Discussion in 'Hall Management' started by Imogen, Sep 13, 2013.
I thought our £13 was high enough! ouchie
Rent is a unit expenditure, most of us have to pay it, and we just factor it into subs. We meet in a church and our minister was very excited about the new promise!
Don't go with the 'puppy dog eyes' or 'threaten Togo to the press' Sit down and talk to them like adults, explain the situation an maybe have the figures written down to how much subs would go up to etc.
They may think we get funding from CHQ, or you could apply for some grants etc to help with the cost.
Maybe Guiding should go native and just hold meetings in open spaces........
ok in summer :nature-008: :thumbsup: ... but in winter :xmas-smiley-035: maybe :thumbsdown: :speechless-003 and what about the :toilet:
Aw, come on ....... can you imagine the risk assessments
Tents, campfires and buckets! It's what it all started with.
Of course our unit/troop originally had "the Common" listed as its meeting place many decades ago. Thanks to HQ database we are now stuck with our wet weather shelter (the village hall) listed as the official meeting place. By such incremental transitions are our horizons limited....
Something we found out is that they are trying to use an act (Charities Act 1993) that has been repealed by the Charities Act 2011. Not sure where we now legally stand. Any advice helpful. As don't think they can use a repealed act saying that because of our change of promise that this repealed act now applies to us. Have checked our agreements and there is no mention of promise.
That does seem strange. As you say, the Charities Act 1993 has been repealed in its entirety by the newer Charities Act 2011 so it cannot be used in any formal or legal sense. The change to our promise also has no legal bearing and so would certainly not have any influence on what legislation applied to girlguiding.
Whilst I agree with some advice above that it is not sensible to enter any discussions with threats and risk damaging the entire relationship, I would be tempted to at least take some advice from HQ - they do have a legal team who might be able to review your agreements and provide a response regarding the proposals - I know they have helped us in the past with some issues related to building ownership / covenants. I know that the solicitors I use for work regularly provide me with advice about the correct wording to use when having conversations with people!
If it's been repealed, then they can't use it as it's not the current version of the act. I don't know it, but I would be highly surprised if an act names girlguiding, let alone has another just for the promise.... I confess I'm not entirely sure what you mean when they are trying to use this To justify their actions, have They got a bit which they are quoting?
quote from their letter below
It then continued to say that exemption from the 1993 Act could only happen at the PCC discretion and if they thought that the charity's objectives are in line the charitable objectives of the church.
So the respond might be to provide them with a copy of Girlguiding's objectives showing that we are more than just our promise?
I don't believe our charity objectives have changed. The promise is the way that a person makes a commitment to adhere to the principles and laws of guiding as an individual, but our objectives are:
"the principal charitable objective of promoting education of girls and young women to help them develop emotionally,
mentally, physically and spiritually so that they can make a positive contribution to their community and the wider
I am not a solicitor or any form of expert in this area, but I am not sure that a let of the type you have would be classed as a disposal anyway - do you have a lease (i.e. with rights granted to you)? Or is it a more informal let? A quick search of both Acts suggest that the restrictions they refer to exist in both, but the wording I can find talks about sale or lease rather than sale or letting?
It sounds to me like this is being either interpreted (mis-interpreted?) as a more fundamental change than it actually is - either because they are unhappy with the change or because they see it as an opportunity to charge more.
Without seeing the formal agreements you have with the church then it is difficult to know whether this is something that you are able to challenge further.
A repealed act is repealed. I would get in touch with the legal team at CHQ to take their advice, I'm sure they will be able to provide you with the information you need.
The Church is presumably a charity. Just like us a charity cannot donate to another charity unless funds have been specifically raised for that purpose. I think that's what they are getting at. It may be that previously they (possibly wrongly) believed your groups were promoting Christianity as part of your programme and therefore in some way saw you as "part" of their mission and purposes. The change in promise has just highlighted to them that this is not the case. The stated purpose of the Church as a charity is relevant. If I was you I would be trying to negotiate what a fair rent is. £18 per hour seems very high to me
They are talking a certain brown sticky substance. Seek advice from the legal dept at CHQ, and look for a new meeting place where inclusion is accepted at a more reasonable rent. If you get really stuck, I'm no longer practising, but happy to help you write a response.
Part of me thinks why stay where you're, obviously, not wanted and another thinks you have just as much right to a fair deal as other groups.
It may come down to brass tacks at the end of the day - so it may not hurt to start looking for somewhere welcoming and affordable.
Even if it's just to give you the confidence and knowledge to respond to them properly and fully I would contact CHQ and the legal dept for advice/clarification.
I agree with everyone else contact CHQ they are really helpful I have had to contact them recently about a issue that was way over my head and they were highly helpful and supportive!
Contacted CHQ and very helpful and the scouts have agreed for us to use their HQ, and we have told the church that we are going to leave, they're not happy, especially as CHQ helped us draft a letter back to them, basically saying that we wouldn't be using their hall anymore due to breach in our agreement with them on their part and that using a repealed act to get us to pay money is illegal. We move locations next week... scary.
I'm glad you did contact HQ and they supported you with a response etc
And wish you all the very best in your new venue
Separate names with a comma.