'£2 million of Avocet additive' has 'negligible value'

by OUR BUSINESS UNIT

A quantity of the 'miracle' fuel additive which has yet to be marketed by the ailing Avocet group of companies is worth £2 million, according to bankrupt businessman Martin Frost even though liquidators have concluded the consignment is of "negligible value".

Mr Frost, who chaired the Avocet firms for five years before flagship company Omega Infinite collapsed into compulsory liquidation in May 2020, included his £2 million valuation for the additive in one of a series of emails to investors while also setting out plans for a United Nations petition currently 'being prepared in Washington.'

The so-called UN dossier, to be lodged at the organisation's headquarters in New York next month, will, says Mr Frost "expose wrongdoing against my family and Avocet and the dossier should ultimately enable many of you to recover damages."

Mr Frost has issued a daily letter to shareholders in which he names members of the Scottish legal hierarchy - among them judges and senior law officers - who he blames for the financial troubles which have engulfed the Avocet group. 

At least three of the businesses are either in liquidation or administration with debts running into many millions of pounds. More than 600 shareholders who ploughed money into the fuel additive concept now stand to lose an even larger combined sum. Mr Frost has repeatedly denied allegations that his was a Ponzi scheme.

The batch of  Avocet cetane product seized by agents working for Omega Infinite's liquidators Begbies Traynor appears to have ended up in a secure unit in Scunthorpe.

In his July 28th email Mr Frost wrote:

"Upon the 2021 inspection of Begbies Scunthorpe storage facilities, Begbies produced in storage some £2 million in value of ‘avocet methanol additive’ provided M. Frost in 2019. Such assets being clearly marked and documented." However, the £2 million figure appears to be at odds with the additive's worth resulting from an assessment by the Omega liquidators themselves. Only last month in a Progress Report In Winding Up Of The Court dated June 28th 2022 it states in a section headed Stock (Avocet Cetane Additive): "The joint liquidators are aware that the company owns a quantity of cetane additive which the director advised has significant value. "A quantity of cetane additive has been recovered by Eddisons (a specialist firm of valuers, associated with insolvency experts Begbies Traynor) and is securely stored however it is estimated that it is of negligible value". Not Just Sheep & Rugby attempted to find out which of the two valuations was 'genuine'. We asked the public relations firm which deals with Begbies Traynor media enquiries: "Is the additive worth £2 million, as claimed by Mr Frost, and if that is incorrect then what figure do the liquidators put on the quantity they have in secure storage?" But a spokesperson replied: "Begbies Traynor have nothing to add beyond their comments in the recent progress report." Meanwhile the scope of the upcoming UN petition seems to have widened. Mr Frost states: "The UN complaint is made against the UK Government who allowed powerful Scottish lawyers to go rogue.". He also refers to a company named AFS Ventures Ltd, the forerunner of the Avocet Group, which is currently in liquidation. Earlier this month insolvency expert Eric Walls, of KSA Group, who was first appointed as AFS Ventures liquidator in February 2015 revealed in a report lodged with Companies House that title to the AFS-owned patent had not passed to Omega Infinite PLC even though a deal had been agreed several years ago. Omega had failed to pay for the intellectual property, he said. But according to Mr Frost: "Due to its subsidiaries' intellectual property, AFS Ventures Plc was valued in 2014 by KPMG as being worth over £50 million."

Phew! Tory Council is a 'National free zone'

by OUR POLITICAL STAFF

It has been revealed that Conservative-run Scottish Borders Council does not subscribe to The National, the Glasgow-based daily newspaper which promotes Scottish independence and sometimes criticises the UK Government.

How do we know?

Well this week the Borders local authority published a host of Freedom of Information [FOI] requests and responses dating from October 2021 right up to July 2022 - the first time the so-called FOI archive has been updated for some considerable time.

The newly released information shows that last month an apparently concerned requester wanted to know how much money SBC had spent on copies of The National during the last three financial years. After all, widespread expenditure on the SNP-supporting publication could have had a devastating impact on the council's usable reserves, currently standing at a rather impressive £51.992 million*.

Here is the request in full: "This is an information request relating to purchasing of newspaper The National. Please include the information broken down by the following financial years: 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22:

"Expenditure on subscriptions to The National, for example a yearly or a monthly subscription. Please make clear the dates that the subscription was held between and the total cost of the subscription. Please make clear if a subscription is ongoing. Please include digital and print subscriptions

"Expenditure on individual copies of The National. Please make clear the number of copies purchased and the total expenditure. Please do not include any free subscriptions provided to the organisation by The National. By The National I mean the Scottish daily newspaper owned by Newsquest and based at 125 Fullarton Drive, Glasgow."

The council's answer must have been widely welcomed by the ruling group at SBC, and in all probability by the requester him (or her) self:

Response

"Scottish Borders Council can confirm that they have spent zero pounds on any copies of "The National" as requested in the information request."

It is not known how many copies of the Tory-loving Daily Mail, Daily Express or Daily Telegraph find their way into council offices across the Scottish Borders. Perhaps a topic for a future FOI?

A number of the other newly-published FOIs make interesting reading though some of the information may be out of date. Here are a few:

Request or Question

Does the council have any estimate regarding the number of digital devices distributed to children and young people that have been damaged or broken? If so, could the council provide these estimates? This would include laptops and tablets.

Response

Approximately 1,000 digital devices distributed to children and young people have been damaged or broken.

Request or Question

Q1. During the month of April 2022, how many council employees were working from home, and what percentage of the office based workforce does this represent?

Q2. Between 1st and 30th April 2022, how many desk bookings were made across the council's office buildings and, on average, how many desk bookings were there a day during this month?

Q3. How many desks were available for use in the month April 2022 across the council's office buildings?

Q4. What was the maximum number of office staff who could theoretically work in the office on any given day in April 2022?

Q5. What was the total number of office staff who worked in your council's offices each day prior to the pandemic?

Response

Q1. Unfortunately Scottish Borders Council do not hold the information you have requested. Therefore we give notice under s17 of FOI(S)A 2002 and declare that the information is not held.

Q2. Bookable desks are only available at Newtown St Boswells Offices – 247 bookings total,
Mean average number of desks booked daily was 11.6.

Q3. Bookable desks are only available at Newtown St Boswells Offices - 27 Desks total available

Q4. At Newtown St Boswells Offices, there was 27 bookable desks and up to maybe about 25 additional staff in using desks more permanently. 52 in total approximately.

Q5. Unfortunately Scottish Borders Council do not hold the information you have requested. Therefore we give notice under s17 of FOI(S)A 2002 and declare that the information is not held.

Request or Question

I am getting in touch with you to request information on the number of staff members, if any, that have been dismissed in light of ill health caused by Long Covid from 2020 to present

Response

There were 3 dismissals due to long covid.

*Source: SBC's unaudited accounts for 2021/22.

 

Watchdog seeks improvements at new Jedburgh nursery

EXCLUSIVE by LESTER CROSS

Scottish Borders Council has been given until the end of August to implement a list of requirements aimed at improving nursery education facilities at the new £32 million Jedburgh school campus.

An unannounced inspection in June by the Care Inspectorate - the national watchdog - resulted in the Jedburgh nursery which can accommodate over 120 children being marked with a 3 (adequate) in all categories, namely Quality of Care and Support, Quality of Environment, Quality of Staffing and Quality of Management and Leadership. It was the first time the new nursery had been inspected.

The inspectors' report which was published on the watchdog's website this week shows the grades awarded to the campus facility are lower than the previous three inspection evaluations for the now demolished Parkside Primary School nursery close by although it only catered for 30 pupils.

The report says: "Requirement: By August 31 2022, the provider must ensure that the premises are suitable to provide a high quality care environment, which meets the aims and objectives of the service. In order to do this the provider must, at a minimum: - Provide access to the outdoor area that is safe and suitable for children to use - Increase storage facilities in the nursery to take account of the number of children attending the service - Improve the food storage facilities - Ensure that indoor and outdoor areas used by children are safe and suitable for use.

 "Recommendation: Children should have access to an environment which is suitable to meet their individual needs. Managers and staff should assess the current environment and adapt it to ensure that the environment provides well arranged, welcoming, safe and rich play spaces."

Care Inspectorate reports rank facilities on a scale from 1-6 with 6 meaning 'excellent', 5 is 'very good', 4 equals 'good', 3 equals adequate and 2 indicates 'weak'. The definition of 'adequate' is given as "strengths just outweigh weaknesses".

The section of the report headed Quality of Care and Support includes the following: "While the strengths had a positive impact, key areas needed to improve. 

"Staff had collected information about each child to help meet their care and support needs. Information was reviewed and updated regularly. Staff had started to complete online chronologies for children, which outlined significant events. There was a range of evidence of the partnership working with external agencies and professionals to support children. 

"For some children clearer support strategies needed to be developed and monitored. Several parents told us that they had not received enough information about their child's learning. The quality and quantity of information about children's learning varied across the nursery. Senior staff were aware that some changes needed to be made to the methods used to assess children's progress and share this more effectively with parents."

There were positive conclusions drawn from the inspection too.

"Most children were confident in their surroundings. They took pride in showing us their nursery and telling us what they did during their time there. Some children had formed positive relationships. We saw them helping each other climb, and lots of collaborative play during building and problem solving with some of the outdoor resources. 

"Staff were kind and caring, but the number of children present in the nursery impacted on the quality of interactions with children. To ensure children's wellbeing staff had become task orientated and had taken up a supervisory role. It resulted in staff not taking the opportunity to pick up on some children who needed additional help or support learning opportunities effectively. Frequently a member of staff would start to support children at an activity only to have to leave to support another child. As an area for improvement the senior team should continue to look at staff deployment."

And the report had this to say: "Provision for learning in the small area sectioned off for the children under three provided a rich, age-appropriate environment for these children. Work was continuing with the early years teacher from the local authority to adapt and improve the processes for planning play, providing rich play environments and recording learning outcomes.

"The outdoor area was used extensively throughout the day. Children could choose to play outside or inside. They told us that they go outside 'All the time!' The outdoor area provided some opportunities for risk and physical development. However, we noticed that children started off excited and engaged but throughout the day lost interest and began to wander. The nursery improvement plan identified that outdoor experiences needed to be included in planning. This work needs to be progressed to ensure engagement in the outdoor environment."

The 'Quality of Environment' section of the report noted: "Senior staff and staff working in the playrooms had identified a number of areas around the environment which were impacting on the outcomes for children. 

"These included: - The door to the outdoor area could not be used by children as it was heavy and unable to be left open as the wind came straight into the playroom. Therefore the door leading from the toilet area was being used. This resulted in issues around infection prevention and control and privacy and dignity - There were not enough refrigeration facilities to ensure that packed lunches and other foods could be stored safely - There was no storage in one of the toilet areas for clothes, nappies and cleaning resources. - There was no gate on the large space dedicated as a kitchen area - Some area in the outdoor play space needed to be reassessed to ensure that children's safety was promoted. For example we observed children standing on the raised beds and trying to climb the perimeter fence."

The inspectors commented: "Parents were using the gate in the outdoor area to drop off and pick up rather than the main entrance. This had been implemented as a Covid-19 risk minimisation. Some parents commented that the area was very congested at pick up times making the supervision of children a challenge. 

"We have asked that this procedure is re-evaluated. We acknowledge that the Care Inspectorate registered this service for 127 children to include a maximum of 15 children under the age of three years. However, there needed to be an assessment of how the spaces were working, laid out and the impact of the environment upon children. For example the area for children under the age of three years was not suitable in position or size. 

"The area was being used to keep children safe in the larger group rather than making sure the larger group was safe for younger children or children with additional needs. There were no suitable sleeping areas for children and the noise level indoors was significant. Two parents commented that their children told them the indoor play space was very noisy and this impacted on their children's enjoyment in nursery."

Archived inspection reports show the following results for nursery provision at the town's Parkside PS Nursery: November 2016 – Quality of Care and Support graded 5 (very good); Quality of Environment graded 4 (good). Other categories were not inspected.

November Nov 2013: Care and support 5 - Very good; Environment 4 - Good; Staffing 5 - Very good; Management and leadership 5 - Very good. January 2009:  Care and support 5 - Very good; Environment 4 - Good; Staffing 5 - Very good; Management and leadership 5 - Very good.

Avocet "has not paid for patents" - liquidator

by OUR BUSINESS STAFF

Serious concerns have been expressed after the joint liquidator of AFS Ventures Ltd., forerunner of the troubled Avocet group of businesses involved in 'revolutionary' fuel development, revealed that intellectual property, once valued at £4 million, and vital to Avocet's success had still not been paid for.

According to insolvency expert Eric Walls, of KSA Group, who was first appointed as AFS Ventures liquidator in February 2015, title to the crucial patent has not passed to Omega Infinite PLC even though a deal had been agreed several years ago.

Omega Infinite (previously known as Avocet Infinite), currently in compulsory liquidation, is the former flagship of the Avocet group in which hundreds of investors invested many millions of pounds. The 'green' fuel promoted by Avocet management has still not been marketed eight years after the businesses were founded.

In recent months Avocet's former chairman, bankrupt businessman Martin Frost has told investors in a series of "newsletters" that the group's intellectual property had been sold in a multi-million pounds deal involving unnamed buyers, and payments to shareholders would be forthcoming.

However, a newly published progress report by Mr Walls on AFS Ventures' winding up states: "The only remaining asset detailed in the Statement of Affairs was the company's intellectual property which had been sold to Omega Infinite PLC, albeit the final level of consideration in respect of that sale has not been paid.

"Therefore, it is considered that the title to the intellectual property has not passed and remains with the company. The position remains under review".

Directors of AFS Ventures, including Mr Frost, signed a Declaration of Solvency in January 2015, a month before Mr Walls' appointment. The document estimated the firm's intellectual property was worth £4 million, and after debts were paid a surplus of £1,156,000 would be available.

A statement of affairs lodged by Mr Walls at Companies House in 2021 valued the IP at £493,000 but the amount of money any sale would realise remained 'uncertain'. In the meantime the original so-called members' voluntary liquidation (MVL) of 2015 had been converted to a creditors' voluntary liquidation (CVL) as AFS Ventures was, in fact, insolvent.

All 50,000 £1 shares in AFS Ventures are held by Loch Lomond Heritage Ltd., a company controlled by the Frost family.

Creditors of AFS Ventures include law firm Womble Bond Dickinson (£75,000) and KSA Group, Mr Walls' employers (£100,000 for liquidation costs).

The latest report says claims have been received from a creditor totalling £100,650. "Although this claim received from HMRC was marked as being a preferential claim, this matter is subject to ongoing review".

Mr Walls also updates creditors on investigations into the affairs of the company and the directors' conduct although the information is scant.

He writes: "I can confirm that I have complied with my obligations under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. The Department for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy requests that the contents of my report submitted under the Act remains confidential.

"Our review of the affairs of the company remain ongoing and therefore I am unable to comment any further as certain matters may become subject to further action".

After studying Mr Walls' report an observer of Avocet's activities told us: "The liquidator’s statement makes sense, and is also supported by recent events."

The business expert commented: "Frost has been claiming since October 1st, 2021 - ten months now - that he had sold the Air-to-Fuel patent to the State of Israel. He stated at that time that all that remained was the formality of the distribution of the proceeds to the Avocet shareholders which he said was to take place with a payment of 50% in October 2021 and 50% in February 2022.

"None of the promised payments have been made, and despite the 10 months that have elapsed since this supposed sale, the US Patent and Trademark Office has no record of the Air-to-Fuel patent being transferred to any such entity.

"Like the very aptly named “mystery investors” -where these committed investors suddenly disappeared to is, well, a mystery! - and more recently, “the Funder”, this supposed sale seems to be simply a figment of Frost’s imagination."

A shareholder with a significant stake in Avocet remarked: "It is deeply concerning to be told Omega doesn't even own the patents which were supposed to be the keystones of the businesses we invested in. We were reliably informed in emails from the directors that some of the cash raised from the sale of intellectual property would be used to pay off creditors including AFS Ventures. Yet it wasn't their IP to sell".

Hawick 'Parkgate' saga - the outcome

EXCLUSIVE by DOUG COLLIE

A planning reporter appointed by the Scottish Government has dismissed attempts to have the 'rare' Victorian gates at the entrance to a Hawick estate deprived of their Historic Environment Scotland [HES] listed status.

In a decision published today Christian Leigh, the reporter, rejects the appeal lodged against the statutory protection by Tom West who lives in a bungalow on the former Linden Park estate alongside the A698 road. 

The issue provoked a dispute among local residents - some in favour of the special status and others calling for the historic gates to be de-listed and removed on road safety grounds.

In his appeal statement, Mr West claimed: "Firstly, that the decision (by HES) is based upon inaccurate and misleading information. Secondly that the Listing Process followed for the Linden Park gates is flawed and not in accordance with the Designation Policy and Selection Guidance (2019) document or with recognised good management standards. Thirdly that in this case Historic Environment Scotland do not have the legal power to list the gates."

However, those arguments are completely demolished by Mr Leigh in his written decision notice.

According to HES the stone and decorative iron gate piers which were the subject of the appeal are said to have been built as the main entrance gateway to the former Linden Park Estate in 1885 and likely designed by the architect of Linden Park House and estate ancillaries, John Guthrie. Linden Park House was destroyed by fire in the 1920s and the estate sold off in plots for housing throughout the 20th Century.

Mr Leigh states: "I saw at my site visit that the naturalistic, early Arts and Crafts design of the gates is attractive, being organically shaped and decorative in three dimensions. They are executed to a high standard of detail and workmanship, being gates that are clearly individually crafted. The well-crafted stone gatepiers are an equally important element. HES have provided a photograph from 1900 showing the gates and, apart from the loss of the original electric fittings, it is apparent they are little altered."

And his decision notice continues: "With regards to the setting of the gates and gatepiers, I saw they form a clear indication of the former Linden Park Estate, along an important road into Hawick. This represents an important trace of a small country estate of the period set on the outskirts of the town.

"I have commented that the gates are of high design quality. They are evidently an early example of bespoke Arts and Crafts design with early electrical lighting, and so the survival of the gates has further importance due to their age and rarity. Although the appellant claims they may be a catalogue item from a manufacturer, there is no robust evidence to support that claim; in contrast, HES have provided evidence demonstrating that the majority of entrance gates from this time were simpler in design."

Mr Leigh explains that with regards to social historical interest, the appellant (Mr West) claimed there was insufficient evidence to suggest that John Guthrie designed the gates, and that he was not of national importance. 

But the evidence from HES indicated strongly to Mr Leigh that Guthrie was the architect of the Linden House Estate. Given that fact, the strong likelihood was that he also designed the gates and piers. Even if that was not the case, HES maintain that the special interest of the gates and the piers was primarily from their design and that, whilst a notable designer can add interest to a site in listing terms, it was not a prerequisite. 

"Based on the evidence presented to me, and observations at the site visit, I agree that such a conclusion by HES was sound, and that the special architectural interest of the gates and piers stems from the design, setting, age and rarity.

"I am therefore satisfied that the gates and associated gatepiers are of special architectural and historic interest. The appellant says the listing process followed by HES was flawed as it did not follow its own designation process nor operate a quality management system to ensure a credible decision.

"The evidence provided to me by HES show the extensive work undertaken in the decision to list, involving consultation with residents and the local authority, a site visit, a comprehensive appraisal of the special architectural and historic interest of the building, and consideration of representations received by relevant stakeholders. 

"I cannot see any credible objection to this work that indicates HES failed in following the correct process. The appellant further states that HES do not have the legal powers to list the gates and associated piers. This is claimed on the basis that the gates and piers can only be listed as part of being within the curtilage of an existing listed building, and there is no such listed building in existence. The gates and associated gatepiers are a structure in their own right and so can be considered as a building. The appellant is therefore not correct on this point."

Mr Leigh concluded that submissions by the appellant and some third parties referred to the condition of the gates, problems of access to properties, and issues of visibility and manoeuvring at the junction with the A698. Those were matters outside the remit of whether a building should be listed.