Gatwick Prevention Team was able to secure the funding for the charity through the
Police Property Act Fund.
This is made up of monies received by the police from the sale of found property and from property confiscated by order of the court and then sold.
Inspector James Biggs, of the Gatwick Prevention Team, said:
“We are delighted to be able to support Gatwick Travelcare with this donation. Travelcare and Sussex Police have an excellent relationship at Gatwick and often work very closely together to help passengers who need assistance. Quite often these passengers are vulnerable, and to be able to support such a worthwhile charity is something Sussex Police is very proud to be able to do.”
Linda Comber, from Gatwick Travelcare, said:
“On behalf of the Gatwick Travelcare team, I cannot express our sincere gratitude enough to Sussex Police for the generous donation to our charity. Your support means a great deal to us. This donation really makes a difference, and allows us to continue providing support to passengers and visitors who find themselves in difficulty and distress.”
To find out more about the Police Property Act Fund and how you can apply for funding, visit our website here.
‘Springboard are not closing because we were increasing the rent’ says Leader of Crawley Council
Reports that the charity will have to close their Langley Green site because of rent increase are just not true says Councillor Peter Lamb.
In response to the claims that the charity Springboard would have to close their Langley Green site due to a rent increase by Crawley Borough Council, Leader the Council Peter Lamb has written publicly to address the issue.
Posting on his own blog he says:
“I’m aware that a number of mistruths are being circulated around about this, so in the interests of fairness I thought you might like a true account of events.
When Springboard opened they decided to take on a commercial property at a commercial rent.
“I agreed to look at freezing the rent and guaranteeing the council’s grant funding for a number of years”
At this time all the risks were highlighted to them, but they decided to take on the property nonetheless and various public sector organisations provided grant funding to help set the property up and pay for some of the running costs.
Last year I met with the new chief executive of the charity who flagged up that they were in financial difficulties, that he understood the circumstances under which the charity had taken on the property but they were struggling.
At the time I agreed to look at freezing the rent and guaranteeing the council’s grant funding for a number of years and I was given to understand that that might be enough to ensure the charity’s presence in the town. I looked into it and reported back that we could commit to such an arrangement.
“It is very sad that the charity is closing but it is not though any unreasonable behaviour on the council’s part“
When I met with the chief executive again in February I was informed that the charity’s financial position had worsened and that freezing the rent and guaranteeing the grant would not be enough for the charity to be able to maintain its presence in Crawley.
I said that we weren’t in a position to commit to the tens of thousands of pounds in additional funding which were requested, but that we’d be willing to form part of a solution alongside WSCC and the CCG who have legal responsibility for the groups Springboard works with.
For some reason this was not seen to be seen as an acceptable solution and I did not hear anything further until I was informed Springboard were closing.
Springboard are not closing because we were increasing the rent (despite their signing up to that contract), nor because of any cuts to their grant funding by CBC but because their financial position worsened due to the loss of a major donor and Crawley Borough Council were not in a place to make up the gap without the support of the two organisations legally responsible for Springboard’s client group.
It is very sad that the charity is closing but it is not though any unreasonable behaviour on the council’s part, particularly when you consider we were the only organisation which expressed a willingness to help despite having no formal remit to do with Springboard’s work.”