Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, tomskip said:

I saw the same man being asked to leave his spot outside the entrance to Sainsburys Dog Kennel Hill the other day. It suggests, at least, that Sainsburys didn't licence him to ask for donations there. 

I'll mention this to the M&S staff

This is a pretty hideous description of a vulnerable person with commenters making baseless accusations which could be harmful.

I’d like to see this post renamed if not deleted entirely. It seems highly unlikely there’s any bona fide evidence of fraud here and, even if there were, a person has to be in a pretty dire position to be spending all hours in all weather pounding pavements asking very politely for donations.

I know nothing about this person but see them on Lordship Lane appealing for donations most days and they strike me as someone who could reasonably be quite vulnerable. The comments suggesting police should be called or the individual should be reported to supermarkets seem disproportionate and ill thought out.

We can do better than using slurs like “beggar” and insinuating fraud or theft on little to no evidence.

Yes I find it frustrating to be approached by this person daily, but they’ve done me no harm and I have a monthly direct debit directly to a food bank as when I did my due diligence I decided it was how I could give best bang for my buck. Everyone else who is sceptical or otherwise can do the same.
 

Please consider whether you really want to add fuel to this fire and whether your descriptions or accusations are fair and verifiable. This is a real person you’re talking about.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
  • Agree 4
  • Administrator changed the title to 'Foodbank' street collector outside M&S

On the whole I agree with what you say Mops. But the solution to this person's vulnerability is not to encourage him to collect money under the guise of it being a charity collection (if it is not) surely? People who are short of money themselves could be donating whilst under the impression they are giving to an organisation, not an individual who needs cash. It's ok to question the validity of collection buckets, no matter who is holding them. Or no? I always feel it's best to be honest. I hope some of the many excellent local homeless outreach workers are talking to him. 

How do you reach the conclusion the collector is

a. "an in̈dividual who needs cash". As I posted up thread, he collects for a properly incorporated Community Interest Company.

b. homeless

He may be annoying but there are a lot of annoying people in East Dulwich and the wider world.

Edited by Jenijenjen
addition
  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
  • 6 months later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Hi all, just jumping in to help clear up some confusion around CityHive London C.I.C.

CityHive is a not-for-profit Community Interest Company (CIC) that supports food banks, soup kitchens, and community hubs across London and surrounding areas. It operates in the same space as respected organisations like The Felix Project, City Harvest, and Fareshare.

The key difference?
Those larger organisations often receive big grants and corporate funding — but they’re able to do that because they pay professional bid writers to apply for those grants. And guess what? Bid writers aren't free. They’re often paid staff or consultants, which smaller groups like CityHive simply can’t afford.

Instead, CityHive runs on the kindness and generosity of individual people — everyday donors, volunteers, and fundraisers who believe in what they do.

Some have asked why a food-related group would need money. It’s important to understand:
Money is essential for things like:

  • Fuel and van hire to deliver food

  • Buying fresh ingredients and shelf-stable items

  • Renting storage space

  • Basic admin to keep things organised and running smoothly

If you’re ever unsure about someone fundraising for CityHive, you can always contact their office to verify. They’re happy to provide reassurance.

If you want to see the impact of their work, check out their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people who benefit, showing their appreciation publicly.

Not everyone can give money — and that’s totally fine. But even a like or a share goes further than criticism. Sadly, it feels like there are more haters than helpers out there right now. If you’re genuinely curious or concerned, ask for proof — and when it’s shown, help spread the good. Don’t just assume the worst about people trying to make a difference.

Let’s be louder with love than we are with doubt. 💛

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

I mean good luck to you, but with 4 staff you have still failed to submit your statutory accounts for your two eligible years of operation and are overdue with them this year too. Companies House have taken steps to close you twice.

Your annual loss in trading is increasing each year. 

You have had two directors resign in 2022 leaving only 1 in place which isn't the best if you want good governance- but that also stops you from being able to raise funds from trusts and foundations. 

 

  • Like 3

Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same.

Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine.

As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change.

CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most.

And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt.

As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving.

They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world.

If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes.

So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks?

We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.

  • Like 2
9 hours ago, Zahid said:

Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges...

If you're a fundraising intermediary, reporting promptly and accurately on how you've raised and spent funds seems quite important.

  • Agree 1

CIC is not the appropriate vehicle for a fund-raising intermediary. 

CICs are for businesses that typically sell something or provide a service for social good  but are not for profit; a community cafe or arts centre, or an IT skills training centre for  unemployed people.

it costs £65 to set up  a CIC, the scrutiny is less than for a full charity, and the administrative burden is pretty low if you don’t file accounts.

It’s hard to prove a negative, but if you were trying to build a credible, positive case for giving money to street collectors for CityHive CIC, that might be a little harder still… tho thank you, Zahid for joining the Forum to give it a go.

On 08/04/2025 at 21:50, Zahid said:

Hi all, just jumping in to help clear up some confusion around CityHive London C.I.C.

CityHive is a not-for-profit Community Interest Company (CIC) that supports food banks, soup kitchens, and community hubs across London and surrounding areas. It operates in the same space as respected organisations like The Felix Project, City Harvest, and Fareshare.

The key difference?
Those larger organisations often receive big grants and corporate funding — but they’re able to do that because they pay professional bid writers to apply for those grants. And guess what? Bid writers aren't free. They’re often paid staff or consultants, which smaller groups like CityHive simply can’t afford.

Instead, CityHive runs on the kindness and generosity of individual people — everyday donors, volunteers, and fundraisers who believe in what they do.

Some have asked why a food-related group would need money. It’s important to understand:
Money is essential for things like:

  • Fuel and van hire to deliver food

  • Buying fresh ingredients and shelf-stable items

  • Renting storage space

  • Basic admin to keep things organised and running smoothly

If you’re ever unsure about someone fundraising for CityHive, you can always contact their office to verify. They’re happy to provide reassurance.

If you want to see the impact of their work, check out their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people who benefit, showing their appreciation publicly.

Not everyone can give money — and that’s totally fine. But even a like or a share goes further than criticism. Sadly, it feels like there are more haters than helpers out there right now. If you’re genuinely curious or concerned, ask for proof — and when it’s shown, help spread the good. Don’t just assume the worst about people trying to make a difference.

Let’s be louder with love than we are with doubt. 💛

Interesting 😀

Edited by Alf12

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

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • 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.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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