Mrs. Copeman's thefts from the people of Welney

The main cast of this tale, in approx order of appearance

Overview

Colin Rose A Kings Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Councillor representing Upwell & Delph ward, and 6 parishes incl Upwell and Welney. Elected May 2019 & 2023. Was a member of UKIP, has been an independant, stood as Conservative in 2023, and now in the Progressive Group. Member of 5 Borough committees, and appointed to 4 Inland Drainage Boards. Lives in Upwell. Registered for VAT as as a farmer.

"explaining the 1969 [sic] Theft Act and why the Police could not recover all the possible £20k that the Clerk may have embezzled and who was not prosecuted as she had given £8k back and the hardest efforts of two Cllrs could not prove more than £8k"

• He refers to two councillors. Who does he mean? the first council investigation was by three councillors, the second by two parishioners
• He refers to only proving £8k. Where did that come from. The first investigation found nearly £12k, the second one found £30k+
• Both lots of figures based on local authority rules, regulations, & standing orders. Those are very explicit about authorisation and whether the money was used for council purposes or not. Both investigations worked to those requirements. Would have thought a long serving Borough and Parish Cllr would have known all that, and need for auditing too.
• He attended the Council zoom meeting on 15th March 2021 (see left) when the matter of a conditional caution was discussed with Mrs C agreeing to repay £22k (see right)..
• As for "may have embezzled", he would also have known Mrs Copeman admitted over 95% of the thirty thousand pounds of thefts proven as defined above.
• By saying she wasn't prosecuted because she repaid some money, he seems to have forgotten his police training that he so often mentions. The conditional caution Mrs C agreed to (and the Council accepted) in March 2021 was to avoid prosecution and being put on trial in court.
• Lets be clear. A police caution is not a 'telling-off'. Cautions form part of the offender’s criminal record. They may be referred to in future legal proceedings and revealed as part of a criminal record check.
• and Not being prosecuted does not mean not guity. The evidence has to be same standard for a caution as prosecution.
• note also, the Theft Act was 1968 not 1969, but perhaps just a typo?

Cover-up and ignoring warnings are now every day headlines in national TV and press including problems in Government, the Post Office, British army special forces, Lloyds Bank, the Police and Anglican and Catholic churches. The old mantra 'Truth will out' applies to Welney just as everywhere else. The contributors to this webpage believe that Parishioners have a right to know how they lost their money, and why or how justice has not been done. We do NOT want to shout it to the world via TV, press or social media (although nothings ruled out for the future). Just keeping it local, publishing information from Council minutes, the two Council investigations, from Norfolk CID, from a sucessor Clerk; and from several ex-Cllrs who claim that Council Chair during the time of the thefts, Cllr Ken Goodger, was aware of it (although not necessarily the extent), ignored concerns raised and apparently told two Cllrs "leave it", or "don't worry about it".

Insurance cover for employee theft

• the amount, location and minimum security arrangements required regarding the handling of cash or bank balances
• the appointment of a loss adjuster or
  Forensic Accountant An FA examines financial records looking for deceptive practices, financial misconduct, criminal activity and fraud. Needs to be analytical, driven and inquisitive, with good research and critical thinking skills, accounting experience, spreadsheet proficiency, and meticulous attention to detail.
  Not my words! They're from on-line accountancy pages.
  An FA could be called as an 'expert witness' in court.
  
  to investigate if waranted.
• the requirement to be informed of possible theft by employees even if not making a claim.

• A Norfolk CID DI reviewed the case in April 2021, referred to a CPS request in Aug 2020 for a Forensic Accountant. That request was not passed to Council, and in any case, the DI said "I do not believe a Forensic Accountant is necessary"
• Had he and his fellow Cllrs back in Sept 2018 reported the theft to the insurers, as the policy required, and claimed for the loss, as their duty as Councillors dictated, its possible that a Forensic Accountant (FA) might have been appointed then, free of charge.
  However, an FA would soon have discovered (as we did) that Cllr Goodger and his fellow Cllrs did not take any security precautions to avoid theft for 11 of the 12 years.
  Furthermore, Cllr Goodger signed several "AGARs" (annual returns, details below) stating that precautions were in place, when it was quite the opposite. The insurers would have withdrawn assistance and rejected any claim as happened at Hughenden Parish Council in 2014 where there were many similarites - total theft, part repayment, same lack of management and disregard of security.
• As for Cllr Goodger saying an unspecified "we" (or was that the 'Royal' we) wanted to appoint an FA instead of me (I assume he refers to his comments at a meeting in Oct 2019) did "they" not realise one would have cost the same as Mrs Copeman still owed (I'm quoting the DI at Norfolk CID who reviewed the case in April 2021) and they got me (and Peter Gardiner) for free?
  

Second Council investigation, Sept 2019 - Dec 2020

Working group to take over the Council investigation

Primary task: provide theft evidence to Norfolk CID

Documentary evidence ("exhibits"in police lingo)

• He said he, Cllr Barker and Cllr Barker’s partner and others (?) had been going through the documents for months and had made “good progress”. I asked if their findings had been reported to the Council? No. To the Police? No (apart from his initial statement, but nothing since).
• He was unsure, evasive or contradictory about whether what he has at Pates Farm had been to the police (or not) and returned, and/or whether the police still have some. Police procedure to safeguard “continuity of evidence” requires signatures on every change of keeper or location. He couldn’t remember signing for anything.
• He didn’t mention my request to number each document nor whether already done. Strange. Continuity of evidence requires all evidence to be numbered, labelled, and recorded.
• He said what was needed were qualified people (a dig at me I think!) that’s why he got Cllr Barker's partner Sarah Gaylor involved as she was a DS with Cambs police.Surely if the stuff hadn’t already been numbered/labelled, she would have advised to do so, as per police training manual page above?
• I said I was surprised he had the documents. He said he wanted Mrs Copeman to be convicted so he’s keeping them because “he may have to stand up in court to give evidence, so needs to have it”.
• He did admit his defence of Mrs Copeman over 12 years might not look good to some.
• He said Pat got her own internal auditors. One apparently was a friend who worked for another council. I asked were the appointments minuted? “I can’t remember”; were letters of appointment issued? “I can’t remember”. (I’ve not found any references in minutes).
• He also admitted that Mrs C emptied the Hall slot meters and recorded an amount of money in the minutes but it was not witnessed nor readings recorded

Mrs Copeman's fraud/embezzlement/theft

Payments

Cheques with a forged signature

Cash income

we cannot evidence [cash] to the required standard
I cannot see a paper trail showing where this missing money has gone
it maybe prudent for one further interview to cover each and every cash transaction and if admitted by the suspect in an unambiguous and clear admission, then this cash amount can be factored in also..

rental of Parish Hall and Playing Field

More example photos of sources of evidence of cash income

receipt 1-19 hall Dogs £48	receipt 1-20 pav t-t £7.50	receipt 1-93 hall Yoga £5
receipt 2-4 pav t-t £7.50	receipt 2-81 hall RUG £8.00	receipt 2-95 hall WI £32.00

Slot meters, Hall and Pavilion

From minutes of Welney Parish Hall Management Committee (a Council committee) Tuesday 14th Oct 2003
Present: Mark Farrow (Chair), Cllr S.Kerr, Peter Cox (Treasurer), Roger Giles, Cllr Ken Goodger. Plus 2 x MOPs incl Pat Rix taking minutes
Item 3.5. Electricity Slotmeters
These were read and emptied before the meeting by Mark Farrow in the presence of Ken Goodger, Peter Cox and Pat Rix. Readings were confirmed as 165 and 923 compared with 159 and 915 at the previous meeting so the income of £14 handed to Peter Cox was therefore correct.

CFIG investigations completed

• 19th Nov 2020 Clerk Cowell resigned.
• 27th Nov 2020 Peter Gardiner and me visited WMC to view documents in office requested by CPS.
• 17th Dec 2020, DC Foreman met Peter Gardiner and me at William Marshall Centre. The office I built and equipped (with Peter Gardiner's assistance to clear the room) was a complete shambles, piles of files everywhere, burying printer/scanner we wanted to use. DC Foreman received a land line call to the office but unable to reach the phone.
• 12th Jan 2021. New Parish Clerk appointed,
  Mrs Millard Jennifer ("Jen") Millard appointed 12th Jan 2021, resigned giving one months notice just 4 months later on 18th May 2021 (last working day 17th Jun) claiming harrassment from 2 members of the public, and leaving the Council without a Clerk at this crucial time in the fraud case.<.br />
• 16th Jan 2021, DC Foreman said she had contacted Ian Shirley, asked him to ring her
• 26th Jan 2021, Comprehensive evidence uncovered by the second investigation was provided to Norfolk CID on an encypted USB stick received at Swafffham Police Station on 27th Jan 2021. The stick contained about 20 Excel worksheets to support the summary sheet. The info was encrypted and the stick protected with a password, with a note enclosed in the envelope asking her to phone me on my mobile for details. The stick was sent 1st Class Signed For and the Royal Mail website says delivery was made at 11:35 on Wednesday 27th & signed for by DC Foreman, but 'signature' is not hers.
• 3rd Feb 2021, USB stick received by DC Foreman.
• 6th Feb 2021. DC Foreman phoned me, she had unlocked the USB stick. I talked her through the summary sheet and a number of linked tabs, explaining that all sources of the figures are included. She said "the way I had presented everything was just what she wanted".
• 6th Feb 2021 I emailed some items we discussed on phone. She replied, "Brilliant, thanks, Email s working today"
• 22nd Feb DC Foreman asked me to phone her and we discussed a range of items for her to include in her interview with Mrs Copeman next day. That included our wish to have the money owed repaid rather than going to court. DC Foreman said it was a pity I couldn't join her at the interview. I said "you mean, like good cop, bad cop?"
• 3rd March 2021 DC Foreman said Mrs Copeman admitted all bar a few hundred pounds and that her superiors were still keen to send it to court, but would discuss our views with the CPS lawyer.

I understand that the [WPC] are keen to recover the outstanding money ASAP. I have spoken to the lawyer who first reviewed the case, he has said that it would be exceptional for Mrs Copeman to receive a caution in these circumstances. However if the [WPC] are in agreement and the money is repaid it would be in the interests of justice. This would save huge expense to the public purse and a great deal of time.

Mrs C offers full repayment

• 9th March, DC Foreman emailed me, cc'd to PG an RG, to canvas our thoughts "Mrs Copeman had offered to repay the outstanding money, she is keen to keep this out of court. We could do a conditional caution and make sure she actually has the funds to repay" [the latter was confirmed soon after]. She also confirmed the amount of repayment aimed for was the total on my summary on the USB stick, £21,866.63
• 9th March 2021, Cllr Roger Giles accepted the offer on behalf of the Council;
  and separately I did the same on behalf of myself and Peter Gardiner adding
  "Formal notice to progress this will need to come from the Parish Clerk."

Council now "in charge" of case

• 9th March 2021. DC Foreman emailed Clerk Millard. She has discussed with CPS who have agreed a conditional discharge with full repayment, if Council agrees.
• 15th March 2021, at an extra-ordinary zoom meeting, Council unanimously agreed to accept a conditional caution with full repayment, as minuted (left).
  Mrs Millard's Minutes show in attendance: Cllrs Harvey, Barker, Loveday, Wardle, Lowry and Pratley. Also B/Cllrs Spikings & Rose.
  The minutes also show "Not in attendance, Cllr Wardle" (contradicting above.) and appolgies from Cllr Giles (who was hospitalised)
  As it was a closed meeting, no members of public present.
• 23rd Mar 2021 Mrs Millard, just two months into her job, and with virtually no knowledge of the fraud case, with no accountancy skills and unable to correctly record which Cllrs attended the previously meeting, now takes charge. She emailed DC Foreman for an update as Council eager to conclude matters. And added "suggest you refrain from contacting Mr Gardiner and Mr Cox unless absolutely necessary".  In effect, personally dismissing Peter Gardiner and me, who had been appointed by full Council vote. We had worked unpaid, both making considerable contributons; Peter Gardiner for 2½ years and me 1½ years, and were not even given the courtesy of notice of her intentions.
• 29th Mar 2021. Mrs Millard phoned me, wanting my help. I was of course unaware of her mail above. She wanted details of how the anticipated £22k should be split between Council and Hall accounts. I supplied the details, and she put them into a poorly formatted Word doc, and sent it to me for review.
• 31st March 2021. I emailed Mrs Millard, cc'd to co-investigator Peter Gardiner and our overseer, Cllr Roger Giles, confiming her figures. I advised her how it should be shown in accounts, "return of embezzled funds" in line with good commercial practice, and requested the figures be kept confidential until payment received, then Peter Gardiner and I would issue a joint report with findings and recomendations.
• 1st April 2021. Mrs Millard replied. Has noted the contents of my email and my views. Also thanked me for my assistance and my work and dedication. But she ignored the rest of my requests and sent the details to a wide range of people.
• 6th Apri 2021. Mrs Millard again emailed DC Foreman for an update as there was a council meeting due that evening. The DC replied saying the case being reviewed over the weekend. "They" are happy for her to be cautioned, but need to be sure amounts correct. Did Mrs Millard ask who "they" were?

DI's review - he needs more work done to authorise repayment

• 10th April 2021. DC Foreman emailed the Clerk "we are not in a position at this time to give a conditional caution" and attached a review of the case by a DI.  I've highlighted some major points, but in essence it confirmed that most of the elements needed had been met but some further work was necessary. Some financial (by whom?), some by the Council (the Clerk), some by the case officer including another interview with Mrs Copeman (regarding cash) and also reviews with former-clerks that she should done as requested 8 months earlier by CPS in Aug 2020.
  A most important comment was: I cannot see a paper trail showing where this missing money has gone
  That requirement was something we had queried many times, without a response. It is not a requirement of a public authority to prove where stolen money goes and we did not have the ability or authority to do that. That's police work. We trawled the internet, Govt and CPS pages, covering Theft and Fraud acts, never found any reference.
  Note, the review was an internal CID document from DI to DC. It contains abbreviations that lay-people would not understand, and the DC should have explained. If she didn't, did the Clerk ask the DC? Although the review showed a need for clarification or further info on financial evidence I'd provided, I was not included in the circulation. Had I been, I would have queried the abbreviations, without which some parts of the review are impossible to follow. Was that DC Foreman complying with Mrs Millard's request, or her decision? (I received a copy of the review a long tme later, from another source.)
• 4th May 2021. Minutes show: 19/21 Resolve to exclude public and press in accordance with Section 1(2) of the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960, by reason of the confidential nature of the business to be transacted concerning staffing . Present incl JL & VP
• JL & VP -what was discussed? Was it the April review by a DI?
  Can anyone else help?
• 18th(?) May 2021. Mrs Millard resigned, giving a months notice, claiming harrassment from Peter Gardiner and Lanre Bombata.
• 18th May 2021. DC Foreman sent me a very long email with a barmy questionnaire based on the DI review she advised Council of five weeks before. The wording and content of the questionairre suggests, to me, that the DC had changed and was no longer able to manage our case effectively. Perhaps the long delay yet another indication of not being able to keep up with the work-load of our case, with all her other cases to deal with.
  
  1. The DC said that in the first interview Mrs C said she got all muddled up, and the DC and DI said that wasn't an offence. Did they not recall that in two subsequent interviews she admitted 95%? Also 4 years earlier Mrs C "repaid" two very precise sums, £4,849.19 and £3,852.77, the amounts stolen from 2 accounts, knowing what to repay to the penny. Hardly the work of a muddled old lady. The DC now sounds like a clever-dick defence lawyer rather than a detective trying to get a conviction
  2. "and we needed to establish deceipt" - what about the 18 (at least) forged cheques; creating a a ficticious auditor; two sets of accounts; and forging bank statement and invoices, all of which were in their possession?
  3. "and also where did she put the stolen money" - we pointed out that for cheque payments the details were on the reverse of the fiche copies of cheques we provided, and the bank could provide more if she asked (we were not able to) but the DC didn't use that information or ask for more. And we disagreed with their version of theft and they wouldn't - or couldn't- say which law required that
• 20th May 2021. Mrs Millard advised DC Foreman of her resignation, last working day 17th Jun.
• 7th June 2021 I emailed DC Foreman, attaching my replies to the questionaire. I'm making the email and attachment available because I want people to see the efforts made to provide evidence, and other lines of enqury, and how much was dismissed, ignored or forgotten.
  5-page questionairre and responses
  I urge everyone reading this page to read the DI's review, and my email and attached response to the DC's extraordinary questionairre which included many items already supplied or were not part of the case. My response was nevertheless polite and couteous, and worded so people with little knowledge of the case would understand it. I think the DC's 5-week delay sending it to me, and her queries, indicate she was no longer able to manage the case.
  I said I couldn't prove one or two smaller items because they needed further investigation by police not me, but if necessary just delete them and reduce the amount accordingly. DC Foreman said the case would be reviewed again following my response. I'm not aware of any further action by her or her DI.

DC Foreman Crumbles under load and the case ends without payment

• 10th June 2021. I posted a letter to DC

  Hello Larissa
  Mrs Copeman – your email and questions 18th May 2021
  I sent you an email on Monday with an attached response to your questions but haven’t received an acknowledgement.
  Maybe you are on leave or tied up with other cases, but just in case my mail has gone astray or lost in the system as several others I’ve sent you have, I’m posting the enclosed copies of my email and attachment so that [you] can progress the case.
  I'm sending this recorded delivery so I can show Councillors that I have dealt with your questions.
  Regards Peter Cox

• Originally it was claimed nothing had been received. Subsequently she admitted the letter had been received at the Station but her colleagues hadn't advised her nor given it to her. This was the second time she claimed that, and another indication that she was not working efficiently and covering up mistakes and ommisions
• 17th June 2021, Clerk Millard's last day.
• 29th July 2021, Chair Harvey phoned me, to let me know the DC was claiming she was still waiting answers from me. I replied by email (with cc to Cllr Roger Giles), forwardeding my email to the DC on 7th June [see above]. While typing that, the DC phoned me claiming she hadn't received my email or letter. She said she'd phone a colleague to ask if he had it. I then remembered that Roger told me he had phoned the DC mid-June (?) and she confirmed she had received it and was passng it up the line
• 16th August 2021, having not received replies to my emails and the letter posted to her, I texted DC Foreman see two images in left column
  DC Foreman clearly wasn't dealing with our case very well. She said, 16th Aug 2021, that she would "try to review and seek advice" on the documents I sent her on 11th June sometime after 28th August
  I emailed those messages to the Council Chair (then Cllr Dot Harvey) saying:

  Hello Dot, Today [16th Aug 2021] I followed up Larissa Foreman's promise on 2nd Aug to let me know when she had read the documents delivered to her office in Swaffham on 11th June.
  It has become increasingly difficult to believe that the case officer &/or Norfolk Constabulary is trying to bring this to fruition and I am therefore handing this case to the Council. I can do no more.
  The fact she asks "what questions" is clear evidence she hasn't read my email of early Jun and my response to the questions raised by the DI.

  Cllr Harvey did not respond or acknowledge my email.
  
• 2nd Sept 2021, DC Foreman emailed Cllr Harvey and someone else

  I have now had sight of the letter which peter Cox sent in response to some questions I had asked, in order to prove the amount the council believe that Pat Copeman stole. I would have had sight of it soon if Peter had emailed me it , as I have been working from home with a broken ankle for months and then had some annual leave. In my absence the letter had been placed in my locked pigeon hole/ locker which nobody else was able to access. I wasn’t even aware of the letters existence for several weeks after he’d sent it .

  Back In Feb 2021 she emailed me saying "the way I had presented everything was just what she wanted". In March she said it was a pity I couldn't be with her at the imminent interview with Mrs Copeman.
  Yet only a few months later the DC seems to have resorted to lies to cover her apparent inability to cope any longer, possibly after the April review by the DI said she (and I) needed to do more work on the case. My letter clearly said it was posted because she wasn't responding to my emails but complained to Chair Harvey that she would have seen it sooner If I'd emailed!
  As for not seeing it or aware of it because her colleagues put it into her locker, why did she not instruct/ask other officers to forward mail to her home while she was incapacitated? Very strange. She continued:

  I will be requesting a meeting with my supervisor regarding this case when he returns from leave. At this time I don’t know when that will take place as I don’t know what his commitments will be upon his return. However what I’ve seen in Peters letter I don’t feel we are any further forward. However I will discuss with a Detective Sgt assigned to looking into all fraud cases for the constabulary. He is already aware of this case. I will not be communicating with Peter Cox directly and will email any decisions to yourselves.

  She infers that the very detailed 5 pages of answers I sent, covering all the points she and the DI raised, didn't help. So why didn't she let me know? I believe direct contact - a meeting - with the DC, the DS or DI and me would have been benificial, but she didn't even acknowledgement receipt of it, and behind my back she denigrated me to the Council's Chair whoever that was then and whoever the other recipient was.
  And when and to whom was the decision sent?
• Oct 2020 Minutes show "Fraud case: a meeting has been asked for with Police to discuss
• Nov 2021. Mr Goodger magically became Cllr Goodger again without any apparent co-option procedure. Minutes again show "Fraud case: a meeting has been asked for with Police to discuss
• 7th Dec 2021 the Council reversed the decision of 15th March 2021 and accepted a caution without payment, minuting the change by an extremely brief and what appears to be a deliberately misleading and incorrect account about repayments.
  The sucessor Clerk to Mrs Millard was Mrs Hilton, and she listed those present: Cllrs Harvey (Chair), Lowry, Spears, Gardiner, Barker and Goodger.
  B/Cllr Rose and C/Cllr. Dawson attended.
• 19th Dec 2021. A neighbour of Mrs Copeman allegedly reported that Mrs C had just received a police Caution.
• 21st Dec 2021. Clerk Hilton emailed me asking if I had any Parish Council Documents. She meant, but didn't say, fraud case files. I listed all the stuff I held and delivered the files to WMC mid-Jan where Cllr Spears checked everything against my list, which he then signed and dated. I asked if they would be stored in the WMC, and not taken elsewhere. He assured me they would remain in the store at WMC.

Dec 2021 Mrs Copeman given a Caution

• The offender has admitted the offence
• The offender is willing to accept the caution
• There must be sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of a conviction if the offender were to be prosecuted
• The offence is not one where a prosecution is required in the public interest"

• 5th Apr 2022, ex-Cllr Giles reported that Cllr Goodger said case dropped on police advice also Cllr Goodger lied about use of a forensic accountant. See 'Insurance' above.
• 7th June 2022
• ex-Cllr John Loveday reported that at one Council meeting Cllr Spears read out a document allegedly from police saying condition dropped as not enough evidence.
• 13th July 2023, ex-Cllr Giles emailed WPC asking under FOI act, for sight of paper work dropping condition of repayment
  Clerk replied next day stating she had no emails or paper copies of anything to do with the decisions made (casting doubt about Cllr Spears claim) and suggested RG contact Police.
• Roger Giles took that advice, and emailed and phoned the case officer, but no reply

Problems encountered by the investigators

• On Sept 10th we received a good deal of original Council financial documentation going back to 2005 that had been held at Pates Farm. Much was jumbled-up loose papers and by no means a complete set of anything.
• We also received some Bank fiche statements obtained by CID but unfortunately large sections were missing from two accounts and it wasn’t until very late Dec 2019 that new complete sets were made available.
• We were hampered by the missing material and also by reluctance of some (Cllr Goodger, Mrs Austin) to supply information.
We were also unable to meet to view and discuss evidence since March 2020 by Covid restrictions and closure due to unrelated problems of WMC and the Council office where some of the material was stored.
• Finally, we feel that the CID case officer was unable to devote as much time to our case as we would have liked (expected?) and too much has been left to us. There were long periods when she didn't deal with our case at all, and when she re-started she had forgotten or couldn't find what we had told her. Many of my emails seemed to go astray.

Secondary task: establish how she was able to do for so long

Cllr. Goodger's misconduct and arrogance

• lack of bank statements despite repeated requests
• large amout of unbanked cash apparently held

• the complaints above about Mrs Copeman
• UK law
• council rules, regulations and standing orders especially re accounting
• his obligations as a Cllr
• his duties as Chairman
• requests of Cllrs to see bank statement
• views of fellow Cllrs and parishioners.
• Council decisions and resolutions

Councillor Goodger told the member of the public that it was him that found the fraud had taken place. The member of the public was told yet again that the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service could find no case to answer, therefore the Police case is closed. This matter will not be discussed again.

Lack of Financial Management

• Mrs Copeman, the Parish Clerk, broke every financial rule & regulation that it is the duty of a Clerk to work by, enabling her to embezzle £30k of Council money
• Cllr Goodger, the Council Chair, ignored every financial regulation that it is the Council's duty to check, enabling Mrs Copeman to embezzle £30k of Council money

Annual Governance and Accountability Return ("AGAR")

• We have put in place arrangements for effective financial management during the year, and for the preparation of the accounting statements.
• We maintained an adequate system of internal control including measures designed to prevent and detect fraud and corruption and reviewed its effectiveness.
• We maintained throughout the year an adequate and effective system of internal audit of the accounting records and control systems

Internal Auditor

Financial concerns ignored by Council Chair, Ken Goodger

2005: Council witheld information about Mrs Copeman's accounts

Aug 2015: concerns of Cllr Bombata

The Clerk had also supplied information regarding the Parish Council accounts which had been circulated to all councillors.
Cllr.Bombata provided draft finance forms for consideration at the next meeting

The Clerk also supplied details of the Cash Accounts for the Hall and Playing Field which had been circulated to all Councillors.

Dec 2014-Nov 2015: Concerns of Graham Rainbird (Cllr: 2011-2018)

Mar 2015: Suspicions of Ray Gilbert (Cllr May 2014-July 2016)

• HI PETEER WILL HEELP YOU AS MUCH AS I CAN
• WHILE I WAS ON THE COUNCIL I TRIED HARD TO EXPOSE THE CLERK BUT WAS BLOCKED BY KEN ON EVERY TURN I MADE .
• WENT TO HIM ABOUT THE RETURNS TO THE CHARITY COMMISION SHOW HIM ABOUT 5 YRS RETURNS THAT PAT HAD SENT THEM ONLY TO BE TOLD DONT WORRY AABOUT THEM AS THEY WERE FALSE JUST TO COMPLY WITH THE
• WHEN I ARSKED HIM ABOUT THE MONEY THAT WAS RECIVED FROM HIRE ETC HE TOLD ME THAT PAT HAD THAT TO PAY FOR THE WORK SHE DOES AROUND THE CRICKET CLUB
• HE THEN SAID JUST LEAVE IT ALONE I REPLY THAT I NEVER SEE ANY MONEY GOING INTO OUR BANK ACCOUNT FROM THE FIELD
• IF YOU LOOK AT THCHARITY COMMISION WEB YOU CAN GET ALL THESE FIDDLE RETURNS AND SEE THE THINGS THAT SHE DONE WITH KENS APPROVAL
• IF THE COUNCIL GOES TO THE BANK AND PAYS THEY CAN GET ALL THE BANK STATEMENTS THEN YOU WILL SEE THAT IN ALL THE YEARS NO MONEY WAS EVER PAID IN FRO THEIR OR THE VILLAGE HALL
• ALL ELECTRIC MONEY FROM THE METER IN HER POCKET I EXPECT EVEN HIRE MONEY NEVER SHOWED SO CALLEDD CASH ACCOUNT MONEY HEVER PAID INTO THE BANK EXCAPT ONE PAYMENT OF £300
• WHEN ASKED ABOUT IT WAS TOLD IT WAS THE CASH ACOUNT THAT WAS THE ONLY TIME I NEW OF ANY MONEY PAID IN
• AS YOU HAVE SEEN ANY THINK I TRIED TO PROVE WAS STOPPED BY KEN AND HIS FOLLOWERS HE IS AS MUCH TO BLAME AS SHE IS HE NEW ALL ABOUT IT
• EACH MONTH PAT CLAIMED MONEY FOR EXPENCCE SHE GOT A CHECK SIGN BY KEN TO COVER THEM WHEN I ASKED WHY SHE HAD NOT USED THE CASH ACOUNT IT WAS PASSED OVER
• I CAN GO AND ON AND ON BUT COULD NOT GET PAST KEN AND HIS MOB
• YOU CAN PASS THIS ON TO THE POLICE IF YOU NEED TO

Aug 2017: suspicions of Donna Denyer (Cllr: Oct 2017- July 2018)

Aug 2018: suspicions of Clerk Doug Lawson, May-Nov 2018

July 2019: Suspicions of Peter Cox, and concerns of Cllr Tim Bennet

Cash was always a concern of mine. Whenever a figure came up, I would question the ridiculously large amount, but always got a feeble excuse + KG's defence of "she knows what she's doing and don't question her judgement/honesty". This would have happened several times with the response sometimes being stronger than one might expect from an innocent and legitimate query.

Links to other pages about Welney Parish Council

• the way they have been managed, or mismanaged, over a couple of decades
• Councillors and Clerks, past and present (needs a good deal of updating)
• Council minutes from 2004. Draft, unsigned, from Council's official site
• Official Council website, minutes for only last 3 years
• Independent site showing precepts, planning, properties, businesses, farms