Dear Levy Payer

It is with regret and considerable frustration that we have to inform you that Mr C West acting for Coventry City Council (CCC) has called for the issuing of another Levy.

The new board were elected on a platform of openness and transparency. We feel therefore legally and morally bound to inform you of the details surrounding this decision.

In order for you to fully understand you need to know some of the regulations surrounding the function of a BID.

The Business Plan (BP)

This is a document produced by the BID proposer (in our case CV One and Chamber of Commerce CofC) and presented to the billing authority (Coventry City Council) it is the foundation on which the BID Company is based.(We were advised on taking office by the non elected Directors that it cannot be deviated from) “The Bible”

There are four aspect of the BP that concern us

1)The Loan

2)The tenure period of the original non elected board

3)That any major alteration to the BP can only be made after an Alteration ballot

4)That any virement of funds above £250,000 can only be made after an Alteration ballot

1) The Loan: It was proposed in the BP that CV1 would apply to Advantage West Midlands (AWM) for an assisted grant to cover the installation of the ICT infrastructure. If that application proved unsuccessful (which proved to be the case) they would secure a private loan and charge the BID on a yearly basis accordingly. In the event, Coventry City Council, through the offices of Mr C West granted the loan, not to CV1 but to the BID Company. The legal responsibility for the loan repayment had shifted from CV1 to the BID. This major alteration to the BP required an alteration ballot; none was called by the original board. By accepting this loan arrangement on the terms set out by CCC, the previous board became subservient to the prevailing wishes of the accounts department of CCC.Their independence had been compromised.

2) The BP stated that an interim board would be invited and that their term of office would expire by 31sr March 2008 after an election had been held to secure their replacement. The above loan agreement was signed by that board on 16th December 2008. Two other, legally binding major contracts were also signed by that board “out of term” and backdated. The election of a new board was delayed until August 2009, by which time all avenues open to significantly change the workings of the BID had been legally closed. We have been advised that a legal challenge is not possible due to these events being “out of time”.

3) As you should be aware the new board were elected on a platform of making the company work better for the greater benefit of the levy payer, to make it more open and transparent or close it down if that proved to be the wishes of the levy payer. None of the candidates that put themselves forward for election could know, at that time, what was involve, or how that pledge could be met, until they had access to the details of the structure of the company.(All of the above were already in place and had been kept secret). It became apparent to all eleven new directors within a few months that the best service we could provide to the levy payer was to present these now found facts to them and ask for permission, through an alteration ballot, to wind the company up. A consultation and opinion finding exercise was mounted, two public meetings were called, and a mail shot sent inviting membership and seeking opinion, access to our Web site was encouraged for the placement of thought and opinion. The result of that consultation process was an overwhelming call by those levy payers who took part, to wind the company up. At the time that this result became apparent (or because of it) the Council through its chief accountant Mr C West began introducing terms and conditions, which, if not met by the board, they would refuse to release your money. As a result the company began experiencing chronic cash flow problems. We were prevented from holding an alteration ballot, through lack of funds and because the terms we sought were in conflict with, indeed contrary to, those of the Council. This log jam was unblocked when the Council called in their loan some 15 months before term. By doing so they had caused a serious “Level of indebtedness”. Due to this “Level of indebtedness” they felt obliged to call for another levy.

About £5.5million pounds have been raised since inception, £1.8million has been invested, by you, in the infrastructure leaving £3.7. So where has that money gone?

To give you a flavour of what we found: An invoice for £142,000 was paid to CV One for monitoring cameras owned by B4B in the year 2008/2009; at the end of 2008 the BID Company owned one camera

When asked how he could justify charging the BID the full price for our connection to their high speed circuit when only 34 out of 84 sites were “live” Mr C West replied “because we can”

Their first priority is money and only after that, service.

All of this has left us the board with a stark choice, which we invite you the levy payer to decide.

1)The Board resigns en-mass in protest and thereby, hopefully, create the need for a Public Enquiry.

2)We remain in office, supervise a controlled winding up and ensure that all outstanding monies are refunded. Please express your view by placing a cross in one of the boxes

Remain - - - - - - - - - - Resign