Steam Car Club Forum
Steam Car Club : The Steam Car.....Forum
The Official Forum for the Steam Car Club
The fastest message board....ever.
Having trouble logging in or posting messages? Email for help.
Goto Thread: PreviousNext
Goto: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Goto Page:  12Next
Current Page:1 of 2
"Here we go again"
Posted by: Alan Sinclair (
Date: March 14, 2009 03:02AM

I expect many of you reading this forum will have received yet another long missive from G15, quite frankly I am appalled at the way in which these people constantly maligned those that have served our club for many years. for my membership fee, I have received help from many members, an excellent magazine, an excellent web site, and good company.

From the G15's letter these extracts in inverted commas show that they are much more concerned with...... "trading potential could generate substantial annual revenue", why would we want this? the idea is to have fun with our steam cars..... "There are no records to who holds what", do I really want to know..... "it is clear that the Club is in a huge mess", well, the old club certainly is now, its been OK for many years, until G15 appeared on the scene!

How did this all happen in less than a year? Chris Busk inherited the secretarial job from Joy, but no computer, no programs etc: is this mess down to Joy? who I see is back as their club secretary no doubt complete with computer.

Re: "Here we go again"
Posted by: (212.183.134.---)
Date: March 14, 2009 08:50AM


thanks for your post. I'm a bit puzzled, because they haven't sent anything to me. I'm a fully paid up member of SCCGB. Do you know who they are writing to? In particular, just who is writing the letter? Who has signed it?

My understanding is that Chris Busk resigned as company secretary, but he is still club secretary & treasurer. Can anyone tell me otherwise, or has he been summarily dismissed?

The registered office is now in Shrewsbury. Does anyone in the club have Shrewsbury connections?


ps - later edit. My apologies to Gareth, Stuart, Haydn, Gerry & Sally-Ann. Letter has arrived. My post must be a bit slower. However, I'm in pretty close touch with Jeff & Basil. They too are SCCGB members & the last I was speaking with them, they hadn't got theirs either. Maybe their post is a bit slow too. Greg

Edited 1 times. Last edit at 03/14/09 07:32PM by Greg Walker.

Re: "Here we go again"
Posted by: (
Date: March 14, 2009 05:51PM

Hi All

So my mate Greg has been left out of the (G15) SCCGB loop - feel like I'm in better company all the time. I joined SCCGB towards the end of last year, but in time to be listed as a new member in the magazine issue that came out before the AGM.

Now, I've not recieved anything from the so-called G15, either on the run up to the AGM or since ( - from what I've heard not worth bursting into tears about anyway!)

Apart from the excellent magazine it seems that I might as well have donated my subs to something useful like comic relief - come to think of it, the way the G15 seem to be running the club, maybe I did.

Enough - pleased to be a member of the new club and look forward to getting to know a few more of you out there.


(Thomas Rees on the membership list)

Re: "Here we go again"
Posted by: les nelson (
Date: March 15, 2009 08:06AM

Hi Alan , yes I spotted the "raising substantial annual revenue", now dosn't that clear a lot of "fog" we now know what "they" have been up too, and I thought they were only interested in getting the club "sorted out" , how silly of me, I also found it interesting that an eighth of the minutes (as recently supplied) is devoted to S.G. demands/concerns about the web page.
I am still a member of SCCGB and will remain so till my sub's run out next Jan 2010, by that time I expect all this will be a distant memory and I can make an informed descision about the club I will be a member of. so I am now a member of two clubs as I joined " Steam car club" P.D.Q.

Re: "Here we go again"
Posted by: Ian Vinton (
Date: March 15, 2009 05:12PM


I received the letter from the Old Club and it did raise questions in my mind as to who is right or wrong, I do not have the facts in front of me (nor do any of us), so it is impossible to judge. However knowing the people, I can base my judgement on what I know of those people.

I am also very tired of all this, as I suspect are a lot of people.

I suggest we continue with the front of shutting the old club and distributing its assets.

After this, like minded people can chose whether to form their own club, go with the new club or just not bother.

No more threats of legal actions, no more threats at all, no more politics and no more bullshit.

We need to end this sorry saga and get on with enjoying ourselves, sharing experience and helping each other out. After all a club is for like minded people to enjoy, help and be partners in !

Sorry to be blunt but we need to move on and fast.

Ian Vinton

Re: "Here we go again"
Posted by: (
Date: March 15, 2009 06:10PM

Hi Ian and all

Ian you're right and this is happening. The company secretary has been notified and the forms have been sent out to call an EGM.

Unfortunately the G15 will not listen and will not cooperate. I have tried but it's fallen on deaf ears. The sooner this is over the better. I am also dealing with their solicitors who are threatenin legal action. They claim to be acting firstly on behalf of all the directors in their 1st letter. I responded and their 2nd letter claimed they are acting on instructions from Mr Stoneman, again I have responded. These people simply cannot be stopped, they seem to be hell bent on bankrupting the Ltd club.


Re: "Here we go again"
Posted by: les nelson (
Date: March 16, 2009 06:19AM

I hope the readers of the latest missive from SCCGB Ltd. don't mind me clearing up ANOTHER mis-quote, I am supposed to have stated "if GJ had proxies that were on a form provided by the club then they should be accepted even if the form was incorrect" I can say without ANY doubt that this is not the case, I particularly
emphasised the end of my statement by saying that form should be accepted "providing they were issued from the offices of the SCCGB Ltd" NOT "even if they were incorrect" this is an entirely different "slant" on the statement making me sound like an idiot, ( what was that from the back?)
As you can expect I have asked for a retraction and an apology, but I am not holding my breath.

Re: "Here we go again"
Posted by: barry herbert (---.karoo.KCOM.COM)
Date: March 16, 2009 07:56AM

Another area that I find confusing is over the number of votes for resolution 1 being passed (The Directors policy statement).

Jeff Theobald who was scrutineer of the votes says that the legal voting was 96 for and 10 against. Gareth Jones was saying at the meeting that he had 40 votes (illegal ones as it turns out) all voting against this resolution. 10 against plus his 40 = 50 not 63 as in the missive. Also I see that the figure of 96 "For" the resolution has increased to 99. Where have these extra votes come from one may ask?

All not really important as the resolution was clearly carried anyhow, although the G15 group are still intent on going against this directors policy statement in that they still want a Code of Practice and documents to be listed for a club tour. All against current legal advice and the Directors policy statement.

Gareth Jones says in the missive, and I quote "GJ stated that the directors must do what the members wish. They do not have the right to disenfranchise members. They must do what the members vote. Also the members must have an obligation to obey the rules" end of quote.

Well Gareth Jones, when are you going to put into practice what you have written. The rules have been laid down. The Directors policy statement has been voted on and passed. When are you and the rest of the G15 going to shut up and abide by members wishes?

If you are not happy with things why don't you do the honourable thing and all resign and form another club of your own where you can have as many forms and pieces of paper, rules and regulations, etc. that you want.

Re: "Here we go again"
Posted by: Mike Clark (
Date: March 16, 2009 01:07PM

The latest letter from the G15 includes many unjustified attacks on long serving Members of the Club and a level of spin worthy of 10 Downing Street at its worst. It occurred to me that I should satisfy myself that the newly elected directors of the Club, who are responsible for the letter, had indeed been legitimately elected at the AGM of the SCCGB Ltd since by all accounts that meeting degenerated into a shambles.

The entire approach of the G15 to the current situation in the old SCCGB Ltd is based on their assertion that Messrs Jones, Gray and Davies were legitimately and democratically elected at the AGM. My investigation has shown me that they were not, and I will explain why not, in detail later in this post. I do apologise for the length of the post but read it and you will understand.

But first of all think what this means

The whole thrust of the recent letter to members from the G15 is that they are the responsible guardians of the Club and our hobby and protectors of the public. They also make much of the protection afforded to Directors of the Club by its status as a Company Limited by Guarantee. Hold on a minute - if there is the slightest doubt about the validity of the election of 75% of the Directors of the Club does anyone think that these people will derive any protection from litigation because the Club is a Limited Company? Furthermore what will the acquiescence of the one legitimate Director, Gerry Stoneman, in the management of the Company by dubiously elected Directors do to his protection? Ultimately, of course, should litigation arise from some dreadful incident the Club will be reliant on its Public Liability Insurance to cover any costs and Insurance Companies are very good at finding reasons why they should not pay up. I would be not just "a concerned member" but an "extremely concerned member" if I were Mr Stoneman or one of the three "new Directors".

If the three "new Directors" are not Directors they had no right to demand that Jeff and Chris pass over Club property. Gerry Stoneman, as the only unquestionably elected director, has a legitimate right to request these things but the demands were made by Gareth Jones and, in the case of the secretarial records the collection was to be done by Sally-Ann. It was quite clear by this time that the AGM voting was invalid so that at that moment it was not appropriate for the Club records to be passed to the “new Directors” and this was made clear to Gareth by Chris during the infamous midnight phone call. I now hear that a demand for the Club records has been made by Solicitors acting on behalf of Gerry Stoneman and, since the G15 will be needing the records when organising the forthcoming EGM, action is to be taken to pass the records on to him.

The G15 continue to insist on the need for the Code of Practice despite the fact that this was rejected when Members voted “for” the policy statement proposed by Bill Rich and his fellow directors at the AGM. How can this be seen as following the wishes of Members and what mandate have the three “new Directors” to continue down this route? They are also determined to retain Limited status for the Club, saying that this is becoming the norm for motor clubs - yes, but this is for Clubs with paid professional staff, for clubs which run competitive events, own property and most importantly clubs which incur product liability by selling spares. The SCCGB does none of these things. It is not acceptable for the Club to be led in this fashion by people who have no legitimate status as Directors.

Anyway all of this should just be for members of the old Limited Club to ponder over and of no concern to us in the new Steam Car Club but unfortunately the G15 continue to threaten legal action to take control of Jeff’s web site to which they seem to attribute some huge commercial potential. While we in the new Club would have been perfectly happy to go our own way and ignore the G15 and the SCCGB, leaving them to sink or swim according to their ability, their repeated threats of Police, Trading Standards and Courts means that our Club has to defend itself as Basil and his team are so energetically doing. The intransigent pursuit of these matters by the core of the G15 (Jones, Stoneman, Gray and Davies) who have prevaricated over meeting Basil after he (Basil) suggested a meeting between himself and Gareth Jones, really leaves no option but to call an EGM to decide upon the future of the limited company. It would of course be far simpler to do this by agreement, as Basil has suggested, without an EGM but so far this hasn’t happened.

Now here is why the “new Directors” are not legitimately elected Directors.

Just to remind you of the history of the several proxy forms which were issued before the AGM.
The Company SCCGB Ltd issued two forms, the first of which mistakenly omitted to give voters a box in which to indicate their vote against Directorial candidates and also mistakenly instructed members to vote for only one candidate. Realising that this was an error the Company issued a second proxy form which corrected these errors. The Secretary made sure that when a member submitted this second proxy form it took precedence over any previous proxy form sent in. The G15 issued a proxy form of their own which mimicked the yellow colour of the official form. This too had no provision to register votes against the Directorial candidates and furthermore was already marked up with the G15’s preferred response to the Election of Directors and to other AGM resolutions. The G15 asked that their proxy forms should be returned to Gareth Jones who undertook to pass them to the Company Secretary 48 hours before the start of the AGM.

Several of us have looked in detail at the Company’s Articles of Association and this is how it was realised that the G15 proxy forms and the means and timing of their delivery infringed the Company’s rules, as did the timing of the Directorial candidate’s nominations. The Articles of Association, and the Companies Act spell out in detail how we must act.

The infringements of the Company Articles were as follows.

1 Irregularities with the nominations

The details of the nominations are as follows:

(a) J H Davies
Proposed by D G Jones on 19 November 2008
Seconded by P Stevenson on 29 November 2008
Accepted by nominee on 16 November 2008

(b) S J Gray
Proposed by A G Stoneman on 15 November 2008
Seconded by J H Davies on 15 November 2008
Accepted by nominee on 16 November 2008

(c) D G Jones
Proposed by D Webster on 28 November 2008
Seconded by P Stevenson on 3 December 2008
Accepted by nominee on 20 November 2008

It is a little odd that both Mr Davies and Mr Jones accepted their nominations some days prior to the dates of the actual nomination!

All were received by the secretary at the registered office on or before 6 December 2008. This is clearly much more than 35 clear days before the date appointed for the general meeting. This is in contravention of Article 5.4(b), which reads as follows:

"Article 5.4

No person shall be appointed a director at any general meeting unless either:-

(a) he is recommended by the directors; or

(b) not less than 14 nor more than 35 clear days before the date appointed for the general meeting, notice signed by a member qualified to vote at the general meeting has been given to the company of the intention to propose that person for appointment, together with notice signed by that person of his willingness to be appointed."

2 Irregularities in the proxy form issued by D G Jones on behalf of the group of “concerned members.”

A proxy form should offer the opportunity for the voter to instruct his proxy to vote “For” or “Against” resolutions at the meeting and this is specified in Table A Regulation 61. The first proxy form issued by the Company did not make this provision in respect of the election of new directors (although it did for all other resolutions). However the format of the proxy form was approved by the directors, and so under the provisions of Table A Regulation 61, underlined in the quotation below, the proxy form was valid.

"Table A Regulation 61

Where it is desired to afford members an opportunity of instructing the proxy how he shall act the appointment of a proxy shall be in the following form (or in a form as near thereto as circumstances allow or in any other form which is usual or which the directors may approve".

The Board later decided that the members should be given the opportunity to vote “Against” the candidates and so the Company issued a second proxy form which conformed in all respects to the format required by Table A Regulation 61. The secretary took great care to ensure that wherever a member submitted both forms, the instructions given on the later-dated form took precedence. Votes submitted on either of these forms are therefore valid.

The proxy form issued by DG Jones did not conform with the requirements of Table A Regulation 61 as it gave no options of choice between “For” or “Against” any of the resolutions; it offered only the option of voting in accordance with the wishes of Mr Jones and his “concerned members.” It was not approved by the Company’s directors. Votes submitted by proxy in fulfilment of this proxy form are therefore not valid.

3 Irregularities in the delivery of the proxy forms issued by D G Jones on behalf of the group of “concerned members.”

(a) The "concerned members’" proxy forms requested that voters send their forms to Mr Jones who undertook to deliver them to the Company. As Mr Jones was himself a candidate for election as director, this must be considered to be a very dubious electoral procedure. Votes submitted in this way are clearly invalid.
(b) Mr Jones undertook, on the form itself, to deliver the completed proxy forms to the Company secretary at the Company’s registered office 48 hours before the meeting. He did not do this, thereby failing in his duty of care in this matter. At no time were the forms sent to the registered office or given to the secretary. In Table A Regulation 62 it is stated that an appointment of proxy which is not deposited, delivered or received in the prescribed manner shall be invalid.
During the AGM, under considerable and noisy pressure from Members of the G15 the Chairman did agree that the G15 proxy forms could be included in the count, however subsequent legal advice from the Company solicitor is that this action was not within the Chairman's remit. The Chairman's acceptance of these forms at the AGM therefore does not make them valid. On this basis also, these proxy votes are not valid and should not have been counted.

4 Irregularities in the validation of the proxy forms issued by D G Jones on behalf of the group of “concerned members.”

All proxy forms issued by the Company were validated by the secretary by checking the 5-digit security number against the name of the member. No such procedure was carried out on the DG Jones forms; this was impossible as the forms were at no time – before, during or after the meeting – in the possession of the Secretary and we do not even know how many of these proxies were returned. All proxy forms issued by the Company are still available; the whereabouts of the Jones forms are unknown, so no post-electoral audit is possible.

Even if the Jones proxies were recovered they were not reconciled with properly submitted official proxy forms. We cannot determine the number of double votes arising from this.

5 Doubts about the issuing of voting papers and counting of votes cast from the floor at the AGM

On registering at the AGM Members who had not already submitted a proxy form were to be given a pink voting slip and were reminded during the meeting by the Secretary that they must not use the pink slip if they had already sent in their proxy form. It is not clear that this system succeeded in eliminating double voting. During the counting of votes the tellers did not distinguish between votes arising from the G15 proxy form and those made with pink forms on the day. The voting results supplied to the Secretary therefore include both sets of votes in a combined total and so includes votes from an unknown number of G15 proxy forms which must be disregarded as well as votes from the pink slips which may or may not be valid.


Whilst invoking infringements of the Company’s Articles seems a bit like nitpicking the fact that Gareth Jones collected the G15’s proxy forms and delivered them himself to the AGM is a very serious transgression of acceptable electoral procedure in any situation - would you, at the next General Election, accept a home made voting slip from Gordon Brown, then give it back to him, relying on his promise to properly register your vote? No I don’t think so. Would you then feel aggrieved by Mr Brown, if he failed in his promise? This is a serious error of judgement on the part of the G15 and clearly invalidates every vote submitted on the G15 proxy, which as we have seen was in any case invalid for several more reasons.

I am not suggesting that the G15 actually indulged in voting malpractice in any way (there is no possibility of an independent audit of the votes as neither the G15 proxy forms nor the pink voting slips were returned to the Secretary). That is not the point. The fact is that the G15 proxy forms were invalid, and cannot be made valid. The fact is that even if they were valid, they were not reconciled with the properly lodged proxy forms. The fact is that votes cast by members in the meeting cannot be verified and no separate measure of them was delivered to the meeting. These cannot be re-assessed. The fact is that the nomination papers of Messrs Davies, Gray and Jones were invalid and cannot now be made valid. The elections of Messrs Davies, Gary and Jones were invalid on any one of the above mentioned grounds, and that cannot be changed.

The valid proxy votes for the election of Directors were as follows:-

J H Davies For 25 Against 34
S J Gray For 12 Against 36
D G Jones For 16 Against 35

Messrs Jones, Gray and Davies cannot therefore be regarded as legitimately elected Directors of the Company and, should the EGM resolution fail, the Company had better quickly organise a new election to legitimise their position. Until this is done they should take no further part in the management of the Company.

I apologise for the extreme length of this post but it is important that Members understand exactly why the Election was invalid. On a personal note I would like to add that the entire voting procedure was fatally compromised, on both sides of the great divide, by insufficient attention to correct process. There is no doubt that the aggressive behaviour of the G15 before and during the AGM, which they treated as a form of ambush, contributed greatly to this outcome.

Mike Clark

Edited 1 times. Last edit at 03/16/09 01:28PM by Mike Clark.

Re: "Here we go again"
Posted by: les nelson (
Date: March 16, 2009 02:31PM

WOW! well done Mike you must have done a lot of research to verify all that is in your document, but accept my thanks for your efforts, I am not any any way shape or form a corporate "wizz" and accept your findings to be accurate otherwise you would not have taken the trouble to provide us all with "the facts" AND PUT THEM IN PRINT

Goto Page:  12Next
Current Page:1 of 2

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
The Steam Car Club Forum
Having trouble logging in or posting messages? Email for help.
Web by NPC