My KCC Election Manifesto & Video

Thursday, 25 July 2013

Thanet "FerryGate" What's in a Name

For 4 months Thanet Council has had us believe that it was Transeuropa Ferries (TEF) Ltd which owed the Council £3.3million. Not so!  Following my on-going  requests for information   the Council has been forced to admit  that it struck a fee waiver deal with 4 companies not one. These companies are

Transeuropa Ferries NV
Forsythia Maritime Co Limited
Odyssy Maritime Company Limited
Dianthus Maritime Co Limited

I will shortly have access to all the invoices and payments related to these companies for the period 2006 - 13 and will publish summaries.

So why have senior Council officers been trying to create the impression that a single company owed the Council £3.3, when in actual fact 4 companies owe the Council £3.3 million between them. What was the purpose of the deception? The other interesting point is that with the exception of Transeuropa Ferries NV, the other 3 companies are registered in Cyprus. I am not certain if  any of these companies are in liquidation or not.

More to come in due course.

8 comments:

  1. Keep going Councillor Driver, these ongoing revelations may eventually change the years of "we know best" attitudes held by people who are serving in Her Majesty's local governments. Who'd want to be the head of this lot, by George!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh dear Oh dear Oh dear. The deception is coming unraveled. I thought McGonigal admitted to having not carried out any due diligence on one alleged company who were going to support Tanseuropa Ltd. I don't recall her making any mention of Forsythia Maritime Co Ltd or Odyssy Maritime Company Ltd or Dianthus Maritime Co Ltd. Why did she not admit to knowing about the interest of these additional companies and instead chose to mislead the Councillors. Time for McGonigal to resign forthwith.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Since we now know Thanet Council knowingly misrepresented the whole debt situation to the public at large as to which companies in which countries and their administration status actually owe the money, can we now have a public inquiry or an independent investigation so we can see all the facts and the whole truth rather than the falsehoods and lies that have been peddled by the corrupt Council administration up to now.

    ReplyDelete
  4. And KM report similar problems with none of the Cabinet or Council approvals followed at all - and their FOI requests being refused. A corrupt council. Jail them.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ian, It is traditional for ship owners to register each vessel as a separate company so if they get into finanacial difficulties only one vessel is affected. So each vessel owned by Trans Europa has been a discrete company probably 7 or 8 different companies of the last few years. It actually beggars belief that a council would allow a company with floating assets to rack up such an enormous bill. i note the marina staff ask for money on arrival!!! what a shame a phd could make such a fundamental error of business practice, back to the old adage of an accountant knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
    If the senior councillor officers were cricketers they would have walked by now, but i guess they are holding on for the big pay out.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The Police, when I arrived here had arrested Bill Leadbetter at TDC offices...see link for more details..http://thanetstrife.blogspot.co.uk/2008/04/tdcs-murky-finances.html

    ReplyDelete
  7. A lot of blog trolls have been asking what has an "Old" Gun Range history got to do with current issues like TEF debt, Pleasurama and the 25 years of grant aid TDC put through East KentMaritime Trust.

    Perhaps the relevance is that as those "Current" issues arose TDC was under a statutory duty to make crime complaints which could have named the member(s) and official(s) involved ?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Can 16:16 confirm what he says about Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 creating a statutory obligation on councils to report crime, as it is headed Duty to consider crime and disorder implications and does not seem to impose a duty to report crime?

    ReplyDelete