Jump to content

Salisbury Street Nursing Home losses to taxpayers


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Quite, the real criticism is the amount they’re paying to develop Summerhill ( ex Glenside ),  where they already own the land, and the £600k paid for empty bed spaces.

Again, because of lack of transparency and an inability to be frank, even to PAC, and perhaps because PAC is playing politics, I suspect that there is a large part of the perceived overspend on Summerhill is demolition and getting rid of the asbestos in Glenside.

Getting rid of asbestos is easy it just gets sent to the Point of Ayre!

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Anything government touch invariably ends up as a feeding frenzy for all involved. I really hope cabinet office get some business savvy people in, who take a look at these things with clear focus on v

It all comes back to honesty, transparency and openness. Or more the lack of it. We have an ageing population. The government hadn’t been renewing its estate adequately or in time. They really did hav

The charges are comparatively reasonable. About £550-600 a week.  Capacity is claimed at 43. Current occupancy is 21. They’ve only got 21 en-suite rooms. Suspect they can’t reconfigure, or a

Posted Images

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

Quite, the real criticism is the amount they’re paying to develop Summerhill ( ex Glenside ),  where they already own the land, and the £600k paid for empty bed spaces.

Again, because of lack of transparency and an inability to be frank, even to PAC, and perhaps because PAC is playing politics, I suspect that there is a large part of the perceived overspend on Summerhill is demolition and getting rid of the asbestos in Glenside.

Interesting report.  There won't be many that have read it of course.

The 600k seems to be a bit of a headline grabber but in reality isn't a surprise or in context a lot of money.  It's clear government needed to strike a deal that was fair to the operator and gave them assurances of beds that your wouldn't ever fill overnight.  That's just silly to think any different.  

Dave Murray appears to have made some fair points although there's a lot of piss and wind in there that isn't merited and has been seen through.

The most alarming bit for me in that whole report was the £575k spent on design and planning costs for Summerhill.   That seems utterly crazy.  It's 5% of the entire cost.

It also appears that the original sellers of Salisbury Street were very happy to pay the price government paid to take it back too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TerryFuchwit said:

The most alarming bit for me in that whole report was the £575k spent on design and planning costs for Summerhill.   That seems utterly crazy.  It's 5% of the entire cost.

 

I heard once (and it has a ring of truth) that IOMG capital projects assumed that various costs would be a percentage of the overall expenditure.  The architects, engineers, QSs etc. knew about this and 'bingo!' the percentages were achieved.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Boo Gay'n said:

I heard once (and it has a ring of truth) that IOMG capital projects assumed that various costs would be a percentage of the overall expenditure.  The architects, engineers, QSs etc. knew about this and 'bingo!' the percentages were achieved.

It just seems utterly bonkers.  575k is 4 years worth of work for two architects on 70k a year.  

To be fair I've seen it done privately too.  Where they seem to exponentially ramp up their fees on a big build when the actual work isn't that much more than a build of a quarter of the price.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything government touch invariably ends up as a feeding frenzy for all involved. I really hope cabinet office get some business savvy people in, who take a look at these things with clear focus on value for the taxpayers. 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Boo Gay'n said:

I heard once (and it has a ring of truth) that IOMG capital projects assumed that various costs would be a percentage of the overall expenditure.  The architects, engineers, QSs etc. knew about this and 'bingo!' the percentages were achieved.

I've heard that as well, though with a standard 10% mentioned.  Maybe that was 5% design and 5% implementation.  Certainly it does seem to be the standard pattern over the years, irrespective of how simple the project is.  It's basically an instruction to all concerned to inflate prices.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, TerryFuchwit said:

It just seems utterly bonkers.  575k is 4 years worth of work for two architects on 70k a year.  

To be fair I've seen it done privately too.  Where they seem to exponentially ramp up their fees on a big build when the actual work isn't that much more than a build of a quarter of the price.

Who in the DHSC is responsible for capital projects, they should be held accountable for such a waste of money

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
19 minutes ago, Boo Gay'n said:

Perhaps news like this will show that the Salisbury Street deal was based on good foresight.

Very bad news for both residents and staff. 
Has been a well run establishment for many years in great accommodation and grounds.   
Perhaps Government could or should intervene    

 


 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, forestboy said:

Perhaps Government could or should intervene  

Government are obliged to step in as the last line in the care provider pyramid.

If alternative provision can not be found then Social Services will take over the care of the residents.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Apple said:

Government are obliged to step in as the last line in the care provider pyramid.

If alternative provision can not be found then Social Services will take over the care of the residents.

Suppose some will get in castle view but others transferred to Salisbury street where there are possibly vacancies 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Banker said:

Suppose some will get in castle view but others transferred to Salisbury street where there are possibly vacancies 

Possibly, but both are nursing rather than residential homes, so the price rockets. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A lovely little issue for the voters of Peel to get their teeth into, and ask their current MHKs what they plan to do, and prospective MHKs will want to add their views. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Was talking this evening to someone I know who has an elderly mother at the Corrin Home in Peel. Incandescent with rage can be best to describe his feelings. 
 

One thing is for certain, people will not accept this decision lightly. I will be surprised if a requisition meeting isn’t called. It will be interesting to see the resident idiots Boot and Harmer feel the reactions of the voters and ratepayers of Peel. Not forgetting those who are likely facing redundancy, and having to compete with 945 other unemployed. 
 

Perhaps this will give the people of Peel to actually show their political masters how they are not in charge and it’s the electorate that is in charge. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...