I have just noticed a committee member has now set up in business in Kinloch Rannoch with an Airbnb.
The business even has its own website.
Having been an avid reader of the club constitution over the years and based on my understanding of Section 175 of the companies act is this possible and can it be construed as a conflict of interest?
This committee member also, I would assume has access to confidential club information.
If this business is considered to be in competition to the club can this committee member remain as it could potentially lose the club much needed and valued income?
IS THIS POSSIBLE?
Must have money to burn since if this was a recent purchase then it attracts Additional dwelling Supplement at 8% of the purchase price and even more if the value of the property is greater than the specified threshold.
Not really a good business prospect for most people.
If however the property which is being referred to is a rented or timeshare property then I would imagine that the “landlord/ landlady” is treading on very shaky ground.
Also position on Commitee would appear ro be comprised.
Hopefully the full members of LRHC will ask relevant questions re this because every single Term owner has been stripped of all rights other than the right to occupy their own lodge and are now banned from attending AGM’s , submitting resolutions or voting at LRHC
Yes this is fact and no satisfactory reason for this course of action has been provided by the Committee.
Not really a good business prospect for most people.
If however the property which is being referred to is a rented or timeshare property then I would imagine that the “landlord/ landlady” is treading on very shaky ground.
Also position on Commitee would appear ro be comprised.
Hopefully the full members of LRHC will ask relevant questions re this because every single Term owner has been stripped of all rights other than the right to occupy their own lodge and are now banned from attending AGM’s , submitting resolutions or voting at LRHC
Yes this is fact and no satisfactory reason for this course of action has been provided by the Committee.
Position on committee is in my opinion on extremely shaky ground as you have stated and totally compromised under the Club constitution.
What makes it potentially even more a conflict of interest is that the named day to day manager is/was an employee of the club and is the spouse of another employee of the club.
What makes it potentially even more a conflict of interest is that the named day to day manager is/was an employee of the club and is the spouse of another employee of the club.
For me and I would think a majority of people would say the same, this transaction should have been declared as soon as it became a possibility.
The reason for that as I have said already, is the Club constitution.
If this has happened, then I would suspect it has been discussed and whatever the outcome, it would be classed as personal club business and dealt with according to club rules.
Looking at the information available I would expect this to have been declared in August as the company set up date was in September and no doubt various conversations were taking place and sale agreed prior to this.
If it were not declared at this time, I would then in my opinion, be asking the said committee to resign position immediately which should be a foregone conclusion anyway with the constitution and in same way,if seller has not been transparent, questions would have to be raised.
The reason for that as I have said already, is the Club constitution.
If this has happened, then I would suspect it has been discussed and whatever the outcome, it would be classed as personal club business and dealt with according to club rules.
Looking at the information available I would expect this to have been declared in August as the company set up date was in September and no doubt various conversations were taking place and sale agreed prior to this.
If it were not declared at this time, I would then in my opinion, be asking the said committee to resign position immediately which should be a foregone conclusion anyway with the constitution and in same way,if seller has not been transparent, questions would have to be raised.
Following a review of this thread, we have made a minor edit to one post to ensure compliance with our forum rules and to protect the club from potential legal issues.
The edit involved removing two words that could be construed as defamatory accusations. The substantive discussion about potential conflicts of interest under the Companies Act Section 175, and references to publicly available information (websites, P&K council records) remain unchanged as these constitute legitimate discussion points based on factual, public information.
We encourage continued civil discussion about club governance matters. Please remember to:
Focus on the merits of ideas and legitimate concerns
Avoid personal attacks or unsubstantiated accusations against committee members or staff
Reference facts and public information when raising concerns
The discussion about potential conflicts of interest is an important governance topic that members have every right to explore, provided it's done respectfully and factually.
Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in maintaining a constructive forum environment.
Having read the redacted post and in defence of what had been said, my personal opinion is that this particular transaction could be construed as unhealthy for the club.
If it's unhealthy for the club and is a potential breach of the constitution, then the potential impact on owners can have a lasting effect.
For those parties involved please take a good long hard look at their actions and try to understand why such vocabulary was used.
It potentially opens up a can of worms on various levels which when you consider past issues, I thought we had left behind.
If this was not considered by the various parties at the time of any potential transaction at the beginning of any discussions, then the bigger question remains?
If it's unhealthy for the club and is a potential breach of the constitution, then the potential impact on owners can have a lasting effect.
For those parties involved please take a good long hard look at their actions and try to understand why such vocabulary was used.
It potentially opens up a can of worms on various levels which when you consider past issues, I thought we had left behind.
If this was not considered by the various parties at the time of any potential transaction at the beginning of any discussions, then the bigger question remains?
It would now appear that what was been discussed on this thread appears to be a reality.
The locals appear to be up in arms for very good reason, it has hit the local papers,the club committee appears to have allowed and more concerning is the confusion in replies to the licencing board.
This in my opinion is once again bringing the club into disrepute and if the committee has allowed makes a mockery of our very own articles of association and of Section 125 of the companies act.
This is the type of association that this particular committee member was dead against at one time, but for some strange reason now suits both them and the seller who is benefitting in more ways than one.
And to set up a website with what appears to be a false review says a lot more about the people involved.
This rental because of association to certain parties could, I suggest cost the club in lost revenue.
Any other response from the parties involved, I believe would be a false retort.
I can't help but feel personally as suggested already this transaction is unhealthy for the club and it's owners and if committee members have agreed this is not the case,I question their integrity and should they be on committee as their main function, unless I am mistaken is to look after the interests of club and it's owners.
The locals appear to be up in arms for very good reason, it has hit the local papers,the club committee appears to have allowed and more concerning is the confusion in replies to the licencing board.
This in my opinion is once again bringing the club into disrepute and if the committee has allowed makes a mockery of our very own articles of association and of Section 125 of the companies act.
This is the type of association that this particular committee member was dead against at one time, but for some strange reason now suits both them and the seller who is benefitting in more ways than one.
And to set up a website with what appears to be a false review says a lot more about the people involved.
This rental because of association to certain parties could, I suggest cost the club in lost revenue.
Any other response from the parties involved, I believe would be a false retort.
I can't help but feel personally as suggested already this transaction is unhealthy for the club and it's owners and if committee members have agreed this is not the case,I question their integrity and should they be on committee as their main function, unless I am mistaken is to look after the interests of club and it's owners.
Last edited by LAMO003 on Mon Nov 10, 2025 7:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Not surprised that the local population in a small rural community are unhappy with this development.
Most logical and rational people would assume that the Directors and employed management of the club would put the club interests as their main priority and not personal interests.
After the Committee disaster about 5 years ago the club interests were indeed pledged to be the priority and not personal interests , so what’s gone wrong ?
Now a distinct division has been created amongst club members whereby Term owners are treated differently from perpetuity owners and have no rights other than to occupy the week(s) which they pay for. There are no voting rights, no right to submit a resolution at the AGM and in fact even more concerning, no right to attend an AGM although guests of any perpetuity owner are welcome to attend. No valid reason has been provided for this change in direction either.
I sometimes wonder about what the club has become
Most logical and rational people would assume that the Directors and employed management of the club would put the club interests as their main priority and not personal interests.
After the Committee disaster about 5 years ago the club interests were indeed pledged to be the priority and not personal interests , so what’s gone wrong ?
Now a distinct division has been created amongst club members whereby Term owners are treated differently from perpetuity owners and have no rights other than to occupy the week(s) which they pay for. There are no voting rights, no right to submit a resolution at the AGM and in fact even more concerning, no right to attend an AGM although guests of any perpetuity owner are welcome to attend. No valid reason has been provided for this change in direction either.
I sometimes wonder about what the club has become
It's amazing to see just how far people will go and not care.
And this is not just down to the committee member.
The seller because of maybe unpopularity has decided to disregard how his neighbours and the overall village would feel and expects them to still welcome them with open arms.
Must live on a different planet.
The lies will always catch up with you I have been told.
And this is not just down to the committee member.
The seller because of maybe unpopularity has decided to disregard how his neighbours and the overall village would feel and expects them to still welcome them with open arms.
Must live on a different planet.
The lies will always catch up with you I have been told.