Jump to content

Salisbury Street Nursing Home losses to taxpayers


Banker
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 4/12/2021 at 6:01 PM, Banker said:

At next Tynwald the PAC report into above purchase & contract to pay for 40 bed spaces whether occupied or not following allegations from David Murray.

Heres a bit from summary 

We note with concern that the Department in conjunction with Treasury acted outside of vires leading to a potential loss to the taxpayer in excess of £600,000, split almost evenly between paying for empty beds and paying twice through benefits. We conclude that Government needs to be careful in assessing its vires when entering into commercial negotiations.

5. In our quest for value for money, the Committee remain concerned that in the context of Salisbury Street being purchased for £7.9 million, and the new similarly sized care home planned for the Homefield site at an estimated £5 million,1 Government has commissioned the building of a similarly sized care home on the former Glenside site. This is Government owned land, and yet appears to be costing twice as much as it would for a private developer.2 We recommend that the Department justify its value for money in light of this report. 

Looks like more lessons to be learnt!! The full report is here https://www.tynwald.org.im/business/opqp/sittings/20182021/2021-PP-0012.pdf

I bet those costs don’t include the government suits getting paid not to manage the project.   How many senior managers in DOI and DHSC have been involved and what is the cost to tax payers on top of the ridiculous costs.  
Salisbury cost would be ‘all in’. plus profit to original builder and owner.  Glenside true cost is land value, and internal overheads on top of the cost given.   Not a penny off 15 million cost to tax payer. 

FFS

Edited by buncha wankas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/12/2021 at 6:01 PM, Banker said:

At next Tynwald the PAC report into above purchase & contract to pay for 40 bed spaces whether occupied or not following allegations from David Murray.

Heres a bit from summary 

We note with concern that the Department in conjunction with Treasury acted outside of vires leading to a potential loss to the taxpayer in excess of £600,000, split almost evenly between paying for empty beds and paying twice through benefits. We conclude that Government needs to be careful in assessing its vires when entering into commercial negotiations.

5. In our quest for value for money, the Committee remain concerned that in the context of Salisbury Street being purchased for £7.9 million, and the new similarly sized care home planned for the Homefield site at an estimated £5 million,1 Government has commissioned the building of a similarly sized care home on the former Glenside site. This is Government owned land, and yet appears to be costing twice as much as it would for a private developer.2 We recommend that the Department justify its value for money in light of this report. 

Looks like more lessons to be learnt!! The full report is here https://www.tynwald.org.im/business/opqp/sittings/20182021/2021-PP-0012.pdf

I bet those costs don’t include the government suits getting paid not to manage the project.   How many senior managers in DOI and DHSC have been involved and what is the cost to tax payers on top of the ridiculous costs.  
Salisbury cost would be ‘all in’. plus profit to original builder and owner.  Glenside true cost is land value, and internal overheads on top of the cost given.   Not a penny off 15 million cost to tax payer. 

FFS

Edited by buncha wankas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/12/2021 at 6:01 PM, Banker said:

At next Tynwald the PAC report into above purchase & contract to pay for 40 bed spaces whether occupied or not following allegations from David Murray.

Heres a bit from summary 

We note with concern that the Department in conjunction with Treasury acted outside of vires leading to a potential loss to the taxpayer in excess of £600,000, split almost evenly between paying for empty beds and paying twice through benefits. We conclude that Government needs to be careful in assessing its vires when entering into commercial negotiations.

5. In our quest for value for money, the Committee remain concerned that in the context of Salisbury Street being purchased for £7.9 million, and the new similarly sized care home planned for the Homefield site at an estimated £5 million,1 Government has commissioned the building of a similarly sized care home on the former Glenside site. This is Government owned land, and yet appears to be costing twice as much as it would for a private developer.2 We recommend that the Department justify its value for money in light of this report. 

Looks like more lessons to be learnt!! The full report is here https://www.tynwald.org.im/business/opqp/sittings/20182021/2021-PP-0012.pdf

I bet those costs don’t include the government suits getting paid not to manage the project.   How many senior managers in DOI and DHSC have been involved and what is the cost to tax payers on top of the ridiculous costs.  
Salisbury cost would be ‘all in’. plus profit to original builder and owner.  Glenside true cost is land value, and internal overheads on top of the cost given.   Not a penny off 15 million cost to tax payer. 

FFS

Edited by buncha wankas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/12/2021 at 6:01 PM, Banker said:

At next Tynwald the PAC report into above purchase & contract to pay for 40 bed spaces whether occupied or not following allegations from David Murray.

Heres a bit from summary 

We note with concern that the Department in conjunction with Treasury acted outside of vires leading to a potential loss to the taxpayer in excess of £600,000, split almost evenly between paying for empty beds and paying twice through benefits. We conclude that Government needs to be careful in assessing its vires when entering into commercial negotiations.

5. In our quest for value for money, the Committee remain concerned that in the context of Salisbury Street being purchased for £7.9 million, and the new similarly sized care home planned for the Homefield site at an estimated £5 million,1 Government has commissioned the building of a similarly sized care home on the former Glenside site. This is Government owned land, and yet appears to be costing twice as much as it would for a private developer.2 We recommend that the Department justify its value for money in light of this report. 

Looks like more lessons to be learnt!! The full report is here https://www.tynwald.org.im/business/opqp/sittings/20182021/2021-PP-0012.pdf

I bet those costs don’t include the government suits getting paid not to manage the project.   How many senior managers in DOI and DHSC have been involved and what is the cost to tax payers on top of the ridiculous costs.  
Salisbury cost would be ‘all in’. plus profit to original builder and owner.  Glenside true cost is land value, and internal overheads on top of the cost given.   Not a penny off 15 million cost to tax payer. 

FFS

Edited by buncha wankas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, buncha wankas said:

I bet those costs don’t include the government suits getting paid not to manage the project.   How many senior managers in DOI and DHSC have been involved and what is the cost to tax payers on top of the ridiculous costs.  
Salisbury cost would be ‘all in’. plus profit to original builder and owner.  Glenside true cost is land value, and internal overheads on top of the cost given.   Not a penny off 15 million cost to tax payer. 

FFS

I expect the "Internal overheads " you have your knickers in a twist about are not material to this cost.  It's an external build done by private contractors and managed by private contractors on behalf of government.

Whether the costs are "ridiculous " remains to be seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the Home is a Trust can IOMG not provide a long term, low interest loan assistance so that they can develop it and adjust their fees accordingly to recover the costs? Seems pretty clear to me that keeping it going as a trust they would benefit from charitable giving/fund raising.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TerryFuchwit said:

I expect the "Internal overheads " you have your knickers in a twist about are not material to this cost.  It's an external build done by private contractors and managed by private contractors on behalf of government.

Whether the costs are "ridiculous " remains to be seen.

My knickers are worn on the outside of my superman costume so never get twisted. 
 

All costs are material if being funded by tax payer,  I wouldn’t price a job without factoring in my time as overhead.    The actual cost should be more honest and transparent,  civil servants are a material cost just like the loan costs are material. 
 

You don’t need an investigation to see the costs are ridiculous and why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

575204495_ScreenShot2021-04-24at08_40_39.png.bd2167cd21a43e18dc170d9fd48b1fe5.png

The childrens champion has come up with a not so fair scheme.

Does he think this is how to attracted young people to work on the Island.

How old is Callister must be in his fifties to be saying this.

I will have to listen back as I missed his contribution to the general debate to see what

people thought of this great idea..

 

Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...