One of the ripples that has emerged out of the failure of Carillion is the use by private companies of ‘non-profit’ companies as a front for delivering public services.
What could be more trustworthy than a community enterprise which makes no profit out of essential services?
Well, the answer is that these can be fake non-profits, simply serving as a way for investor-owned outsourcing companies to launder the proceeds.
In June 2013, Carillion (then John Laing Ltd, subsequently Carillion Integrated Services Ltd) was awarded the contract by Ealing and Harrow Councils to run their library services for ten years, covering:
• Six static libraries
• Libraries back office support services
• Home Library Service
• Schools Library Service.
But there was a fig leaf thrown in, in the form of a non-profit company with a heartwarming name – Cultural Community Solutions, responsible for day-to-day management.
When we look at the accounts submitted to Companies House, the story becomes visible. Cultural Community Solutions made no profit because it looks as if it has paid all of its profit out to others including companies in the Carillion family. From year to year, gross profit is simply eaten up by the ‘administrative expenses’. In 2016, they were exactly the same figure.
As a non-profit, they could also do something that other commercial, or indeed in-house services, could not, which is to claim discretionary relief on business rates payable on library premises. As with the big fostercare companies financed by offshore venture capital, designed to escape taxation, the financial profits this non-profit passed through to Carillion were in every possible way a gift from the taxpayer.
This then is not a non-profit company. It is a for-profit operation, masquerading as a non-profit and presumably using time honoured techniques of transfer pricing – a device for corporate groups to shift monies between legal entities through inflated charging.
Devices like these, some charitable, have been used in the leisure sector as well. This is one part of public services where true social enterprises, like Freedom Leisure, Fusion Lifestyle and GLL, have a successful track record. Outsourcing companies have sought to get back into the market through a similar device of non-profit trusts. Serious questions surely now need to be asked about these.
It is not a new issue. Wolves will snap up some sheep’s clothing if they see a bargain and allowed to get away with it. In 2012, Social Enterprise UK’s Shadow State report helped to shine a light on companies like A4E, banned that same year from calling itself a ‘social purpose company’, since its primary purpose was always shareholder profit.
Cultural Community Solutions wasn’t a Community Interest Company, a specific form of social enterprise, nor necessarily marketing itself as a social enterprise, but it appears as if it was assumed to be such by some commentators.
Anyone can call themselves a non-profit, just as many can claim to be a social enterprise, but there is an underlying first principle that needs to be recognised, as in the International Statement of Co-operative Identity, which is that of independence.
The Financial Conduct Authority for example, rightly tests co-operative and community benefit societies against this measure of independent ownership and control, including any close links that societies may have. We need that same test more widely when claims of being community are made – in the name or in the legal form of a company.
If a business is set up with a dependency on others, whether state or private investors, the nature of the company will ultimately reflect the interests of those dominant partners.
Tut, tut, not good news Ed. Very pleased you have aired this. I have posted a link on the SAN Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/socialauditnetwork/
Well said Ed, there is no regulator for companies limited by guarantee, they are eligible for 80% rates relief and no one knows what they are up to
Well spotted and the tip of an iceberg I suspect. Educational Academies should also be looked at for asset stripping and syphoning funds to overpaid ‘executives’.
I was wondering about this. A company that has a .org website and has told me on more than one occasion (voluntarily) that they were a non profit is definitely a LLC. I was curious so I looked them up. It’s frustrating and they have gotten a lot of accolades from the city for their mission. I was thinking of working with them and now am not. Not sure what to do but move on.
Thanks so much. I do think we can gather the evidence and then build a case. There is noone that really oversees all this and in fact it tends to be the gaps in which these weeds flourish. So let me have the details and I’ll take a look, and will keep posting anyway on the theme. DM me on twitter @edmayo1 or I can send my email address 😉
Ed could you send me your email… I’d love to contact you regarding a fake non profit in my city