Let’s Dance Again CIO: The Questions Haven’t Gone Away – They’ve Got Bigger

There comes a point when silence stops looking dignified and starts looking like avoidance.

That point was passed some time ago with Let’s Dance Again CIO.

I first became involved because people approached me with concerns about exclusions, governance, treatment of older people, safeguarding, data handling and finances.

Since then I have done what any half-decent citizen journalist should do.

I checked records.

I asked questions.

I used Freedom of Information.

I wrote directly to the trustees.

I submitted a Subject Access Request.

And I kept a record.

What I have not done is ask for Let’s Dance Again to close.

I have not asked for coffee mornings to stop.

I have not asked for shows, trips, dancing, bingo or social activities to end.

Quite the opposite.

If a charity is providing something valuable for older people, brilliant.

But that does not give it a free pass on governance.

And it certainly does not mean trustees can simply ignore reasonable questions because they don’t like who is asking them.

The trustees still have questions to answer

The trustees currently identified are:

Elaine Costigan
Debora Dawn Price
Janet Clarke

They are the people legally responsible for the charity.

Not supporters.

Not friends.

Not family members.

Not enthusiastic volunteers.

And not David Laine.

The trustees have now been asked repeatedly about finances, conflicts of interest, exclusions, complaints, safeguarding, data protection and public conduct.

Those questions remain substantially unanswered.

That is the central fact in all of this.

Let’s talk about the accounts

This is becoming one of the biggest red flags.

According to the charity’s reported figures:

Year ending 31 March 2024

Income: around £14,300
Expenditure: around £11,710
Government grants: around £12,392

Year ending 31 March 2025

Income: around £19,150
Expenditure: around £17,520

Now stop there for a moment.

Just look at those numbers.

Then think about the visible activities associated with the group:

coffee mornings,

shows,

entertainment,

trips,

exercise sessions,

craft sessions,

IT sessions,

special events,

raffles,

collections,

donations,

bingo,

refreshments,

and plenty of cash changing hands.

Sandwell Council’s own FOI disclosures confirm extensive and repeated use of Wednesbury Town Hall.

So the obvious question is this:

How do annual income figures of roughly £14,300 and £19,150 reconcile with that level of activity?

I am not saying I have proved fraud.

I haven’t.

But I am saying the figures look extraordinary.

And the fact that the two years are also relatively similar despite the scale and continuity of activity makes the whole thing even more worthy of scrutiny.

Someone needs to explain it.

Properly.

Not with slogans.

Not with Facebook posts.

Not with “everybody is happy”.

With records.

Cash, bingo, raffles and collections

Cash handling deserves particular attention.

Who takes the money?

Who counts it?

Is there dual counting?

Are totals recorded?

How often is it banked?

How are raffles accounted for?

How are donations recorded?

How are collections reconciled?

And what about bingo?

Where fixed prize amounts are advertised, the amount taken in will not necessarily equal the amount paid out.

So where is the surplus recorded?

How much was taken?

How much was paid out?

Who handled it?

Where does it appear in the charity’s accounts?

Those are not outrageous questions.

They are basic financial-control questions.

USP Steels – still no answer

Then we have USP Steels Ltd.

The company is understood to be connected to the Chair’s son.

The charity publicly referred to the company supporting LDA.

Fine.

But that immediately raises straightforward conflict-of-interest questions.

What support was given?

What was it worth?

Was it cash, goods, services or sponsorship?

What does the company receive in return?

Branding?

Promotion?

Access?

Association with the charity?

Association with events held in Wednesbury Town Hall?

Was the family relationship declared?

Was it minuted?

Did the Chair withdraw from any decision?

Was Sandwell Council aware of any commercial branding connected to activities in its building?

Still waiting.

Then there is the Subject Access Request

On 23 February 2026, I submitted a formal Subject Access Request.

I asked for personal data held about me across the charity’s emails, Facebook communications, messages, documents, notes and communications with third parties.

I chased it.

And chased it again.

And again.

No substantive response.

No lawful extension.

No request for clarification.

No identity-verification request.

Nothing.

That is now a data-protection issue in its own right.

But it also tells you something wider about governance.

A charity cannot bang on about rules, law and doing everything properly while apparently ignoring a formal statutory request for months.

That simply does not wash.

And then there is David Laine

Now we get to one of the strangest parts of this whole saga.

David Laine is not a trustee.

Yet for months he has repeatedly inserted himself into governance matters that legally belong to the trustees.

We have seen people called liars.

We have seen accusations of vendettas.

We have seen threatening and confrontational language.

We have seen references to solicitors, police, evidence, dirt and “more to come”.

We have seen third-party venues dragged into the argument.

We have even recently seen implication that critics may have been responsible for damaged display banners.

Perhaps someone might first have considered the rather less dramatic explanation:

high winds.

The trustees were repeatedly warned about this conduct.

They were asked whether Mr Laine was authorised to speak on their behalf.

They were asked whether they endorsed his conduct.

They were asked what steps they had taken to protect the charity’s reputation.

Still waiting.

And at one point Chair Elaine Costigan had publicly reacted positively to and shared material from him.

So this stopped being dismissible as “just one bloke on Facebook” a long time ago.

A charity cannot outsource accountability

That is the point.

Trustees cannot remain silent while somebody else does the attacking.

They cannot let a non-trustee become the public enforcer and then pretend none of it has anything to do with charity governance.

Responsibility remains with the trustees.

Always.

What did the Sandwell Council FOI tell us?

Quite a lot.

It confirmed:

• extensive use of Wednesbury Town Hall;

• a period of free use for community groups;

• a real council funding relationship;

• council awareness of complaints;

• no conflict-of-interest records said to be held relating to LDA trustees;

• and, remarkably, no policies, criteria or officer guidance governing community use, free use or preferential access during the relevant period.

Read that again.

A public building.

Repeated use.

Public funding.

Free use.

And apparently no written framework governing how free or preferential access was decided.

That ought to concern anyone interested in public governance.

A later Sandwell premises framework introduced far more structured arrangements.

Which rather raises the question:

Why wasn’t that structure there before?

This is about standards

The latest email to the trustees put the issue very simply.

A charity serving older and potentially vulnerable people should be run with:

candour
honesty
integrity
openness
accountability
leadership

And frankly, the Nolan Principles are a pretty good benchmark too:

Selflessness.

Integrity.

Objectivity.

Accountability.

Openness.

Honesty.

Leadership.

Those principles should not just sit in government documents.

They are sensible standards for anyone entrusted with money, beneficiaries and public confidence.

So where are we now?

The questions remain.

The accounts still need explaining.

The cash-handling controls still need explaining.

The bingo income still needs explaining.

The USP Steels relationship still needs explaining.

The exclusions still need explaining.

The SAR still needs answering.

David Laine’s role still needs explaining.

The trustees’ failure to intervene still needs explaining.

And Sandwell Council still has questions to answer about how all of this was overseen within a public building.

This is no longer a case of a few disgruntled people moaning.

There is now a substantial documentary record.

There are FOI disclosures.

There are emails.

There are public posts.

There are witness accounts.

And there is a Master Foundation Document pulling the whole thing together.

The bottom line

If everything is proper, transparent and above board, then answer the questions.

Produce the records.

Reconcile the figures.

Explain the conflicts.

Show the controls.

Answer the SAR.

And let the trustees speak for themselves.

Because every month that passes with more silence and more noise from everyone except the people actually responsible makes the governance problem look worse, not better.

That isn’t persecution.

That isn’t hate.

That isn’t a vendetta.

That is accountability.

#LetsDanceAgain #Wednesbury #CharityGovernance #TrusteeAccountability #FinancialTransparency #WednesburyTownHall #SandwellCouncil #GDPR #Safeguarding #PublicInterest #Accountability