EXCLUSIVE Sister of The Salt Path author's former boss tells how he was left 'heartbroken' over 'stolen' £64,000 - and that she's boycotting movie
Key elements of The Salt Path - billed as author Raynor Winn's 'unflinchingly honest' account of homelessness - have been called into question after the 2018 book was turned into a movie starring Gillian Anderson and Jason Isaacs.
Winn's claims of losing her 17th century farm cottage when an investment in a childhood friend's business goes awry is false according to an investigation by a Sunday newspaper published last weekend.
The Observer instead claims that Winn and her husband Moth lost their property in North Wales when it was repossessed after having stolen £64,000 from former employer, Martin Hemmings who ran an estate agents in the town of Pwllheli.
The couple failed to repay a loan taken out with a relative to repay the stolen money - agreed on terms that the police would not be further involved - and so lost their house, the paper claimed.
It is a view backed up by Mr Hemming's sister, Jill, who today spoke for the first time of her frustration that Winn 'spun many lines' to make a fortune from her book and the rights to the film of the same name.
As The Observer stated, Miss Hemmings said her brother, who died in 2012, knew The Salt Path's protagonists, Raynor and Moth Winn by their less flamboyant legal names, Sally and Tim Walker.
Speaking from her home in Dorset, Miss Hemmings told MailOnline: 'The book was triggered by Sally deceiving my brother, taking the money, stealing it away from him.
'And he was mortified. He was heartbroken by what happened.
'I'm glad it's out in the open at last. I hadn't known the whole story so some of it I'm learning about now and it's a sad that Sally needed to do that.
'But she and her husband brought it on themselves. I don't know all the ins and outs but I know that Sally worked for my brother, she was his secretary, and she took money from my brother and he was heartbroken.
'He said he couldn't understand why there never seemed to be any money in the account and then he found out it was her.
'He was such a lovely person he didn't want to prosecute. He just wanted everything to settle down really, which is why the matter never went to court.'
Asked if she had read the book or intended to watch the film, Ms Hemmings said: ' I have two copies of the book and I had a ticket to go to the film yesterday but I didn't go - I boycotted it.
'What I'm interested in is whether the publishers of the book and the film-makers looked into the situation? If they'd really looked into the situation I'm sure they would've found the truth really of what had been going on.
'If you talk to the people of Pwllheli, they support Martin absolutely. He was a very good and well respected man and was always honourable.
'All this happened a good few years ago but I must say that I got very upset this week because it brought back my brother's death which was a tremendous sadness.
'This weighed heavily on him before he died. He was very upset that someone who'd he been very generous to, very helpful to, had abused him like that. He couldn't believe it.'
The memoir detailed the journey Winn and her husband took along England's South West Coast Path - familiarly known as The Salt Path - after they lost their home in 2008 which coincided with Moth receiving a terminal health diagnosis of Corticobasal Degeneration (CBD), a rare brain progressive brain disease.
Neurologists and researchers have expressed scepticism that someone could have survived for so many years with CBD, which has a life expectancy of around six to eight years.
And Miss Hemmings said: 'I think it's important that people have a clearer idea of what the truth is - i don't know what the whole truth is - but I'm suspicious that Moth could walk that coastal path. It's crazy stuff.
'I'm intrigued with the debate about his illness and what's she made of that but it did seem to be quite outrageous that if he was that ill she'd set off walking with him like that. It seemed to be beyond the pale, I couldn't understand why she'd do that because it didn't seem like a particularly loving action.
'I feel sorry for my sister-in-law in North Wales because she's got a difficult path now, she's probably pleased that some of the truth is out but lawyers will be probably delving into it. She's on her own but she's a very stoic and special lady.
'My brother lived very simply, had a small holding and the fact that Sally was not banking the money that was there was bloody sh** not to put a too finer point on it !
'They've made a lot of money selling their book and now the film. I've no idea why she said what she said. I would say Raynor spun a lot lines.
'Still, they have to live with themselves. I wonder if they sleep at night.
Winn this week issued a stern rebuke to the claims made in The Observer, chief among them the allegation she stole or embezzled money from Mr Hemming's company.
She wrote: 'I worked for Martin Hemmings in the years before the economic crash of 2008. For me it was a pressured time. It was also a time when mistakes were being made in the business. Any mistakes I made during the years in that office, I deeply regret, and I am truly sorry.
'Mr Hemmings made an allegation against me to the police, accusing me of taking money from the company. I was questioned, I was not charged, nor did I face criminal sanctions.
'I reached a settlement with Martin Hemmings because I did not have the evidence required to support what happened.
'The terms of the settlement were willingly agreed by both parties; Mr Hemmings was as keen to reach a private resolution as I was. A part of that settlement was that I would pay money to Mr Hemmings on a 'non-admissions basis'.
'Among the Observer's many accusations, the most heart breaking is the suggestion that Moth has made up his illness. This utterly vile, unfair, and false suggestion has emotionally devasted Moth, who has fought so hard against the insidious condition of Corticobasal Syndrome.
'The effect of the suggestion that Moth has made up this condition has been absolutely traumatising for him. Suggestions made by people, who do not know him, have never met him, and have never seen his medical records.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
35 minutes ago
- BBC News
'Shocking' link between drug use and domestic abuse in Dorset
More than 75% of those arrested for violent offences against women and girls in Dorset had cocaine or heroin in their system – a pilot project has an eight month period, Dorset Police tested 62 people who had been arrested for offences like domestic abuse and found 52 had tested positive for class A Police and Crime Commissioner David Sidwick told Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole (BCP) Council's Police and Crime Panel that more needed to be done around the issue of crime, drugs and Alastair Keddie described the relationship between Class A drug use and domestic abuse as "absolutely shocking". Speaking at the meeting on 24 July, Mr Sidwick said: "I am very clear that we have to keep up the pressure about this, we have to keep lobbying Government because they are not doing enough."He added they also needed to look at the work that they were doing Police conducted drug tests on arrest between April 2024 and January 2025 - when officers apprehended 1,446 people for violence against women and Home Office has been approached for a comment. You can follow BBC Dorset on Facebook, X (Twitter), or Instagram.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
The Guide #202: Awol headliners to rampaging deer: how festivals survive the worst-case scenarios
We're in the thick of festival season in the UK, where every weekend seems to host a dizzying array of musical mega-events. The likes of Glastonbury, Download, TRNSMT, Wireless and others may already be in the rear-view, but there are still plenty more to come across all manner of genres: Camp Bestival (happening this very weekend), Creamfields, Green Man, All Points East, Reading and Leeds, End of the Road and so many others, across farms, city parks, country estates and the odd mid-Wales mountain range. For the people who run these festivals, months or even a full years-worth of work will have gone into readying for a single, crucial long weekend. The stakes are high: whether things go off without a hitch or not will, in some cases, determine that festival's future. And boy, are there a lot of potential hitches: electricity, sanitation, ticketing, food and drink, security, and the fragile egos of famous musicians, to name but a few. 'The scary thing about festivals is, if you take away one small element, the whole thing collapses,' says promoter James Scarlett. James should know. He books and organises not one but two annual festivals: 2000Trees, a 15,000-capacity alternative, punk and indie festival in Cheltenham, which last month completed its 17th edition with headline appearances from emo veterans Alexisonfire and Taking Back Sunday, along with Keir Starmer faves Kneecap; and ArcTangent, which specialises in metal, math rock, prog, post-rock and general experimental music, and later this month (13-16 Aug) will lure 5,000 punters to a farm near Bristol to hear bands as varied as post-rock titans Godspeed You! Black Emperor, prog-metallers Tesseract, lugubrious indie dance veterans Arab Strap and a duo called Clown Core who play avant garde jazz fusion from a portable loo. In addition, James is also the co-host – along with Gavin McInally, who runs Manchester extreme metal festival Damnation – of 2 Promoters 1 Pod, a weekly, unvarnished, slightly sweary look at how a festival comes together from the booking of bands to the construction of the site. If you have even the most cursory interest in how festivals work, it's a fascinating listen. All of which makes James the person you'd call for in case of something going badly awry on site. So in this week's Guide we've decided to test his firefighting skills, by asking him to solve a series of festival disasters, including some ripped from recent headlines. Read on for his thoughts on awol headliners, heatwaves and herds of marauding deer. Festival disaster #1 | Your headlining band are playing a mind-blowing set but are overrunning. You've already reached the curfew time your festival has agreed with the local council and the band still haven't played their biggest song yet. What do you do? 'I have, occasionally in the past, let bands breach curfew. We got caught once doing it at ArcTangent. A council member was driving home from another event and just thought they'd stop outside the farm. He heard the music stop at 11pm … and then start again at three minutes past! We received a slap on the wrist that time, and have a good relationship with the council as our crowds are never any hassle – but you can lose your licence over breaking curfew, and then the whole festival is gone. So I think normally the answer is the curfew is the curfew. Still, If you've got a headliner who, say, have 45 minutes of technical difficulties, I think there might be an argument to let them break the licence just in order to keep the crowd happy, you don't want an angry 15,000 people who didn't get the headliner that they wanted. There's a health and safety argument for breaking your curfew if that happens.' Festival disaster #2 | A heatwave has descended on the festival site. You've not been told to shut it down, but temperatures are reaching the mid-to-high 30s. What do you do? 'This year we had 53 cases of heatstroke at 2000Trees on the Wednesday of the festival, when people had only just arrived. It's pretty impressive that people have come straight in and gone: bang, heatstroke! You have to have a really good first aid tent. We cleaned the local depot out of saline drips for ours, because so many people were coming in extremely dehydrated. In fact one drummer from a band, Future of the Left, had to go to the tent for severe dehydration and heatstroke. He's a very energetic drummer and in those tents the heat rises, you're higher than the crowd, and you're properly going for it – not really a working environment you want to be in! Still, we've clocked up mid-30s temperatures at 2000Trees at least twice and once at ArcTangent, and you can still run an event in that. It's about communication with your audience: drink water, wear a hat, wear sunscreen, try to find some shade.' Festival disaster #3 | An Icelandic volcanic ash cloud leaves the headliner you've booked stranded in mainland Europe with no way of making it to the festival in time. What do you do? 'If a headliner drops out, you're in trouble. You've just got to be honest with your audience that the band aren't gonna be there. And all you can really do is bump whoever was second from top up a slot, and everyone moves up. We go into each festival with a long backup list of bands that are either local or already on site as punters. So if we get a dropout, we can usually fill the gap at short notice. You can always guarantee that someone will miss a train, miss a flight, get stuck in traffic or just get confused about what day they're playing … which is quite frustrating if you spend all year booking a lineup!' Sign up to The Guide Get our weekly pop culture email, free in your inbox every Friday after newsletter promotion Festival disaster #4 | The prime minister has said it is not appropriate for a controversial act to headline your festival. What do you do? 'What the UK prime minister says about Kneecap is of little interest to me to be honest. I'm not being bullied. We were having ex-MPs and current MPs writing to 2000Trees, like they have a say in what we do. We're a business, it's not up to them. I think it was a help that a few other festivals have stuck to their guns on keeping Kneecap on the bill: Glastonbury and Green Man for example. It does give you a little bit of solidarity. If everyone had folded on it and we were the last ones, I guess I would have felt more pressure. I don't think we would have caved until such time as it was a risk to the business over it. And in the end there was no risk. Kneecap were good as gold at 2000Trees – they did a brilliant, amazing headline set, one of the best we've ever had at the festival.' Festival disaster #5 | A fire breaks out on site just days before the festival begins, destroying your main stage, Tomorrowland-style. What do you do? 'If you don't have the main stage for your festival you're probably going to have to cancel because there's not enough space for everyone across the other stages. So you'd be on the phone to every stage and marquee company across the country trying to find a replacement. The problem is, with the massive explosion in the festival industry in recent times, stages and marquees are very hard to come by. It's likely to be squeaky bum time. In the case of Tomorrowland, amazingly, they borrowed Metallica's stage. Bands like ACDC and Metallica tend to tour with two rigs, so they'll be playing one night on a stage with a lighting and sound rig. And ahead of them, in the next city, there'll be another team building their stage for the next show. When that show's finished, they tear that rig down and move on to the next place. Which is crackers really – it's hard to imagine the scale of that.' Festival disaster #6 | A herd of deer has descended on the festival, trampling over tents and chomping on the merch stall. What do you do? 'Well, we had pigs and swans invading our VIP campsite at 2000Trees this year! The pigs had broken out of a nearby farm. There's no gentle way of getting a pig out of a campsite, really, you have to manhandle them. Our production team were chasing them around – it was quite a comic scene. For the swans we rang up the RSPB – 999 for birds – and they advised us to not do anything, and eventually they'd take off, which they did. Deer would be more difficult. You can't go manhandling deer, particularly stags with their antlers. We have 140 pages of risk assessments, covering every risk you could ever imagine … but pigs in the camp was not on that list!' If you want to read the complete version of this newsletter please subscribe to receive The Guide in your inbox every Friday
Times
3 hours ago
- Times
How drivers were sold a car finance compensation fantasy
Britain has narrowly avoided a costly car finance compensation free-for-all after a landmark court ruling derailed chances of a payout for millions of drivers. Claims lawyers had been bombarding consumers with adverts suggesting they may have been entitled to thousands of pounds in a scandal over hidden commission on car finance deals. The scandal had been expected to rival the mis-selling of payment protection insurance, which cost banks more than £38 billion. It was thought that nearly 15 million drivers could be entitled to payouts worth as much as £44 billion in total — although Friday's Supreme Court ruling means the numbers are set to be far smaller. Questions have now been raised over whether those using car finance really lost out and how many of them deserve compensation at all. The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, had tried to intervene ahead of the ruling — arguing that a colossal compensation bill for the industry would damage the economy and consumers. The Supreme Court ruled on three cases where consumers bought cars on finance and argued that they had been treated unfairly because they had not been told about commission involved in their deals — which ranged from £183 to £1,651. The court rejected two of the three cases, but upheld a complaint by Marcus Johnson, a factory worker from south Wales — because in his case the £1,651 commission in his loan was 55 per cent of the fee (including interest) on his loan over five years. 'The fact that the undisclosed commission was so high is a powerful indication that the relationship between Mr Johnson and the lender was unfair,' the court's judgment said. It leaves the door open to claims for compensation on deals that contained large amounts of commission, or where the commission model influenced what they paid. How much would be needed for a deal to be unfair is something that is likely to be decided by the City regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), which said it would confirm if it would introduce a redress scheme before stock markets open on Monday morning. The FCA had been investigating finance deals that had used a model called discretionary commission, which incentivised dealers to give customers a worse interest rate on their loan. However, a judgment by the Court of Appeal last October opened the door to compensation claims by millions of motorists who had bought cars on finance, regardless of the commission model. Lenders appealed to the Supreme Court over the ruling. About nine in ten cars are bought on finance and £39.7 billion was borrowed on more than two million cars in the year to May, according to the Finance and Leasing Association, a trade body. The Court of Appeal had ruled in October that car dealers had a duty to make clear the nature and value of any commission paid to them to ensure that borrowers could give 'informed consent' before agreeing to a deal. Reeves was among those concerned about a claims free-for-all, with the Treasury reportedly drawing up contingency plans to shield lenders from having to pay out billions of pounds in compensation. The Treasury attempted to intervene in the Supreme Court case, arguing that a ruling had 'the potential to adversely affect the United Kingdom's reputation as a place to do business, with a consequent impact on economic growth'. In the meantime complaints about car loans to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), a body that solves disputes, have risen from 4,130 in the first three months of 2023-24 to 37,230 in the last three months of 2024-25. Most of these have been brought by claims companies and no-win, no-fee law firms that file complaints on behalf of consumers in return for up to 30 per cent of any compensation. These companies have swamped radio, social media and television with adverts that tell consumers they could be owed thousands of pounds. On Thursday the FCA said it had required 224 adverts from claims firms about car finance to either be taken down or changed. There had been highly speculative figures advertised for how much consumers could get back, it said, including compensation figures that did not make clear they covered multiple car loans and misleading claims that refunds were guaranteed. It said companies had been signing up consumers without their consent after they clicked on adverts. Philip Salter, a former FCA regulator now at the consultancy Sicsic Advisory, said: 'I haven't liked a lot of the claims company advertising. You've had a lot of companies arguing that time is running out, but the clock hasn't even started. It's been a bit of an unseemly scramble.' • Common sense has triumphed over compensation culture If there is to be compensation for consumers, it is expected that the FCA will announce a free redress scheme where lenders will contact those eligible, meaning consumers should not need to use a claims company. Gary Greenwood from the investment bank Shore Capital said: 'It's one of those things where if you go by the letter of the law of the previous Court of Appeal judgment, you're almost coming to the conclusion that commission is bad. But the problem is that if you look at the reality of what had happened, there doesn't seem to have been a lot of consumer harm that's gone on. 'So any sort of redress has got to come down to: has there been any consumer harm here, or are people just trying to claim money back on a technicality?' Greenwood said. Charlie Nunn, the chief executive of Lloyds Banking Group, which runs Britain's biggest car finance lender, Black Horse, has denied the scandal was on the same level as PPI. 'Some 80 per cent of people need finance to buy a new car, and a large number of second-hand car buyers do as well,' he told The Times in January. 'We need a well-functioning motor finance industry that supports consumers.' The National Franchised Dealers Association, a trade body, told the Supreme Court that 'nobody goes to a car dealer with a reasonable expectation that it is acting without self-interest in relation to any of the products it sells'. The Supreme Court's judgment could have been the difference between lenders facing a compensation bill of £11 billion — for complaints about a specific form of commission — and £29 billion, according to Royal Bank of Canada Capital Markets, an investment bank. It could also have led to compensation claims about the sale of other financial products such as insurance where commission was involved but not properly disclosed. Consumers in turn could have had to foot the bill. Stuart Masson, the editor of the advice website The Car Expert UK, said that if lenders have to pay compensation to millions of people, car finance could get more expensive in the future as the industry tries to 'claw back' that money. 'That's not money they're going to find down the back of the sofa,' he told the BBC. 'They're going to have to get that back from increasing the costs of future lending, which won't just be on car finance. It could be on credit cards, it could be on personal loans, it could be on mortgages.' In January Reeves told bankers at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland: 'There is nothing pro-consumer about making it harder for people to buy an affordable car for their family.' Before the courts widened the scope of possible mis-selling, the FCA had been investigating a specific model of commission called discretionary commission. This is where the cut that lenders paid dealers was linked to the interest rate consumers were charged, incentivising dealers to charge borrowers more. This model was used in about 35 per cent of car finance deals, according to the FCA, before it banned the practice in January 2021. The FCA said consumers could have paid about £1,100 more in interest over a four-year £10,000 car finance deal because of this commission model — which is being used as the basis for many of the estimates around possible compensation. Salter, who worked on the ban when he was at the FCA, said: 'That previous Court of Appeal ruling surprised me. I think everyone knows that if they're buying a car the salesman's getting commission, don't they? But discretionary commission never felt right to me.' The FCA began its investigation in January last year on whether consumers had been properly told about the link between their repayments and the commission. The investigation was kicked off by two rulings by the ombudsman against Lloyds and Barclays last year, which ordered the banks to refund two consumers more than £1,000 each. The FCA is expected to set out its next steps, including whether there will be a redress scheme, within six weeks. Any scheme would be free and easy for consumers to use, it said, while the FOS is also free for consumers to appeal to. Rob Lilley-Jones from the consumer group Which? said: 'It's vital that finance firms are held accountable for mis-selling and if a large number of motorists are eligible for compensation consumers are likely to be bombarded with ads from claims firms offering to take on their case. 'Affected customers should be careful when enlisting the services of claims management companies as the wrong choice could lead to their case being poorly handled, losing a significant portion of the compensation in legal fees — or both.' Coby Benson from the law firm Bott & Co, which helped win the ombudsman's case against Lloyds, said the experience from PPI was that consumers could sometimes recover more money by going to court than through a redress scheme. He said: 'We would support a proactive redress scheme if it fairly compensated consumers. But we have doubts over the effective implementation of a scheme, because our data shows that about half of clients have a different address now to that which the lender had from the time of the agreement.'
