Up | Home | Contact Us | Liobians' Forum     L I E F

A Series of WWW Pages Compiled and Published by John Snelson from 1996 ©     

Here is the lawyers view ....

From: Jones, Richard T. <richard.jones  ?   gb.unisys.com>
To: Liobians (E-mail) <liobians  ?   listbot.com>
Date: 26 November 1999 16:19
Subject: Liverpool Institute Funds


Liverpool Institute High School for Boys -

Since my last mail I can report as follows:-

I arranged for the Charity Commission in Liverpool to send down the Institute file to their office in London where I was able to examine it and take copies of documents. The file consisted of -

a) Two Schemes dated 8/10/93 relating to the Institute and Blackburn House
respectively.  I copied the Institute one. It solely relates to the vesting of the school
buildings (not any other funds) from the charity to the trustee of the
Liverpool School for Performing Arts.

b) Scheme dated 20/8/56 which I copied.  This is made under the 1944 Education Act to make the school a County school maintained by the Council. It is interesting in that it explains how the fund/charity arose, what it was for and how much money it then had.

The title of the principal foundation is the Liverpool Institute Educational Foundation. This comprises the Foundation called the Liverpool Institute as founded in 1837 (i.e. the actual school itself) and many scholarships from the 19th century (Holt, Henry Tate, Hugh Stowell Brown, Danson etc.)

There are also some subsidiary foundations, called Exhibitions and Prizes (Tate, Millikin, Radcliffe and Damsell)

The Council is the trustee of the whole foundation.

The income is to be applied as described in the URL attached to my last email (Prizes, grants, exhibitions, financial assistance to set up in profession or trade) . This document however, also describes who the beneficiaries are, which was unclear before. They are current pupils, or ex-pupils, who are in need of financial assistance, and who preferably live in Liverpool.

The value of the assets (apart from the school buildings and land which are not valued) was L1420-11s-4d. It was mostly invested in Liverpool Corporation stocks, many of which are irredeemable.

c) Various annual accounts, the last being dated 31/3/93 which is the set I copied.

The Principal Foundation Fund was then worth L 166,164.42. This included approx. L 13.5K annual interest , L 30K sale of assets and L 1.5K unawarded prizes (i.e. no prizes were awarded) . Some investments are still in stocks, some irredeemable, but there is approx. L 28K in LAMIT (  ?     ?   ) and L 65K in M & Funds. The prize capital is individually invested per prize in stocks.

In addition the Margaret Bryce Smith Scholarship Fund stands at L 373,207.04.

There is no further explanation or breakdown of this fund and as far as I can see, there is no reference to it in the other documents described above.


I have not been able to speak to Mr Bounds, the Chief Executive of LCC. He is due to leave the Council soon and is only working part time now. So I wrote to him asking -

1) Who are the trustees   ?  
2) What are now the objectives following the recent schemes and have there been any recent disbursements  ?  
3) What is the capital and income of the fund   ?  
4) Would the trustees consider the idea of an ad-hoc committee being set up to receive the views of interested parties, including ex-pupils, as to the use of the funds   ?  

I have had no answer yet, but the above answers 1) and 2). We know the answer to 3) as at 1993. I have asked the Charities Commission to chase up the Foundation on the unfiled accounts for subsequent years. I put 4 following the email from Iain Taylor. I did not put any particular suggestions as to the use of the funds in this initial letter.

I have not scanned these documents but if I can, will do on request and end the file by email.

I will write further when I get a response from the trustees and/or the Charities Commission.

Regards,

Richard
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Bill Carroll sagely adds ....

The main, but not too easy, task is to find ways of applying the trusts to beneficiaries that most resemble those intended by the original deeds etc.The city council cannot use the funds for its own benefit - it is the trustee,  and the Charity Commission is well aware of the problems.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Here is a summary of the responses I have had to the Liobians Robbery message

=====================================

1. The funds should be set aside to support a proper historical/heritage project about the school, and to maintain the papers held by various teachers and boys.

2. The funds should be transferred to a properly constituted Liobians Society as reserves for the sponsorship of Scholarships for talented but disadvantaged boys in the City schools … the Liobians Foundation Scholarship

3. The funds should be added to the Margaret Bryce - (does it still exist   ?   ).

4. The funds should be used to preserve records held by Stuart Christie and the Education Department.

5. A fairer way would be to share the money amongst the poorer schools.

6. We should get a lawyer Liobian to examine the Trust Deed, and tell us what the options are. Maybe we Internet Liobians should put in a few bob to support a friendly lawyer.

7. Raise awareness via the Echo (cc: the broadsheets) and Radio Merseyside and the Mersey WWW site. This would be in the form of a letter signed by all agreeing parties registered with you (me).

8. Peter Bounds must defer any decision until independent council can be appointed. Then we need to get our mits on the fund's terms of reference and make reasonable counter-proposals.

9. One thing's for sure Shorefields should NOT get the funds simply by changing their name - this is devious; the Liverpool Institute lives on in LIPA.

10. Unless Shorefields has changed dramatically since I was last in the pool I would liken it to cutting up 50 quid notes and shoving it down the plug-hole.

11. The fund is doing nothing lying idle and if someone can use it, then fingers crossed, they put it to good use.

12. Thieving T**Ts, they couldn't support the school (education Committee) but now it's gone they can steal the money accrued as a result of selling off it's heritage.

13. Surely this money should be used to preserve the school for what it was, not for the name to be stolen by a second rate comprehensive. It wouldn't be so bad if they were rescuing the name so it could "live" on, not as a marriage of convenience to grab hold of the Innys dowry.

14. The institute is a part of the Education history of Liverpool, it should be remembered as such, use this cash to commemorate the school in some way, museum display or such like, buy back some of the artefacts that were sold of and display, possibly in the LIPA so they can be back home.

15. Bluecoat has just had a massive windfall from a combination of lottery cash and European slush fund handout, to restore the school how things have changed, the education committee tried to close it down with the Institute !!!

16. Maybe we should consider a complete restart … a new PRIVATE school with similar ideals and traditions, and associate it with the Anglican Cathedral … a new Liverpool Institute Cathedral School.

17. I too read it in the Echo. Have some sympathy - I lived in St Silas St off High Park St. If I'd not gone to the Institute I'd have gone to Dingle Vale - which became Shorefields!

18. If it doesn't get used what will happen to the money  ?   (A liobians booze up would be out of the question I suppose  ?   )

19. Rather than pour these funds into another school, might it not be a good idea to suggest some scholarships to needy and worthy students to complete their 6th form education at a Lpool school or college  ?   Just a thought. It would ensure survival of the name and a Margaret Bryce Smith type annual competition.

20. This is a bit steep, isn't it - is the Headmaster of the Shorefields School a Liobian to have such a devious mind  ?   How did it come to light  ?   Why can't the Liverpool Institute for Performing Arts use the trust to support worthy students - even overseas students, like Australians  ?   - it is, after all, the lineal descendant of the Inny. What are the terms of the trust  ?   And what is LIPA doing about it  ?  

21. I wonder if we've stumbled onto a means of accumulating wealth - how about we constitute ourselves as a catch-all charity and set about claiming the residues of all the apparently defunct trusts  ?   If you decide to go ahead I demand a percentage! (No, this was not MY idea, but it has some attraction.)

22. Let's declare a dividend ! After initial shock and amazement, my post-reaction re-action is to muse that (further to your initial Liobians home-page estimate of there being perhaps 7000 old boys in circulation) the trust amounts to about 100 pounds sterling per old boy! (100lb/ob) : )

23. Never before having heard of the existence of the Liverpool Institute Educational Foundation, and finding that it is, to quote Anne Benson, "forgotten", one has to ponder exactly for what charitable intent the foundation was created. Its name seems to imply that its initial purpose, perhaps, was for the income from the trust to be disbursed, by the trustee, in the form of scholarships, bursaries or grants, etc. to deserving little wretches. With only Peter Bounds of the Liverpool City Council as "unavailable" contact, it begs such questions as: who is the trustee today  ?   Are the intentions for the trust still valid and are they being carried out  ?   If not, why not  ?   to whom does/did the trustee answer  ?   who is looking after the investments in the trust  ?   etc, etc. Notably, how and why did it become "forgotten"  ?  

24. It is difficult to argue that the trust should be condemned to sit there dormantly, eternally gathering both income and moss, it should therefore be allowed to be put to some honourable use, as Clein says, "as close to the original purpose as possible".

25. If, John, you discern that there is a (Liobian's) concensus opinion, one way or the other, we could perhaps voice our opinion to the Charity Commission and/or to Peter Bounds at L.C.C., either individually or as one voice. (They probably will not listen, anyway!)

26. I am curious as to who was the original owner/buyer/donor of the works of art (at the Institute and Blackburne House) which were sold in 1991 with proceeds to the trust, and what financial assets were used to create the trust in 1985  ?   Love to get my hands on the documentation, wouldn't you  ?  

27. Surely there are sufficient interested Liobians in the world to see that money of this nature is put to good use  ?   Have you been able to get a copy to Sir Paul McCartney  ?   I've an idea he might be able to put some pressure in the right places.

28. Is there anyone to whom we can write to try to head off this naked and unscrupulous cashgrab, and to see if anything better can be done with the funds.

===============================================

Okay … there are some fairly consistent messages I can see here …

• · The money should be put to good use, not left idle
• · The identity of the school should not be lost
• · We should get a lawyer/accountant to look at the balance sheet and trust deed and advise on the options
• · We should do something about it in terms of making some representation as Liobians.
• · We should get the decision process put on hold while we muster our resources and get organised.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++