Council restructures services to avoid £500,000 rates bill

[PF62]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-491...

Aside from all the other benefits they get from offloading their library service to their own charity which coincidentally won the tender, they now avoid having to pay £500,000 business rates a year.

Not exactly setting a good example.

[Alucidnation]

Looks like one way to save money, considering the lack of it.

[hyphen]

Why should libraries be paying rates in the first place!

[Condi]

PF62 said:

Not exactly setting a good example.

Why not? Saves money, probably allows them to do more stuff than if under the direct responsibility of the council, and can access outside sources of funding.

[Don Roque]

Talk about the whiff of corruption.

[Chrisgr31]

Its been going on for years, many local authority leisure centres are run by charities these days.

[hyphen]

Don Roque said:

Talk about the whiff of corruption.

Well meaning bias to give the contract to the charitable setup, probably. But corruption remains to be seen.

They appear to be following what the government want them to do https://www.gov.uk/guidance/introduction-to-public...

[Condi]

Don Roque said:

Talk about the whiff of corruption.

How? Given corruption is "dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery", how on earth is it 'corrupt'?

[smifffymoto]

Surely this is just robbing Peter to pay Paul.

[XCP]

hyphen said:

Why should libraries be paying rates in the first place!

This. How ridiculous.

[PF62]

smifffymoto said:

Surely this is just robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Exactly.

The government now collects £500,000 less in tax but Hertfordshire County Council will still expect to receive the same grants as they did before.

And if organisations structuring to avoid tax is acceptable, then why all the moaning about Amazon, Vodafone, etc.

[hyphen]

PF62 said:

smifffymoto said:

Surely this is just robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Exactly.

The government now collects £500,000 less in tax but Hertfordshire County Council will still expect to receive the same grants as they did before.

And if organisations structuring to avoid tax is acceptable, then why all the moaning about Amazon, Vodafone, etc.

Because Amazon and Vodafone are for-profit organisations, and this is a non-profit charitable setup...

[chow pan toon]

I thought we applauded public sector efficiency in here.

[Condi]

chow pan toon said:

I thought we applauded public sector efficiency in here.

Jesus himself could come down and bring peace the world, yet half of PH would still find something to complain about.

[Agammemnon]

chow pan toon said:

I thought we applauded public sector efficiency in here.

Paper shuffling & robbing Peter to pay Paul is not efficiency.

[voyds9]

hyphen said:

Because Amazon and Vodafone are for-profit organisations, and this is a non-profit charitable setup...

I can choose whether to conduct business with Amazon or Vodaphone, I am required to give money to a council/government under threat of a loss of liberty or a fine.

[WonkeyDonkey]

I wonder how much of that £10m pa contract is being soaked up by senior management salaries...

[red_slr]

WonkeyDonkey said:

I wonder how much of that £10m pa contract is being soaked up by senior management salaries...

This.

Its all just a big scam. I know of one LA that runs a charity type set up for housing and its executives are on massive salaries into the hundreds of thousands. If they were still under the council they might get £60-£80k.

[chow pan toon]

Agammemnon said:

chow pan toon said:

I thought we applauded public sector efficiency in here.

Paper shuffling & robbing Peter to pay Paul is not efficiency.

If it lets you spend more money on providing a service and less on tax then it is the definition of efficiency.

[anonymous-user]

chow pan toon said:

Agammemnon said:

chow pan toon said:

I thought we applauded public sector efficiency in here.

Paper shuffling & robbing Peter to pay Paul is not efficiency.

If it lets you spend more money on providing a service and less on tax then it is the definition of efficiency.

What do you think they spend on ‘services’ in the first place, if not tax?

Just another example of government inefficiency.