AVON VALLEY DEFRAUDED OF £50,000

[father_jack]

Bounce Back — Avon Valley Railway Heritage Trust

www.avrht.org

BOUNCE BACK APPEAL​

Appeal launched following financial loss to serial fraudster
Please read Press Release below
Donate

Press Release​

“Appeal launched following financial loss to serial fraudster
The Avon Valley Railway Heritage Trust, a volunteer-led charity running a heritage railway between Bristol and Bath, is today launching a Bounce Back Appeal to help strengthen the Railway’s finances. This comes after financial anomalies were identified after being carried out by a former staff member. Donations can be made and more information found on our website avrht.org/bounceback Every penny donated is massively appreciated at this time.
After the resignation of Matthew Smith, a previously well-presented and respected employee of Avon Valley Railway Company Ltd, the railway has been horrified to find what initially appeared to be a few financial irregularities. This has unfortunately escalated, and we are now fully aware of the extremely serious activities involving this employee, which now look like deliberate acts of fraud against the railway.

Upon reporting the offences to the police, we have discovered that the individual’s true identity is Nathan Hudson, a wanted career criminal with a long history of scamming operations in Humberside and Edinburgh, among other locations since 2003. (https://www.humberside.police.uk/news/humberside/news/wanted/2025/january/nathan-hudson/ - Humberside Police Wanted listing containing photo of Nathan Hudson)

Humberside Police Wanted listing of Nathan Hudson
Hudson created fake profiles and appears to have fabricated supporting documentation to maintain the illusion of his false identity. He used his well-liked character to gain trust and build ‘friendships’ with staff and volunteers across the organisation. Some staff and volunteers have also been financially impacted. This is likely a strategy he had successfully employed in his numerous previous scams.
After an in-depth investigation it is now apparent that the Railway has been impacted by approximately £50,000, as a consequence of the activities of this person. This has affected its ability to undertake much of its planned restoration and maintenance work over the winter. The railway can not be certain that during the time of his employment he did not have external assistance for his fraudulent activities.
The railway’s Chairman Roger Eynon said;
‘It’s been a difficult few months for all of us and we’re working hard to recover from Matthew Smith/Nathan Hudson’s actions. We’re launching our Bounce Back appeal to enable us to continue our vital restoration work this year and beyond so any money we receive is so massively appreciated at this time. People can find out more at www.avrht.org/bounceback’
The actions of this person have had a severe personal impact on the volunteers, staff and management of the railway, who trusted him and thought of him as a friend and valued colleague, making it a difficult and stressful time for all of us. We are working hard to recover from the situation and look forward to a more positive 2025 - but we need your help.
For enquires please contact the Avon Valley Railway Heritage Trust at [email protected]
If you have any information about Nathan Hudson please contact the police using the non-emergency number 101 and quoting crime reference number: 24*149140.”

I'm hearing it's incredibly distressing for some at the railway.

 

[generalnerd]

Oh my days! Did he pretend to be a volunteer for years to scam them? Or was he a volunteer who decided to scam them, I can’t really figure it out

 

[simonw]

Oh my days! Did he pretend to be a volunteer for years to scam them? Or was he a volunteer who decided to scam them, I can’t really figure it out

He was an employee who appears to have a history of such activities. A great shame for the railway

 

[generalnerd]

He was an employee who appears to have a history of such activities. A great shame for the railway

That is awful! Hopefully they regain the costs soon

 

[Dai Corner]

https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2025-03-04/police-hunt-wanted-fraudster-after-heritage-railway-scammed-out-of-thousands

A heritage railway between Bristol and Bath says it's been scammed out of £50,000 pounds by a wanted fraudster who posed as an employee.

A spokesperson for Avon Valley Railway said it began to notice several financial irregularities after the resignation of employee Matthew Smith.

After investigating further, it found bigger problems which it believed to be deliberate acts of fraud.

The Avon Valley Railway Heritage Trust, a volunteer-led charity which runs the Avon Valley Railway reported its findings to the police.

 

[Sheldonian]

Think all heritage railways need to look carefully at this and make sure that they are not soft targets.
Terrible for the AVR. Hope they bounce back soon.

 

[JKF]

I’m curious as to exactly how he’s managed to take this money off them, heritage railways aren’t exactly awash with cash and it’s a significant sum. Hope some of it can be recovered but I guess unlikely.

 

[Titfield]

It does seem as if financial controls were somewhat lacking given how big the sum was relative to turnover.

 

[Egg Centric]

Very common in volunteer organisations for no one to "want" to do the finance so it all ends up in the hands of one person. If they're dishonest you end up with something like this. Crying shame.

 

[ian1944]

Lack of oversight common or not, if the crook was given unrestricted access to money without any second-person (at least) check, the trustees are guilty of negligence. Running a charity, they have a responsibility to safeguard funds, and failure to do so may leave them liable personally. Rushing into an appeal for a handout rather sounds as if they are hoping to be bailed out of the mess before somebody else notices this.

 

[Egg Centric]

Lack of oversight common or not, if the crook was given unrestricted access to money without any second-person (at least) check, the trustees are guilty of negligence. Running a charity, they have a responsibility to safeguard funds, and failure to do so may leave them liable personally. Rushing into an appeal for a handout rather sounds as if they are hoping to be bailed out of the mess before somebody else notices this.

Yes but it doesn't make it any less of a shame!

 

[Dai Corner]

Lack of oversight common or not, if the crook was given unrestricted access to money without any second-person (at least) check, the trustees are guilty of negligence. Running a charity, they have a responsibility to safeguard funds, and failure to do so may leave them liable personally. Rushing into an appeal for a handout rather sounds as if they are hoping to be bailed out of the mess before somebody else notices this.

As a former Treasurer of a charity I concur. We always ensured two people had to authorise every payment.

Without prejudging the situation, I'd say that either proper financial controls weren't in place or a second person was involved.

 

[yorkie]

This individual has been known to be a serial fraudster for a long time, and has a habit of targeting the travel/transport/holiday sectors.

See for example this from 2011:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/995959/i-think-i-have-been-scammed/p12

Nathan Scott or Nathan Hudson is from Cottingham, Hull - Please log your statements in detail with the Humberside Police 0845 606 0222 or (http://www.humberside.police.uk/contact-us/reporting-a-crime/ , giving them a copy of this forum thread and any other information/evidence that you have. Assuming we all register our complaints I am sure they will deal with this swiftly.

I will passing them his last know address details in Cottingham so no need to ask for this anymore on this site.
Please ensure you mention, Rainbow Horizons Ltd, Prestige Rail Services Ltd & Xcite Destinations Ltd as the Fraudulant companies and that this has and still is afecting hundreds of people. Thanks for all your assitance

And from 2005:

Man wanted by police in connection to fraud cases

He is wanted in relation to a range of fraud cases including scam holiday homes and not paying wages

www.hulldailymail.co.uk

Police are trying to find this man in connection with a range of fraud cases, including scam holiday homes and not paying wages.

Nathan Hudson, 41, is wanted by Humberside Police in connection with the cases, which range from 2015 to 2018, and have issued a public appeal in a bid to find him.

Nathan, who previously lived in Cottingham, may have travelled to the Wiltshire area, and it is believed he uses the alias of Matthew Smith.

Officer in the case, PC Adrian Wallace, said: ''The victims of these fraud cases are from across the country, but Nathan Hudson has previously lived in Cottingham, East Riding of Yorkshire, and may have since travelled to the area of Wiltshire or Gloucestershire. It is also believed he uses the alias Matthew Smith.

Keep up to date with all the latest crime and court news from Hull with our free newsletter

''Officers continue extensive enquiries and country-wide searches, which have so far been unsuccessful, and so we are re-appealing for help to locate him.

There are many more articles; this individual will continue to commit crimes and even if caught and punished, he will just go back to committing more crimes as soon as he is released.

There isn't any effective punishment that can actually be given out that would prevent him committing such crimes.

He attempted to create a forum account in 2011 but was thwarted and never got as far as posting (as far as we know).

 

[Egg Centric]

The other thing that would have helped this situation is some kind of vetting - presumably any sort of properly executed DBS or even credit check would have picked this up.

Given these days it's on the employer to ascertain themselves that the employee has a right to work in the UK, there is some pretty significant ineptitude here.

None of this though is to mean it's anyone's "fault" other than Nathan's.

 

[ian1944]

To add to my previous comment, yes it's someone else's fault as well as the crook's. In England. the Charity Commissioners are very strict on proper stewardship by trustees (there's a clue in that title) and clearly negligence has been shown. I don't know the structure in this case, maybe the charity is hiding behind a limited-liability holding company, but someone must have authorised/permitted payment of the stolen money.

It may be a case of "I'll do it if nobody else wants to" (the well-meaning bumbling amateur model), but those days should have gone, with trustees aware of, up to and taking seriously their responsibilities. In the late 90s I became treasurer of an English charity and was horrified to find no effective financial control. For example, some building work was taking place and the volunteer project manager was permitted to pay for work as completed independently of, and unknown to, the previous treasurer. One sizeable invoice had been paid by each of them, so the first step was to recover half of the double payment, the second to ensure that nobody but me could make any payment and that all such had to be authorised by the person above, and the third to produce management accounts for the ongoing meetings of trustees. Surely, 25+ years later, such controls are absolutely standard.

 

[Egg Centric]

To add to my previous comment, yes it's someone else's fault as well as the crook's. In England. the Charity Commissioners are very strict on proper stewardship by trustees (there's a clue in that title) and clearly negligence has been shown. I don't know the structure in this case, maybe the charity is hiding behind a limited-liability holding company, but someone must have authorised/permitted payment of the stolen money.

It may be a case of "I'll do it if nobody else wants to" (the well-meaning bumbling amateur model), but those days should have gone, with trustees aware of, up to and taking seriously their responsibilities. In the late 90s I became treasurer of an English charity and was horrified to find no effective financial control. For example, some building work was taking place and the volunteer project manager was permitted to pay for work as completed independently of, and unknown to, the previous treasurer. One sizeable invoice had been paid by each of them, so the first step was to recover half of the double payment, the second to ensure that nobody but me could make any payment and that all such had to be authorised by the person above, and the third to produce management accounts for the ongoing meetings of trustees. Surely, 25+ years later, such controls are absolutely standard.

I don't disagree with any of what you said except as to whether that means it was the negligent parties' fault. I think we are using different definitions of fault, me in a more "morally blameworthy" and you in a "could different actions have averted this and should they have taken them" way. Unless you believe them to be morally blameworthy as well?

 

[Dai Corner]

I don't disagree with any of what you said except as to whether that means it was the negligent parties' fault. I think we are using different definitions of fault, me in a more "morally blameworthy" and you in a "could different actions have averted this and should they have taken them" way. Unless you believe them to be morally blameworthy as well?

Back in the day, it wasn't unknown for a signatory to sign blank cheques for somebody else to fill in as they wished . This situation appears similar but we'll have to wait. until the trial has taken place to know for sure.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Back in the day, it wasn't unknown for a signatory to sign blank cheques for somebody else to fill in as they wished . This situation appears similar but we'll have to wait. until the trial has taken place to know for sure.

I get the impression that a trial is not in the pipeline. He has to be found first and it seems he has disappeared.

I remember one place I was doing voluntary work a signed blank cheque was suggested for something and I jumped quite aggressively on the idea. I pointed out that if the cheque was lost (or taken) then it could be used for quite a significant sum.

 

[ian1944]

I don't disagree with any of what you said except as to whether that means it was the negligent parties' fault. I think we are using different definitions of fault, me in a more "morally blameworthy" and you in a "could different actions have averted this and should they have taken them" way. Unless you believe them to be morally blameworthy as well?

Legally at fault for sure, my interpretation of morality isn't up to answering your question.

The other thing that troubles me is that, on reading the wording of the appeal for recompense, I can find no sign of contrition or recognition of culpability. In effect, this bad man was so plausible that he fooled us into thinking he was a good one and he got away with a lot of money, so please can someone else give it back? I wonder how many on this forum are inclined to contribute to a body with such a sense of entitlement.