that they needed to look into whether they could secure land in Greasby, once this was established they would go to public consultation.

The Chief Fire Officer estimated that they would know within three months whether they would be able to buy the land for a new fire station in Greasby. After public consultation if a decision was made to go ahead, then it would take a year to build a new station. He said that they were working with Wirral Council to try to secure land.

Cllr David Elderton said that if the two fire stations at Upton and West Kirby were merged at Greasby that he was concerned about the effect on response times to call outs to Hoylake. Dan Stephens said that “Greasby is the best operational location” and explained how some of the alternatives to a merger would also impact response times.

Cllr Steve Foulkes asked what the impact of the cuts would be on fire prevention such as fitting free smoke alarms. Dan Stephens said they had cut ninety jobs which included those in advocacy roles. He explained that with agreement with the Fire Brigade Union that they had changed shift patterns. The savings from this offset the total savings they needed to make. He said they would maximise the amount of time they could spend on fire prevention but that there would still be cuts to this area.

The Chair thanked the Chief Fire Officer Dan Stephens for answering questions from councillors.

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

Birkenhead Market Limited Accounts: Is This The Reason Behind Neptune’s Masterplan?

Birkenhead Market Limited Accounts: Is This The Reason Behind Neptune’s Masterplan?

Birkenhead Market Limited Accounts: Is This The Reason Behind Neptune’s Masterplan?

                             

Following a previous story on this blog about Birkenhead Market, someone suggested I look at the accounts for Birkenhead Market Limited so I decided to request the latest set of accounts for Birkenhead Market Limited from Companies House.

The accounts make for very interesting reading and may be why Neptune Developments Limited was asked by Wirral Council’s Cabinet to come up with a master plan for Birkenhead Market.

A copy of the latest unaudited accounts (for the year ending 31st July 2012) are below.

Registered number: 04403580

BIRKENHEAD MARKET LIMITED

UNAUDITED

ABBREVIATED ACCOUNTS

FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 JULY 2012

________________________________________________________________________________

BIRKENHEAD MARKET LIMITED

REGISTERED NUMBER: 04403580

________________________________________________________________________________

ABBREVIATED BALANCE SHEET

AS AT 31 JULY 2012

________________________________________________________________________________

2012 2011
Note £ £ £ £
FIXED ASSETS
Intangible assets 2 1 1
Tangible assets 3 1,741,325 1,799,446
Investments 4 1 1
_________ _________
1,741,327 1,799,448
CURRENT ASSETS
Debtors 5 26,148 36,138
Cash at bank and in hand 59,931 101,441
_________ _________
86,079 137,579
CREDITORS: amounts falling due within one year 6 (4,308,952) (4,365,582)
_____________ _____________
NET CURRENT LIABILITIES (4,222,873) (4,228,003)
_____________ _____________
NET LIABILITIES (2,481,546) (2,428,555)
_____________ _____________
CAPITAL AND RESERVES
Called up share capital 7 10,000 10,000
Profit and loss account (2,491,546) (2,438,555)
_____________ _____________
SHAREHOLDERS’ DEFICIT (2,481,546) (2,428,555)
_____________ _____________

The directors consider that the company is entitled to exemption from the requirement to have an audit under the provisions of section 477 of the Companies Act 2006 (“the Act”) and members have not required the company to obtain an audit for the year in question in accordance with section 476 of the Act.

The directors acknowledge their responsibilities for complying with the requirements of the Companies Act 2006 with respect to accounting records and for preparing financial statements which give a true and fair state of affairs of the company as at 31 July 2012 and of its loss for the year in accordance with the requirements of section 394 and 395 of the Act and which otherwise comply with the requirements of the Companies Act 2006 relating to financial statements, so far as applicable to the company.

The abbreviated accounts, which have been prepared in accordance with the special provisions relating to companies subject to the small companies regime within part 15 of the Companies Act 2006, were approved and authorised for issue by the board and were signed off on its behalf on 24 April 2013.

(signature of LD Embra)

Mr L D Embra

Director

The notes on pages 2 to 5 form part of these financial statements.

________________________________________________________________________________

BIRKENHEAD MARKET LIMITED

________________________________________________________________________________

NOTES TO THE ABBREVIATED ACCOUNTS

FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 JULY 2012

________________________________________________________________________________
1. ACCOUNTING POLICIES

1.1 Basis of preparation of financial statements

The full financial statements, from which these abbreviated accounts have been extracted, have been prepared under the historical cost convention and in accordance with the Financial Reporting for Smaller Entities (effective April 2008).

1.2 Going concern

The company meets its day to day working capital requirements through a combination of bank loans and overdraft facility. The company is currently in discussions with its bankers regarding the term of its loan and believes from current discussions with its bankers that the loan will be renewed on a basis that will enable the company to meet its liabilities as and when they fall due over at least the next 12 months. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that would result from the withdrawal of support from the company’s bankers. The directors therefore consider the going concern basis of accounting to be an appropriate basis to produce the financial statements.

While the company does have net liabilities at 31 July 2012 of £2,481,546, the balance sheet includes leasehold property at a historical cost carrying value of £1,683,406 in respect of an asset which is considered by the directors to have a considerably higher current market value.

1.3 Turnover

Turnover comprises revenue recognised by the company in respect of goods and services supplied during the year, exclusive of Value Added Tax and trade discounts.

1.4 Intangible fixed assets and amortisation

Goodwill is the difference between amounts paid on the acquisition of a business and the fair value of the identifiable assets and liabilities. It is amortised to the Profit and loss account over its estimated economic life.

1.5 Tangible fixed assets and depreciation

Tangible fixed assets are stated at cost less depreciation. Depreciation is provided at rates calculated to write off the cost of fixed assets, less their estimated residual value, over their expected useful lives on the following bases

L/Term Leasehold Property – 50 years straight line
Fixtures and fittings – 25% reducing balance

1.6 Investments

Investments held as fixed assets are shown at cost less provision for impairment.

________________________________________________________________________________

BIRKENHEAD MARKET LIMITED

________________________________________________________________________________

NOTES TO THE ABBREVIATED ACCOUNTS

FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 JULY 2012

________________________________________________________________________________

2. INTANGIBLE FIXED ASSETS

£
Cost
At 1 August 2011 and 31 July 2012 1
_________
Net book value
At 31 July 2012 1
_________
At 31 July 2011 1
_________

3. TANGIBLE FIXED ASSETS

£
Cost
At 1 August 2011 2,747,799
Additions 2,250
___________
At 31 July 2012 2,750,049
Depreciation
At 1 August 2011 948,353
Charge for the year 60,371
___________
At 31 July 2012 1,008,724
___________
Net book value
At 31 July 2012 1,741,325
___________
At 31 July 2011 1,799,446
___________

Under the small companies regime the company is exempt from preparing consolidated accounts and has not done so, therefore the accounts show information about the company as an individual entity.

3. FIXED ASSET INVESTMENTS

£
Cost or valuation
At 1 August 2011 and 31 July 2012 1
___________
Net book value
At 31 July 2012 1
___________
At 31 July 2011 1
___________

________________________________________________________________________________

BIRKENHEAD MARKET LIMITED

________________________________________________________________________________

NOTES TO THE ABBREVIATED ACCOUNTS

FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 JULY 2012

________________________________________________________________________________

4. FIXED ASSET INVESTMENTS (continued)
Subsidiary undertakings
The following were subsidiary undertakings of the company.

The aggregate of the share capital and reserves as at 31 July 2012 and of the profit or loss for the year ended on that date for the subsidiary undertakings were as follows.

Name Aggregate of share capital and reserves Profit/(loss)
£ £
Birkenhead Market Services Limited 189,459 (48,927)
___________ ___________

Under the small companies regime the company is exempt from preparing consolidated accounts and has not done so, therefore the accounts show information about the company as an individual entity.

5. DEBTORS

Included within other debtors are loans to the following related companies Liverpool Developments (2001) Limited, London Provincial and Overseas Limited, Europa Plaza Developments Limited, Jelder Consultants Limited and Landmark Projects and Developments Limited.

During the year to 31 July 2012 a provision was made against accrued interest of £12,600 due from Liverpool Developments (2001) Limited. Interest is charged on the fully provided outstanding loan balance at the rate of 7%. The charge for the year ended 31 July 2012 was £12,600.

During the year to 31 July 2012 a provision was made against accrued interest of £29,721 due from London Provincial and Overseas Limited. Interest is charged on the fully provided outstanding loan balance at the rate of 7%. The charge for the year ended 31 July 2012 was £29,721.

During the year to 31 July 2012 a provision was made against accrued interest of £735 due from Europa Plaza Developments Limited. Interest is charged on the fully provided outstanding loan balance at the rate of 7%. The charge for the year ended 31 July 2012 was £735.

During the year to 31 July 2012 a provision was made against accrued interest of £109,152 due from Jelder Consultants Limited. Interest is charged on the fully provided outstanding loan balance at the rate of 7%. The charge for the year ended 31 July 2012 was £109,152.

All of the above loans and associated accrued interest are still due and payable to the company. All amounts have been provided against on the grounds of prudence, due to uncertainty over recoverability.

________________________________________________________________________________

BIRKENHEAD MARKET LIMITED

________________________________________________________________________________

NOTES TO THE ABBREVIATED ACCOUNTS

FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 JULY 2012

________________________________________________________________________________

6. CREDITORS
Amounts falling due within one year

The bank loan and overdraft facility are secured by a first legal charge over the property and its associated asset, debentures by, and unlimited cross guarantees by and between the Borrower and Birkenhead Market Services Limited and a guarantee for £150,000 by Mr L D Embra.

7. SHARE CAPITAL

2012 2011
£ £
Allotted, called up and fully paid
10,000 Ordinary shares of £1 each 10,000 10,000
___________ ___________

DIRECTOR’s BENEFITS: ADVANCES, CREDIT AND GUARANTEES
The balance on Mr D F Doyle’s loan account is £nil (2011 £4,588). The maximum amount due in the year was £4,588. No interest was charged during the year.

The balance on Mr J E Richardson’s loan account is £5,000 (2011 £3,000). The maximum amount due in the year was £5,000. No interest was charged during the year.

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks: