Jump to content

Welcome!


Be sure to register in order to take full advantage of all of the awesome features this forum has!

Photo
- - - - -

Where's the money going?


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#31 twowheelsgood

twowheelsgood

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,387 posts

Posted 27 June 2017

I've said this before, but I think it bears repeating. Hoople is not an arms length company, it is a "Teckal" company - under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 the Council is supposed to exert the same control over  the company as it does over its own internal departments. Its primary function is to provide services to its shareholders (i.e the Council and whatever has replaced the PCT) on a not for profit basis.  Only 20% of its activities by turnover can be for third parties and potentially profit making.

 

Arms Length tends to be a term specific to housing management (as in the recent Grenfell Tower tragedy). For the ex-councillor to claim that Hoople is arms length demonstrates woeful ignorance at best,  and at worst deliberate disingenuousness.

 

I stand corrected on the terms (and it was me providing the information to the ex-councillor, not the other way round), but the point I was making is still valid ie other than having heard of it, the ex-councillor had no idea about how Hoople worked or its limited accountability. Your ref to dimwit councillors is on the nail.


  • 0



#32 Pete Boggs

Pete Boggs

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • LocationHereford

Posted 28 June 2017

I thought the "arms length" point was worth mentioning because as the extent of the Hoople fiasco becomes known there may be attempts to portray the company as some sort of out-of-control, rogue entity. This shouldn't be allowed to wash. The Council are supposed to have direct control over it,  just like one of their own departments (although I am tempted to add, like Michael Caine in Get Carter, "since when was that good enough?")


  • 0

#33 twowheelsgood

twowheelsgood

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,387 posts

Posted 28 June 2017

I thought the "arms length" point was worth mentioning because as the extent of the Hoople fiasco becomes known there may be attempts to portray the company as some sort of out-of-control, rogue entity. This shouldn't be allowed to wash. The Council are supposed to have direct control over it,  just like one of their own departments (although I am tempted to add, like Michael Caine in Get Carter, "since when was that good enough?")

 

 

Given Cllr Matthews comment "I  had to obtain this information from Companies House, because members generally have never been briefed with respect to the workings of Hoople Ltd, which is after all financed by us, the taxpayers of this county" it would seem that the Council(ors) have no control (or knowledge) at all.


  • 0

#34 Pete Boggs

Pete Boggs

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • LocationHereford

Posted 28 June 2017

Given Cllr Matthews comment "I  had to obtain this information from Companies House, because members generally have never been briefed with respect to the workings of Hoople Ltd, which is after all financed by us, the taxpayers of this county" it would seem that the Council(ors) have no control (or knowledge) at all.

 

They should do - who's running the Council, them or the officers?  That said a lot of members aren't too bright and/or have a tendency not to want to get their hands dirty when it comes to the actual workings of the authority. As evidence we can also point to the appointment of two senior officers with dismal records of corruption and malpractice as heads of legal and finance. You'd think councillors might want to do some background reading, via google if nothing else, on the appointment to such important roles - but apparently they didn't.
 


  • 0

#35 Denise Lloyd

Denise Lloyd

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,892 posts

Posted 28 June 2017

I would say they do read up on the various subject but because the majority of them have their own agendas they decide to stay stum and not rock the boat.  The ones that do rock the boat aren't around long 


  • 1

#36 Cambo

Cambo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,128 posts

Posted 28 June 2017

They should do - who's running the Council, them or the officers? That said a lot of members aren't too bright and/or have a tendency not to want to get their hands dirty when it comes to the actual workings of the authority. As evidence we can also point to the appointment of two senior officers with dismal records of corruption and malpractice as heads of legal and finance. You'd think councillors might want to do some background reading, via google if nothing else, on the appointment to such important roles - but apparently they didn't.


That was a excellent set of posts pete
  • 0

#37 Pete Boggs

Pete Boggs

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • LocationHereford

Posted 30 June 2017

That was a excellent set of posts pete

 

Thanks, just trying to give a bit of context to the misbegotten beast that is Hoople, and perhaps correct some of the myths that may have grown up around it, not least among councillors.

 

Denise, I'm sure you're right. I expect we can all name members for whom being on the Council is a way to advance their own business interests or those of their mates from down the Lodge.


  • 0

#38 megilleland

megilleland

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,139 posts

Posted 20 July 2017

The council are now publishing expenditure at 3 monthly intervals. The latest figures for April, May and June are available here.

£49,618,861.29 spent over the 3 months and here are the top 10 single payouts.

£6,660,000.00    Worcestershire County Council
£3,188,139.38    Balfour Beatty Living Places Ltd
£2,008,638.35    Balfour Beatty Living Places Ltd
£1,957,751.68    Balfour Beatty Living Places Ltd
£1,386,250.00    Hoople Ltd
£1,386,250.00    Hoople Ltd
£1,296,090.29    West Mercia Police & Crime Commissioner
£1,296,088.00    West Mercia Police & Crime Commissioner
£1,296,088.00    West Mercia Police & Crime Commissioner
£1,016,604.38    Worcestershire County Council

£19,483,261.73    Total for 10 cheques - 39% of total spend (4861 cheques)

Hoople was paid £3,286,660.58 inclusive of all payments

 

Worcestershire County Council was paid £9,736,492.85 inclusive of all payments

So it's not only the BBC that pays above the norm.


  • 0

#39 megilleland

megilleland

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,139 posts

Posted 21 November 2017

Budget tomorrow. Mainstream media headlines today are focused on Britain's record national debt, which just surpassed £1 trillion, a figure that can only exponentially increase unless the entire mechanism of Government finance is overhauled. The truth however is much worse, factoring in all liabilities including state and public sector pensions, the real national debt is closer to £4.8 trillion, some £78,000 for every person in the UK.

 

Makes our offer of £40 billion for our EU exit look like small change.
 

National Debt Clock


Edited by megilleland, 21 November 2017 .

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users