Profile incomplete
13:57 PM, 4th February 2019, About 5 years ago 43
Text Size
Shelter’s accounts for the year to March 2018 show total income of £67.4m, and total expenditure of £66.4m. Compared to the previous year, income was up 11% and expenditure was up 6%: click here.
It got donations and legacies of £36.9 million, but spent £11.7 million on obtaining them.
It got £17.3 million for housing advice and support services from government departments and local authorities, and £2.8 million from the Big Lottery, making a total of £20.1 million.
This is analysed in a table on page 65 (digital page 33) of the annual accounts, under a humorous heading Housing Services:
More detail is given on pages 80/81 (digital page 41). Shelter got amounts totalling £1m from councils in each of the following cities: London, Sheffield and Birmingham.
However, Shelter spent £40.0 million providing ”housing” services. You have to work this figure out for yourself – the cost is split into 6 categories, but there is no sub-total. It’s almost as if they don’t want you to know.
Shelter shops sold goods for a total of £9.0 million, but the staff working in them cost £3.6 million, and “other shop costs” were £4.8 million. The net contribution was 532k, or 5.95% of sales – less than six pence in the pound from selling things that were given to them for nothing.
It got £1.2 million for training and publications which cost £0.9million. It also got £270k, from investments mainly, with a bit from office rental.
It spent £5.3 million on research, policy and campaigning.
To summarise where the money went:
Cost of collecting donations & legacies £11.7m
Cost of Shelter shops and their staff £8.4m
Training and publications £0.9m
Total £21.0m
“Housing” services £40.0m
Research, policy and campaigning £5.3m
Total overall expenditure £66.3m
NB The £21m cost of the first three items was spent on obtaining the £67.4m receipts. That is 31%.
Broadly speaking, the net donations and legacies of £25.2 million were spent as follows:
Half of the cost of so-called housing services £20m
Campaigning to drive private landlords out of the market and increase homelessness £5m
Housing anybody at all £0
Remuneration for the seven directors was £606,407, making an average of £86,630. In July 2017, the month before Neate and Beales joined Shelter, the Director of Finance resigned. His replacement resigned in February; her interim replacement resigned in April. In May a permanent Director of Finance was appointed, for the time being.
Previous Article
Hamilton Fraser purchases TDS from NLANext Article
SDLT income take down
Mark Shine
22:24 PM, 7th February 2019, About 5 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Mark Shine at 07/02/2019 - 21:07
The above wasn’t entirely a rhetorical question btw. It’s surely logically and politically indefensible IF Shelter, HMG etc did not now or soonish try to equally fiscally or otherwise penalise ALL other LLs operating within the PRS?
Old Mrs Landlord
22:34 PM, 7th February 2019, About 5 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Monty Bodkin at 07/02/2019 - 21:04Annie's post 13.12pm on 6 February includes the sentence I am querying, viz. "Their goal (...) is to massively increase the number of social homes, and to do that they have to continually criticise and denigrate private landlords". I am therefore puzzled that you can assert "no, she did not say that". I have followed the thread from its inception and am in agreement with the main thrust of Annie Landlord's points, merely unable to see that a drive to increase social housing must necessarily involve an attack on private provision, so asked for an explanation.
Mark Shine
0:33 AM, 8th February 2019, About 5 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Old Mrs Landlord at 07/02/2019 - 22:34
Fair point. Although IF the intention and plan, which may or may not have been negotiated in a private room or 1 of the 8 bars in the Palace of Westminster around 2014/15, was that the much needed increased provision of social housing was to be be ahem provided by large corporate LLs, surely it’s possible that reducing the competition (ie smallish unincorporated LLs being the easiest target) as part of that deal may have been a key component / demand?
Old Mrs Landlord
2:02 AM, 8th February 2019, About 5 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Mark Shine at 08/02/2019 - 00:33
I don't see the relevance of your reply to the question I posed. Are you suggesting that Shelter are somehow acting as remote agents of the government in implementing a rebalancing of the housing market? Have you been reading Machiavelli?
Annie Landlord
10:06 AM, 8th February 2019, About 5 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Old Mrs Landlord at 07/02/2019 - 13:01
Hi, if you read the Shelter strategy and several subsequent reports, it is evident that they have changed tack somewhat since Polly Neate became CEO. They have embarked on an aggressive campaign which (on my reading) is as much about the promotion of state ownership of housing as it is about providing decent housing. It includes compulsory purchase of land, a 'new wave' of grassroots supporters, a mass movement for change etc etc. Shelter also actively supports the various renters' unions who are engaged in direct action (blocking phone lines, sit ins, blocking access to doors etc) against lettings agents and lenders. It is only my view, but I see this type of campaign as politically motivated, with the aim of drastically reducing, or removing, private ownership of rental property
Old Mrs Landlord
11:46 AM, 8th February 2019, About 5 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Annie Landlord at 08/02/2019 - 10:06
Yes Annie, I am in full agreement with all you say about Shelter's actions regarding private landlords and that it is in line with their status as a left-wing social activist organisation in the guise of a charity, I just cannot see that those actions are necessary in order to promote the provision of more social housing. Surely they could lobby for more social provision without the attacks on the PRS? But, believe me, I wish I'd never asked as I seem to have triggered attacks from all quarters and been seen as an apologist for Shelter's anti-PRS stance.
Old Mrs Landlord
11:46 AM, 8th February 2019, About 5 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Annie Landlord at 08/02/2019 - 10:06
Yes Annie, I am in full agreement with all you say about Shelter's actions regarding private landlords and that it is in line with their status as a left-wing social activist organisation in the guise of a charity, I just cannot see that those actions are necessary in order to promote the provision of more social housing. Surely they could lobby for more social provision without the attacks on the PRS? But, believe me, I wish I'd never asked as I seem to have triggered attacks from all quarters and been seen as an apologist for Shelter's anti-PRS stance.
Annie Landlord
12:08 PM, 8th February 2019, About 5 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Old Mrs Landlord at 08/02/2019 - 11:46
Oh right! I think I now see what you're getting at. Sorry, bit slow this morning:) The answer is (my view) if Shelter were ONLY acting as a housing charity, it wouldn't need to attack the PRS in order to promote fairer housing for all, which will necessarily include a building programme of low rent homes. But its politics are getting in the way, so overt support for private landlords would not fit with its political agenda.
Lets not forget that Corbyn called for empty private homes in K&C to be 'requisitioned' for the survivors of Grenfell. Many of Shelter's supporters do seem to be of the view that no property should be used for profit
Old Mrs Landlord
12:35 PM, 8th February 2019, About 5 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Annie Landlord at 08/02/2019 - 12:08
Totally agree. Shelter's anti-landlord stance is not a corollary of its desire to increase social housing provision, it is motivated by doctrinaire left-wing politics.
Mark Shine
13:03 PM, 8th February 2019, About 5 years ago
Reply to the comment left by Old Mrs Landlord at 08/02/2019 - 02:02
Hi OML,
I did not mean to suggest “that Shelter are somehow acting as remote agents of the government in implementing a rebalancing of the housing market” as you put it.
But I do think they and many anti LL types and groups take advantage of the govt's *apparent*.... and the Guardian type's *genuine*.... contempt for the unincorporated part of the PRS.