United Kingdom: ME Association governance issues

This is the 2007 version in case anyone wants to read it.

 

Around 5000, but we don't know what % of those signing are members.

 

Yes, there is no version between 2007 and 2013 on Companies House.

The CC site says "...INCORPORATED 16TH MARCH 1989 AS AMENDED BY SPECIAL RESOLUTIONS DATED 15TH JUNE 1991, 14TH JULY 2001 AND 3RD SEPTEMBER 2005. AS AMENDED BY SPECIAL RESOLUTION(S) DATED 18/11/2014"

but does not mention the 2007 version, although there is a dated 2007 version on the CH Filing History (on page 3). It only mentions the 2005 version (page 4 on CH but not the full document, just the Resolutions).

(Why the hell don't they date them all?)

The PDF file that MEA has uploaded to replace the "incorrect" 2014 file is dated: 05-12-13.

You'd think that might have alerted whoever uploaded it that it wasn't a 2014 version - but then if they really had sent the wrong version to CH why did they not take it off and get it sorted rather than replace it with a document with a 2013 file name that presumably hasn't been ratified by CH as being the correct 2014 version?

https://meassociation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Articles-of-Association-05-12-2013.pdf



The 18 November 2014 version was stamped by CH on 28/11/2014 and the date on the Filing History page is "04 Dec 2014".

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/02361986/filing-history?page=2

 

That seems relevant.
It is looking very unlikely that the '2014' version at CH was a mistaken 'earlier' version then.

 

No, and presumably that's the one that was in force when the payments were made, and possibly still is?

 

Well the complaints CEO has been hoist with his own petard, hasn’t he? Egg on his face.Other English sayings for destroying himself, embarrassing himself, looking a fool also apply.

Removed any doubt that he’s unsuitable for the role he is currently undertaking.

 

Not actually sure about the this day and age. It seems to be all the rage to accuse other people of your own crimes. A number of politicians are having a great time doing just that. It even seems that in some countries a majority like that approach.

 

Presumably the version of the Articles most recently agreed by a general meeting of the association takes precedent over any different version lodged with the Charities Commission/Companies House, otherwise Trustees could alter the Articles simply by changing them after they were agreed by a general meeting and lodging the amended version with the CC.

The question is rather what are legal and constitutional implications when a charity lodges false articles.

 

Is there any suggestion that false articles were lodged. Isn't it more likely that the articles lodged in 2014 were exactly as intended but that someone has forgotten about the change from 2013?

 

I probably should not have used the word ‘false’. The most likely explanation is that there was just some confusion, perhaps I should have used the word ‘incorrect’. It sounds like the chairman is as confused as the rest of us.

 

I'm really beginning to resent the amount of time and energy the MEA has caused patients and advocates to spend this last few weeks because of their incompetence over the AGM, the Articles and the Riley magazine articles.

 

Yes, indeed. And to be fair, sometimes the pots calling the kettles black last less time than a lettuce I am told.

 

Well said

 

I am still unclear. My reading is that nobody filed anything incorrect. It seems more like someone 'forget' what had been deliberately filed, for whatever reason.

 

I am beginning to think that I should have listened a bit more to Peter White.

 

To me, a foggy bystander with a charity work history, I don’t really care if the wrong thing was filed. I don’t really think there was a conspiracy to pay cash to trustees which they don’t “deserve”, they probably did carry out work and should be paid.

what I do care about is
1) the attitude of NR and the MEA (as discussed extensively)
2) the lack of care, verging on contempt, towards members and the community (also discussed)
3) their utter incompetence at the business of running a charity - filing articles, abiding by them and giving notice of an AGM. This is basic stuff!

 

The two trustees were given specific contracts for work carried out via their respective companies for which they are directors - and these were not small sums, particularly the two contracts awarded to Martine Ainsworth-Wells (£48,000 over two years).

 

Oh wow that’s big money, I withdraw my lack of interest. This looks terrible.