BWA: FOLLOW THE MONEY... AGAIN! £££ — AND NOW SHOW US THE RECEIPTS

Well, well, well.

Just when you thought my little wander around the wonderful world of the Bangladeshi Women’s Association (BWA), Tipton Muslim Community Centre and assorted pots of public money might have reached the end of the road...

Along comes another Sandwell Council FOI response.

And this one actually contains documents.

I know.

Steady yourselves.

After previously being told that my much wider request would cost too much to answer, I went back with a much narrower FOI asking a fairly simple question:

What current funding arrangements does Sandwell Council have with BWA, Tipton Muslim Community Centre and Jubilee Park Community Centre?

And, eventually, some paperwork appeared.

£70,877... £10,000... £25,942...

The documents supplied by Sandwell Council reveal several current/recent arrangements.

There is a £70,877 three-year grant agreement relating to Tipton Muslim Community Centre.

There is also an additional £10,000 Net Zero arrangement, funded through West Midlands Combined Authority money, involving BWA leading resident engagement around the Park Lane Estate.

And then we have another £25,942 for a Park Estate gardening/community allotment project.

So we're not talking about somebody being bunged £250 for a tombola and a few sausage rolls.

We're talking about substantial public funding and formal agreements containing actual obligations.

And that matters.

Remember those enormous reserves?

Regular readers may remember one of the questions I've been asking BWA since last year.

According to the accounts we examined, BWA had around:

£322,465 in reserves

including approximately:

£165,226 in unrestricted free reserves

and around:

£323,589 cash at bank.

Which prompted the fairly obvious question:

Why does an organisation sitting on substantial reserves continue receiving significant amounts of public money — and what assessment is being made of its financial need before further grants are awarded?

That doesn't mean a charity shouldn't have reserves.

Of course it should.

Good charities need sensible reserves.

But when public bodies continue handing over taxpayers' money to an organisation holding substantial cash reserves, asking how need was assessed is hardly an outrageous act of sedition.

It is called scrutiny.

£7,500 for "Project staffing and delivery"

The £25,942 gardening/allotment project gets particularly interesting when you look at the budget.

It includes:

£7,500 – Project staffing and delivery

£6,000 – Allotment clearance

£8,000 – Allotment materials

£3,500 – Supporting 50 households

£942 – Monitoring and evaluation

Now I'm interested.

Who received the £7,500?

Was it existing BWA staff?

Additional staff?

How many hours were delivered?

At what rate?

What exactly constituted "project staffing and delivery"?

And what evidence was supplied to Sandwell Council showing that taxpayers got £7,500 worth of it?

Again...

Questions.

Those pesky things.

But here's where the paperwork becomes VERY useful

The grant agreement doesn't simply say:

"Here's £25,942. Have fun with the tomatoes."

There are conditions.

BWA is required to maintain separate, accurate and up-to-date financial records relating to the grant.

That includes things such as management accounts, payroll information and invoices.

There are monitoring requirements.

There are reporting requirements.

There are provisions allowing Sandwell Council and auditors to inspect records.

There are requirements concerning conflicts of interest.

And there's another little gem.

The agreement requires BWA to establish a transparent and accessible system through which residents and service users can provide written feedback and comments concerning the project and BWA's conduct, management and activities.

Oh.

Transparent and accessible.

Two words which have become particularly interesting during this investigation.

Because I've been asking BWA questions since NOVEMBER

Let's remind ourselves how we arrived here.

I first wrote raising governance, financial and conflict-of-interest questions in November 2025.

I followed up.

I wrote again.

I escalated matters directly to the trustees.

I chased them.

I gave deadlines.

I issued a final notice.

I gave them another opportunity to engage.

And another.

And another.

The result?

Nothing substantive from the trustees.

Not even a proper attempt to address the questions.

Former councillor and BWA Chief Executive Syeda Khatun did respond to me in her then councillor capacity in December 2025, saying she declared interests where required and did not participate in Council discussions or decisions concerning funding or contracts connected with her employer.

Fair enough.

But the wider questions I asked were not answered, and repeated requests for clarification went unanswered.

She subsequently lost her Council seat.

But BWA didn't disappear with the election result.

Neither did the questions.

And clearly neither did the public funding.

Then there's the £10,000 and the £25,942...

There's another curious little detail buried in the gardening/allotment agreement.

Under the heading dealing with other funding received by BWA and disclosed to the funder appears:

"[NON-DECLARED AT DATE OF SIGNING]"

Yet the documents supplied by the Council also show BWA involved in the Park Lane/Net Zero programme with the additional £10,000 arrangement.

Now, before anybody starts hyperventilating, I am not alleging duplicate funding.

The projects may be entirely separate.

The funding streams may have been treated differently.

There may be a perfectly reasonable explanation.

Which is why I've asked Sandwell Council the perfectly reasonable question:

Did the Council know about the £10,000 arrangement when the £25,942 grant was approved, and why does the agreement record no other funding as declared?

Easy enough to clear up.

And what about Jubilee Park?

My FOI specifically covered:

BWA

Tipton Muslim Community Centre

and

Jubilee Park Community Centre.

Yet the documents supplied are overwhelmingly concerned with BWA/TMCC and Park Lane.

So I've asked another wonderfully complicated question:

Is there currently any Sandwell Council funding specifically attributable to Jubilee Park Community Centre?

Yes or no will do.

No interpretive dance required.

And then there's Sandwell Consortium...

My FOI also specifically asked whether BWA currently receives money indirectly where Sandwell Council is the originating source.

That matters because one of the longstanding areas I've been examining is the relationship between BWA and Sandwell Consortium.

If taxpayers' money travels:

Sandwell Council → intermediary organisation → BWA

then simply publishing the direct grants doesn't necessarily show us the complete public-funding picture.

I've therefore asked the Council specifically to confirm whether money originating with SMBC currently reaches BWA through Sandwell Consortium, SCVO or another intermediary.

Again, there may be absolutely nothing wrong with such an arrangement.

But we need to know whether it exists before anybody can properly assess the overall funding picture.

Here's the bigger issue

This investigation started with BWA.

But increasingly it raises questions for Sandwell Council too.

Because these grant agreements show that the Council has powers and obligations.

Records should exist.

Monitoring should happen.

Financial evidence should be supplied.

Outcomes should be reported.

Conflicts should be managed.

Public money should be accounted for.

So the next stage isn't simply:

"BWA, answer my questions."

It's:

"Sandwell Council, show us how YOU checked."

If £25,942 was awarded, show the assessment.

Show the monitoring.

Show the expenditure evidence.

Show the outcomes.

Show how the £7,500 staffing allocation was accounted for.

Show the declarations of interest.

Show what happened when the project finished.

Show what residents said.

And if everything was properly delivered and monitored?

Brilliant.

Publish the evidence and I'll happily say so.

That's how scrutiny is supposed to work.

The good news

And there genuinely is some.

The recent Express & Star coverage of the Park Lane project included residents describing real benefits: greater confidence, improved English, gardening, physical activity, employment and reduced isolation.

Those outcomes should be welcomed.

I have never argued that community organisations shouldn't receive public funding.

Quite the opposite.

Good community organisations delivering good services should be supported.

But good outcomes do not remove the need for good governance.

In fact, organisations doing important work should be particularly keen to demonstrate that their governance, finances and public funding are beyond reproach.

So where are we now?

I've gone back to Sandwell Council following this FOI response.

I've asked them to fill the gaps before deciding whether an Internal Review is necessary.

I'm also holding back another FOI for the moment.

Because the next one isn't going fishing.

It will be considerably more surgical.

We now know what some of the grants are.

We know what some of the contractual conditions say.

The next question is going to be:

SHOW US THE EVIDENCE THAT THOSE CONDITIONS WERE MET.

Applications.

Due diligence.

Grant assessments.

Conflicts.

Invoices.

Payroll evidence.

Monitoring reports.

Performance reports.

Resident feedback.

Outcomes.

Evaluations.

And the evidence Sandwell Council relied upon when deciding that taxpayers received what taxpayers paid for.

After months of unanswered questions, perhaps the paperwork will eventually answer what people wouldn't.

Follow the Money.

Follow the Power.

Follow the Silence.

And now...

Follow the Audit Trail.

Because public money should always leave one.

#Sandwell #Tipton #BWA #BangladeshiWomensAssociation #TiptonMuslimCommunityCentre #JubileePark #ParkLaneEstate #SandwellCouncil #PublicMoney #TaxpayersMoney #Transparency #Accountability #Governance #FreedomOfInformation #FOI #CommunityFunding #GrantFunding #SandwellConsortium #FollowTheMoney #FollowTheAuditTrail