Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Edward Alleyn origially created a charitable

> foundation and gave to it his property to support

> the education of the poor.


You need to read the current legal position of the Charities [sic, yes plural].


These are readily available on the Charities Commission web-site.

Do the schools provide scholarships and bursaries for some students though? I don't know the answer to that but just wonder that it might wrong to describe all pupils as fee paying at those schools. Having said that, like everyone above, I don't undertand why fee paying schools aren't self sufficient financially.

Just looked at 2013 accounts for dulwich college, ?1.9m total value of bursaries. Taking the other schools into account, I think it is safe to assume that almost all the dulwich estate income goes on bursaries.


As for the toy shop, rents go up, it's a fact of business - and from what I can see the rise is not unreasonable.


My wife has a small office from the crown estate, rent goes up 20-30% every 3 years on renewal.


Personally, I think a small toy shop is going to have a very hard time surviving with the online competition.

Yes they do scholarships and bursaries.


http://www.dulwich.org.uk/college/admissions/scholarships-bursaries


That is not to say that they are not very privileged schools that shouldn't really be funded by a "charity", but it is a completely different conversation to how much the estate should be charging in rent. And we're not talking about a family having to leave their home due to rent increases, we're talking about a business that has several branches ( a small chain in fact).



As is often the case in discussions like this, emotive nonsense kind of ruins things.


I don't believe fee paying schools should exist, but it's an entirely different discussion.

The bursery point though does shed a different light on the money given by the estate to those schools, which is why I wondered.


Business rents, again not something I know anything about, have been pushed up everywhere no? Small businesses have disappeared from our high streets because of that reason. There has to be some element of greed by landlords there.

  • 2 weeks later...

What a load of rubbish that petition is! Businesses regardless of who their landlords might be have to pay market rate rents. Why should anyone subsidise a for profit business with multiple chains in the area?


As others have said, Dulwich estate is a charity that supports 2 non fee schools, the alms house and provides significant bursaries for the 3 fee paying schools it is charged to support. It has a feduciary responsibility to maximise income to support these institutions.

The revenue funds scholarships to those schools for children who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford to attend.


Either way, Dulwich Estates is not a charity designed to support private for profit businesses like the toy store by offering lower than market rents. The shop has no reasonable right to expect any landlord will charge them below market rates.

I don't think the "charitable" Dulwich Estate has a right to hike up rents by 70%. I'll sign off by quoting Rayner:


"The Dulwich Estate and its Chief Executive John Major (no, not that one) can point to Charity Commission rules which require them to get the best financial deals they can, and therefore argue that they are merely performing their legal duties by pricing out the toy shop. Except they?re not doing so consistently, because, for example, they?ve left the Half Moon Pub empty for over two years, when it could be earning them rents. They don?t even seem to be applying their own policies as laid out in their Scheme of Management drawn up in 1995. That requires them to behave in such a way as to have ?a positive impact on the community, is attractive to the public and thus stimulates local businesses?. There is nothing attractive or stimulating about their current behaviour. Indeed, the Charity Commission also requires trustees to consider ?reputational damage? caused by their trading policies. Right now they are doing themselves enormous reputational damage. So much so that there are many of us who question why a body like the Dulwich Estate, with property worth hundreds of millions, should be a charity at all, given the tax benefits that status brings."

Saying that Dulwich Estate should be maximising their revenue better with the pubs is no kind of argument for why the toy shop deserves below market rents. Its a total non-sequitur.


The only argument that one could reasonably make is that the rent being charged is above market rate and is therefore unfair. So far I haven't heard anyone make that assertion in large part because rent reviews are carried out by 3rd parties and aren't actually determined exclusively by landlords in the UK.


I actually find the manipulative arguments being spewed by Just Williams (a for profit chain with branches in various locations in London) for why they should be granted below market rents really disgraceful. Why do they think they deserve this special treatment and why do the think the bursaries and charities that the income should sacrifice this money to increase their private profit margins?

Yes, I agree, a very neat and concise article by Jay Rayner - well worth a read if you are interested in the story.


Is it really so awful to hope that your local parade of shops doesn't become an identikit replica of every other godforsaken High Street in the country?

There is nothing wrong with wanting independent shops on your high street. The way to do that is to patronise them and give them your financial support. I am pretty sure the rents in Clapham (and ED possibly) are higher than in Herne Hill given the footfall and this small chain of toy stores manages to survive as a profitable enterprise there.


The local businesses people have are the ones they support.


Acting like Dulwich Estate in this instance is doing anything wrong simply by charging market rent for the premises is ridiculous. The toy store in their petitions and public statements act like they are doing 'Gods work'. Its a for profit shop and will most likely be replaced by another small chain store which will have virtually no impact on the look of the area.

I'm not clear of the link between the ?8m+ annual subsidy from the Dulwich Estate commercial activities of the three big local private schools. 86% of the Dulwich Estates profits going to those three private schools.


The schools have very different levels and numbers of bursaries. Most of the bursaries are 10-15% discounts on the fees. The fees have been increasing YoY by 5%.

Also as a proportion of places - the schools have been expanding numbers of pupils over recent years - the bursary places may actually be proportionally lower than they used to be. Don't have time to analyse this.


The schools via the coach services are increasingly becoming sub regional schools - making the serving of families from Greenwich to Fulham - rather than local private schools possible.

James, as a local Councillor don't you think you have a responsibility to look into things before making allegations about a local institution. Just casually posting your unresearched suspicions isn't really helpful and can only add confusion to an already confused discussion.

And just to clarify:


Dulwich Estate in its last financial accounts generated 6.8m for its beneficiaries not 8m-- see page 6 of the annual report

http://www.dulwichestate.co.uk/docs/general/de_accounts15.pdf


Dulwich College (just one of the 3 fee paying schools): The value of means tested bursaries Dulwich College provides is just under 2m quid per annum.

http://www.dulwich.org.uk/docs/default-source/annual-report-and-accounts/dulwich-college-financial-statements-for-the-year-ended-31-july-2013.pdf?sfvrsn=2


This information took me 10 minutes to find.


I don't have time to find the information for the other two schools but they all use their disbursements for means tested bursaries in a similar fashion to Dulwich College. That's where their share of the income goes. They also prioritize the neediest- i.e. they will give one full fee bursary rather than 2 50% bursaries. Alleyn's explicitly states the majority of its bursaries are for IN EXCESS of 50% of fees on its website.


The means testing is on a sliding scale. Less that 13k family income gets you a full scholarship and if your family income is greater the 54k you don't qualify for any support at JAGS so I think its bang out of order for anyone to suggest the charity is somehow misusing the funds and income they generate, particularly as a means to undermine Dulwich Estate for the benefit of a for profit shop!

However, all of that is truly irrelevant. Just Williams is a for profit business. Why do they think they should pay below market rents to anyone? Their attitude is particularly galling as this would reduce the bursaries and other charity support provided by Dulwich Estate.


The simple truth as already admitted by the toy store is that they were offered a rent of 35k based on a lease signed at number 22. Dulwich Estate then lowered this offer in consideration of the fact that they were a long standing tenant. The rent rise is 29% over 5 years as the lease was fixed from 2010 to 2015 which amounts to just under a 5% annual compound increase. All of this Vicky B has conceded to online.

http://www.hernehill.org.uk/comment/8489#comment-8489


If the business model doesn't work in Herne Hill because of the demographics or its too close in proximity to the ED branch or whatever that's unfortunate but its life. If the 5,000 people who have signed this ridiculous petition spent even 50 quid a year in the shop instead of just moaning and protesting about wanting independents, the store would have over 250k in revenue. You get what you support and blaming Dulwich Estate for the shop closing is preposterous.

The point Rayner makes about the half moon is a nonsense, because had they had their way it would have long ago been turned in to flats (above the pub) and no doubt brought them in significant income.


Im glad that didn't happen, but to say they've just left it empty isn't entirely accurate.

I agree with LondonMix; if the estate decided to sell the shop instead of let it should they sell it at 60% of the market value?

Would anyone signing the petition be prepared to sell their house at 60% of the market value (or donate 40% of the value to charity)?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...