HQ FoI !

[Lost Login]

5 minutes ago, Omobono said:

there was someone on the radio today who claims to have been living  at Ballahowin  holiday cottages  during the period in question , that  the financial support was given ,   if that claim is true then the police should be investigating the matter 

after bragging openly about how much money he is worth  even  the Fat controller ,can't have his cake and eat it , as I understand it occupied property does not qualify , 

Possibly you need to read the rules for the Strategic Capacity Scheme as my understanding the criteria to claim is a minimum reduction in turnover not being unoccupied.  If you previously let accommodation on a weekly basis to tourists at say £500 but now let to key workers, those sheltering etc at a reduced rent then you meet the criteria if the reduction is large enough.

This matter is fairly typical of what goes on in this Island. There has been a scheme running for nearly 2 years which has paid out over £13m and yet virtually nobody batted an eyelid over it and still don't. All the majority are bothered is one high profile person benefitting from it. The scheme and overall figures are not a secret, that the ex CM has holiday cottages is not a secret so where was the criticism at the time. Moaning about now just looks like sour grapes.

[Ringy Rose]

49 minutes ago, Omobono said:

as I understand it occupied property does not qualify

You understand wrong, it is based on reduced turnover.

If a cottage is normally rented out at, say, £750 a week but instead had only got £750/month, chances are the business would qualify.

I know most cottages had key workers and isolating travellers in- Groudle was pretty much full the whole time- but if they weren't paying normal summer rents it doesn't matter. 

Which comes back to whether a politician who sets the rules should benefit...

[b4mbi]

We have a holiday let business, which was my wifes main form of income prior the pandemic.

We applied for the initial £3000 support when we lost all of our bookings in March 2020.

Qualified under the criteria the DfE set, so applied, but you had to provide your tax reference as part of the application....  but it was actually Treasury who made the final decision as it was their support scheme and they decided we didn't qualify... They didn't state so, but clearly they means tested on basis of our joint other income and the tax reference we provided.

Fair enough, and we didn't push or argue it on the basis that it would be utilised better for people who really needed it, people who had lost their "primary" income source.

This should have also applied to multi-millionaire Quayle, and it shows the mark of the man that someone who would appear to be able to easily absorb the losses still chose to take from the public purse.

I don't know the detail and maybe doing him a disservice, but the optics certainly are damning.

Earning £100,000 a year for 5 years as CM, being on a "gold-plated" government pension and then claiming £57k in assistance when you have millions in property assets....

 

[A fool and his money.....]

That's very interesting. Is your wife's business set up as a company?

[A fool and his money.....]

I think it's fair to say that Alex Establishment Allanson's apology seemed more directed to Howard Quayle and future business claimants than the GMP, either for the scandalous use of public money or the blatant abuse of FOI legislation. 

It was very obvious he didn't see anything wrong with HQ's claim, but he's a wealthy man who was paid in full throughout, so why would he?

[2112]

Listening to Allinson on the NPM, he is commenting that his department will make future applicants aware that their name may be put into the public domain, should anyone seek information. I don’t think most people will deliberately seek to find out whether ‘Juan King’ had sought a Covid grant. I think the person who requested the FOI must have known that HQ was in receipt of public monies via the Coronavirus business grant. 

[Lost Login]

38 minutes ago, b4mbi said:

We have a holiday let business, which was my wifes main form of income prior the pandemic.

We applied for the initial £3000 support when we lost all of our bookings in March 2020.

Qualified under the criteria the DfE set, so applied, but you had to provide your tax reference as part of the application....  but it was actually Treasury who made the final decision as it was their support scheme and they decided we didn't qualify... They didn't state so, but clearly they means tested on basis of our joint other income and the tax reference we provided.

Fair enough, and we didn't push or argue it on the basis that it would be utilised better for people who really needed it, people who had lost their "primary" income source.

This should have also applied to multi-millionaire Quayle, and it shows the mark of the man that someone who would appear to be able to easily absorb the losses still chose to take from the public purse.

I don't know the detail and maybe doing him a disservice, but the optics certainly are damning.

Earning £100,000 a year for 5 years as CM, being on a "gold-plated" government pension and then claiming £57k in assistance when you have millions in property assets....

 

It appears that your wife applied for support under the Business Support Scheme rather than the Strategic Capacity Scheme. It is the latter which was to support tourist accommodation. From a brief look at the particulars of both it appears that your wife probably should have claimed under the latter. 

I appreciate that on here many like giving the ex CM a bit of a kicking and proclaim that he was useless etc. Whilst HQ was CM it was the Treasury under AC that came up with all the schemes and scrutinised the claims so I expect that it was AC and the Treasury that had far more input with regard to the rules and criteria. For it to have been HQ then he would have to be far brighter with far more about him than many people on here give him credit for. 

 

 

[2112]

I would say one thing about Quayles Regime, particularly after Covid, he left a population full of haves and have nots. People and businesses  getting rejected for financial assistance, because they have applied for the wrong scheme. Some applicants must have had access to good advice, so they were made aware which scheme they should apply to. Lots of people didn’t have that access, and received diddly squat. Lots didn’t know that if they were behind with their NICS or owed tax, they wouldn’t get financial support. The very people owing money, couldn’t earn as they were prevented from doing so - sole contractors, gardeners and window cleaners to name a few professions. HQ did very well out of Covid, he had a nice income, even if he didn’t get the full amount of income that he would have normally got. Shit happens, except if you are HQ.

[Dr. Grumpy]

Why are we begrudging Howard this relatively modest sum in the grand scheme of things, when we are throwing millions at Sir Jonathan and his merry men (and women) for no tangible return?

[Lost Login]

3 minutes ago, 2112 said:

 I think the person who requested the FOI must have known that HQ was in receipt of public monies via the Coronavirus business grant. 

I think we are probably talking about the Strategic Capacity Scheme rather than the Business Scheme but anybody with half a brain cell could have worked it out. There was a scheme which paid hotel owners, b&b owners. self catering owners, serviced apartment owners etc if they suffered a fall in income. It is well known that HQ with his wife has holiday cottages so it was fairly obvious that they probably received monies.

Look at any owner who had a business that qualified under the scheme and it is probably is safe to assume they made claims and received funds.

Similarly it is probably not that difficult to work out who received the greatest funding. It will be the two companies with the largest number of bed spaces which I think are the Sefton Group and Sleepwell. If you knew how many rooms each had and what the daily room rate was under the scheme you could probably make a fair guess at what each has claimed. Probably well into seven figures.  Jim Mellon wealth is vast compared to HQ's should the Sleepwell Group not have been entitled to claim.

It is nothing new that Government appears to be happy to look after some accommodation providers. Just look at the Government funding for the Sefton Group a few years back. 

[A fool and his money.....]

17 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

It appears that your wife applied for support under the Business Support Scheme rather than the Strategic Capacity Scheme. It is the latter which was to support tourist accommodation. From a brief look at the particulars of both it appears that your wife probably should have claimed under the latter. 

I appreciate that on here many like giving the ex CM a bit of a kicking and proclaim that he was useless etc. Whilst HQ was CM it was the Treasury under AC that came up with all the schemes and scrutinised the claims so I expect that it was AC and the Treasury that had far more input with regard to the rules and criteria. For it to have been HQ then he would have to be far brighter with far more about him than many people on here give him credit for. 

 

 

Well as the correct scheme is clearly not based on need, is it therefore open to retrospective claims? 

[2112]

Just now, Dr. Grumpy said:

Why are we begrudging Howard this relatively modest sum in the grand scheme of things, when we are throwing millions at Sir Jonathan and his merry men (and women) for no tangible return?

I’m not begrudging, he may have been entitled. It’s the morality of it. He should have thought about the perception of it - how would it look to his constituents - especially those rejected by the schemes which he set up. HQ has portrayed himself as a fat pompous greedy oaf - Toad of Toad Hall. He would have easily survived on his CM salary, and I’m sure his business wasn’t in dire need for financial assistance, as we are led to believe that HQ was an astute businessman. Like I said before, if his business was desperate for funds, he could have sold assets. Did he lay staff off? Gardener? Housekeeper? Or did they claim MERA? 

[b4mbi]

12 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

It appears that your wife applied for support under the Business Support Scheme rather than the Strategic Capacity Scheme. It is the latter which was to support tourist accommodation. From a brief look at the particulars of both it appears that your wife probably should have claimed under the latter. 

I appreciate that on here many like giving the ex CM a bit of a kicking and proclaim that he was useless etc. Whilst HQ was CM it was the Treasury under AC that came up with all the schemes and scrutinised the claims so I expect that it was AC and the Treasury that had far more input with regard to the rules and criteria. For it to have been HQ then he would have to be far brighter with far more about him than many people on here give him credit for. 

 

 

It's an unincorporated business and its me that processes all of this type admin.

Once we'd been rejected for the first support scheme, it actually re-focused my moral compass a bit. Despite the loss of income, we didn't actually need any support as we are very lucky to have other income/assets, reasoning the support should go to those who actually need it.

Pity HQ doesn't appear have his compass similarly aligned.

[b4mbi]

3 minutes ago, 2112 said:

 Did he lay staff off? 

Not the cleaner. Allegedly. 😄

[2112]

1 minute ago, b4mbi said:

It's an unincorporated business and its me that processes all of this type admin.

Once we'd been rejected for the first support scheme, it actually re-focused my moral compass a bit. Despite the loss of income, we didn't actually need any support as we are very lucky to have other income/assets, reasoning the support should go to those who actually need it.

Pity HQ doesn't appear have his compass similarly aligned.

When HQ or his businesses application hit the desk of the Treasury, surely someone with a bit of nous would have drawn their superiors attention to the application? Alf must have known about it, and I’ll be surprised others in Government Offices didn’t? Maybe a discrete word to the applicant to say ‘was this really appropriate?’