“understandable in terms of commercial return..”

In the Belfast Telegraph David Gordon has seen the confidential report by Stormont Standards Commissioner Tom Frawley on the Paisleys and the rental claims for their Ballymena constituency office, among other things, which is owned by a shelf company Sarcon 250 (sole director Seymour Sweeney Ian Paisley Jnr’s father-in-law James Currie DUP Councillor Sam Hanna). The report is due to be discussed today by the NI Assembly Committee on Standards and Privileges in closed session. [Have we got mail, Mick? – Ed] From David Gordon’s report

It was officially revealed last year that their combined rental claims for the office were at a rate of £57,000 a year — some three times higher than the next highest individual MLA total. There are currently no Assembly rules limiting rental value or office size, or any requirement to provide independent valuation. The Paisleys’ landlord is a company called Sarcon 250. Mr Paisley jnr has said the rental level was set following professional advice.

As part of his investigation, Mr Frawley consulted with the Government’s Commissioner for Valuation, who cited an estimate of £26,000 to £30,000 a year for the property. However, the Commissioner also stated that the sums actually being claimed were understandable in terms of commercial return. Mr Paisley jnr last year said there was no profit for Sarcon 250 in the arrangements.

, , ,

  • Frustrated Democrat

    It seems the shareholders in Sarcon 250 are employees of the Solicitors who set up the company and who therefore probably act for either the DUP or Seymour Sweeney.

    Who are the shareholders holding the shares for?

    Who will own the property or alternatively Sarcon 250 when the mortgage is paid off at the taxpayers expense?

    I would also note that a commercial return is irrelevant to the taxpayer. Sarcon 250 paid too much for the building and that is its problem not the DUP who are renting it or the taxpayers. Unless of course those who own it are renting it to themselves at the taxpayers expense, would that be legal?

  • I wonder if Frawley’s report deals with the following:

    Company directors and the company secretary are also legally responsible for ensuring that the following documents are submitted to Companies House where necessary:

    annual returns
    any new shares allotted – form 88(2) – within 28 days
    notice of change of directors or secretaries – forms 228a, 288b or 288c – within 14 days
    notice of change of registered office – form 287

    What action, if any, has Companies Registry and/or DETI, a DUP department, taken on these documents which were received by CR on 21 February 2008 but allegedly signed on 24 October 2007?

    A928589 – resignation of Seymour Henry Sweeney

    A928590 – appointment of James Wilson Currie

    Some other CR info:

    Sarcon (No 250) Limited

    Sarcon Compliance Limited, company secretary

  • I remember a time when a story about Ian Junior would have sent Slugger into over-drive 🙂

  • Mannanan

    Interesting Scibd documentation Nevin, especially Sarcon (250) Limited. Who would have guessed that the DUP would have to go all the way to Lower Baggot Street in Dublin to get a mortgage. I’m surprised that they couldn’t find a source of funding closer to the centre of Ulster…. What a sitution – if the loan defaults then the Governor of the Bank of Ireland would be quite within his rights to come up and claim his satisfaction by taking back part of the heart of Ballymena.

  • joeCanuck

    Agreed, Nevin, but perhaps Sluggerites are relatively pleased that they have helped in some way to marginalize him.

  • Shhhhh, Mannanan 🙂

    Joe, there are several explanations circulating about the sale of his second home; one of them might even be true.