Jump to content

Recommended Posts

OK, first I accept that this isn?t strictly an EAST Dulwich subject ? but this seems the best place to discuss this.


At some point in the 17th Century, Edward Alleyn created a charitable foundation and bequeathed to it his estate and other property. The original benefices were ?12 poor scholars, six poor brothers and six poor sisters?. Roll forward a few hundred years and that organisation has now become the registered charity ?The Dulwich estate?. This charity owns the freehold of 1500 acres of prime South-East London and has a gross income (2013) of ?9.4M [3]


I?m a big believer in sport. I?m a big believer in making sport accessible to as many people (especially Children) as possible.

The Dulwich Estate is the landlord of many local sports clubs & facilities. Its my understanding that their approach to the velodrome a few years ago nearly caused it to close [1], I understand that the rents charged to many local sports facilities are hefty to say the least[2].

So, if you live in this area and your kid wants to play football, cricket or rugby, its likely that a % of the money you have to pay is going indirectly to The Dulwich Estate.

I also know that local state schools have to pay rent to use sports fields owned by the estate (indirectly via the clubs that have the leases)


But they?re a charity right ? ? they?ll take that income and redistribute it to the poor scholors and brothers?

Wrong

The Dulwich Estate gives 85% (yes eighty-five percent) of its generated income to 3 organisations: Dulwich College, Alleynians School and James Allens Girls school. All good schools I?m sure, all schools with fees of about ?15k per year, educating a privileged elite (yes, I know there are many ?normal people? round here who scrimp and save to get their kids into these schools ? but even they are a lucky few in the grand scheme of things)


Last year it gave over ?2M to Dulwich College [3]. That?s a school where Roman Abramovich sends his kid, that has a county standard cricket pitch.

Now, I?m sure that they?ll say the money is partly used to create bursaries for kids to attend these fine institutions who wouldn?t go otherwise.

It also gives relatively small amounts of money to a couple of state schools, the alms-houses in Dulwich and the chapel (near the park). But 85% goes to the 3 private schools

I?ve got no moral objection to private education and I?d be very happy for my kids to attend those schools - but what really bothers me is this:

a) How on earth can this organisation claim to be a charity? - what is ?in the public good? about giving money to organisations that provide education to a very small & select privileged few?

b) Specifically, this organisation IMO is taking money from sports clubs and giving it to these elite organisations. My kids go to a number of clubs in the area and I know the great works that many of them are doing (usually by volunteers) to make sport as accessible as possible to kids in Southwark.

I know one club that provides free membership to kids who otherwise wouldn?t be able to play their sport ? that same club made a loss last year. But they still have to keep shelling out to Dulwich estate.


I?d be interested to hear what others think of this.


[1]

http://www.urban75.org/london/velodrome1.html

[2] https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdsc.mycourts.co.uk%2Fnews_downloads%2F4062_Presidents_Report_2012.doc&ei=yOwfVJyoCsif7gaYyYDACw&usg=AFQjCNHrEgACLzmNipoFgNiatFSMGu-j-A&sig2=WW7WWfLnDePQD9gJPLhmSQ

[3]

http://www.dulwichestate.co.uk/accounts/the-dulwich-estate

DadOf4 Wrote:

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


> I know one club that provides free membership to

> kids who otherwise wouldn?t be able to play their

> sport ? that same club made a loss last year. But

> they still have to keep shelling out to Dulwich

> estate.


^ it is hard to argue with the perversity of this situation.

Personally, it doesn't surprise (or upset ) me to see somebody in the org earning ?130k. Its an organisation with ?9M turnover that will need running & management. Same applies to many charities.


I've no problem with the CEO of, say, Cancer Research UK earning good money if he/she can help the charity raise/give more money.


The problem with The Dulwich Estate is what they DO as a "charity"

"The problem with The Dulwich Estate is what they DO as a "charity""


I agree, but I don't think that the two or disconnected. Cancer Research UK is a large organization with complex considerations around fund raising and distribution. The Dulwich Estate, as far as I can see, employees four people. Money flows in automatically by virtue of its legal position and distribution of funds largely involves slicing the pie into n chunks and handing it over to the local private schools. Perhaps dividing ?9,000,000 by n is marginally harder than dividing say ?9,000 by n. By only marginally...

"I'd love to hear somebody from Dulwich estate give their side. It could well be that theres more to this than meets to eye"


Yes, I'm not sure. The accounts give a pretty detailed breakdown http://www.dulwichestate.co.uk/accounts/the-dulwich-estate. Perhaps I am missing something too. I am more than happy to be corrected!

I think the relevant question is why are the private schools charities. I'm sure it would find it more difficult to maintain its own charitable status if the ultimate beneficiaries were not also charities.


[edit: I don't have any data to support my assertion below that DC is unusual in providing 100% bursaries - it's just what I heard. For clarity, even if true, I don't think on its own that it's sufficient to establish that the schools "ought" to get charitable status]


I believe Dulwich College is one of the few private schools that gives (a very small number of) 100% bursaries for select local kids that could not otherwise even consider private education. The schemes of many schools are discounts of 10-50%, and the residual fees are still too high for most. I don't know exactly how DC assesses your financial position nor the rate at which the bursaries are reduced.

DadOf4 Wrote:

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


> The problem with The Dulwich Estate is what they DO as a "charity"


Why? Because they don't help the people you see as 'fit and proper' targets for your largesse?


What are you asking for here? That Dulwich Estate be forced to stop funding things you disapprove of? That charitable status be removed from a school charity organisation?

Loz Wrote:

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

> DadOf4 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > The problem with The Dulwich Estate is what they

> DO as a "charity"

>

> Why? Because they don't help the people you see

> as 'fit and proper' targets for your largesse?

>

> What are you asking for here? That Dulwich Estate

> be forced to stop funding things you disapprove

> of? That charitable status be removed from a

> school charity organisation?



I don't know - I'm not really "calling" for anything. Its just I was quite shocked by the fact that an organisation that *seems* to have digressed so far from its original aims should be doing so under the guise of a charity (and the tax benefits that follow) - I was keen to see if others thought the same.


The charity commission say "To be a charity in England or Wales, your organisation must be set up with purposes which are exclusively charitable for the public benefit."


IMO - raising rents on social facilities like sports fields and redistributing that money to a set of (already wealthy) schools is not really meeting that test.


Yes, theres nothing wrong with giving some kids a better education (as ive said before, I've got no objection to private education) and I dont want to get into a tit-for-tat about the best places for charity money to go (we all have our own views & priorities on that ) but it just doesnt sit right with me

newboots Wrote:

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

> I understood that the number of 100% bursaries

> from Alleyns is very small now in comparison to

> the number available in 1960s and 70s?



Yes that's true but I don't think it's anything to do with the issue Dadof4 has raised. Alleyn's was a direct grant school back then so if a child met the school's academic criteria the fees were paid by the local authority. Direct grant schools were abolished in 1976 and later replaced by the Assisted Places Scheme in 1981. When the direct grant scheme was abolished schools had to choose whether to come fully into the state sector or go independent.

DadOf4 Wrote:

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


> The charity commission say "To be a charity in England or Wales, your organisation must be set up

> with purposes which are exclusively charitable for the public benefit."


I have the same misgivings about animal charities - especially donkey sanctuaries. But, if people can be bothered setting one up and collecting money then who am I to say they shouldn't?

My own take on it is that I don't have a problem with people setting up a charity and asking people for money. But, Dulwich Estate residents are coerced into handing over money. That is not charitable behavior in my view. Not everyone that lives on the Dulwich Estate is fantastically wealthy.

Loz Wrote:

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

> Where is the coercion? DE own facilities and

> assets and raise rents on them as a form of

> income. It's hardly shaking children down for

> their lunch money on street corners, is it?


But is it charitable ?

I live on the DE - bunch of robbers IMHO! A bit off thread however they have decided that our road needs extensive resurfacing works to the tune of just under 1 million quid ... that means each house on our little estate must cough up around ?10K per household (!) to put towards these unneccesary works!! They are completely out of touch with the 'common man' and the only way I'm getting 10K is by buying a balaclava...!

Perhaps unsurprisingly there is a boring and complicated legal answer to the question 'why is this considered a charity', largely arising from litigation involving independent schools and the Charity Commission in 2010-2011. The judgment is here:


http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/TCC/2011/421.pdf


Pretty heavy going, even for lawyers, but the key finding was that assessing whether a trust was entitled to charitable status involves asking 'what was it set up to do?', not 'what is it actually doing now?'. Providing a general education has always been recognised as a charitable purpose, so unless the original trust document said 'education only for the rich' it's fine.


The relevance of what the school is actually doing is to whether it is fulfilling its charitable purpose, and on that score the court said it's up to the trustees in each case to make sure they do enough to meet the public benefit test.


Going back to the OP and sports clubs, one thing that is clear is that if you are an educational charity, doing non-educational 'good deeds' e.g. making your sports facilities available for free to local clubs is outside your charitable purposes and may be a breach of trust, which is a little ironic.


In an ideal world fee paying schools would aim to be 'needs blind' i.e. if you satisfy the entry requirements you get whatever financial aid is necessary for you to take up a place. The difficulty is that you either need to start with a massive endowment fund (a la Harvard) or it needs public money. If the Tories get re-elected, we might hear more about it though:


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d00408ba-e012-11e2-bf9d-00144feab7de.html#axzz3E21GfEpN

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...