learning difficulties. This property was the 2nd Floor of an office building, accommodating one of the teams established to deliver the stated services.
Proving exemption for this property was a real challenge because staffs employed and remunerated by the PCT occupied the same rooms as the staffs employed and remunerated by the local authority. About 90% of staffs on site were employed by the PCT.
As the services provided were described as integrated, the functions and roles of officers from both sides were so intertwined that they shared office rooms. Operations were also fused together, for example, the administrative staff (all LA employed) performed admin duties for both LA and the PCT staffs; also the resource and reference library room was used likewise. This made it difficult to clearly identify the rooms occupied by LA staffs and the ones occupied by PCT staffs.
It was also difficult to clearly define the groups of clients to whom the services were offered. As a good number required intervention from clinical psychiatrists to assess their care needs. Given this mix of clientele, it was not easy to clearly separate the services which qualified for exemption, for the purposes of the statute.
The partnership arrangement for the provision of services by both sides was provided under Section 75 of the Health Service Act 2006, clearly not one of the Acts mentioned in paragraph 16. However, the nature of the partnership was that while the LA fulfilled its responsibility of providing welfare services (as required under S.29 of the National Assistance Act, 1948), the PCT carried out the health related functions.
Having gone through the rigors of identifying duties of each staff on the premises, it was appreciated that while the services being provided were in the nature of welfare (which could qualify for exemption under paragraph 16(1b) sch. 5 of LGFA 1988) it was however difficult identifying clearly the extent of the premises attributable to the LA in its role for the purposes of the National Assistance Act 1948. Thus, while the purpose of occupation by the LA could arguably pass the aforementioned tests, it however, failed an exclusivity requirement as no part of the premises could be identified as specifically occupied by them to the exclusion of another.
In conclusion, the lesson here is that if a claim for rates exemption is to be pursued in respect of premises in joint occupation for the purposes of any partnership arrangement between a local authority and NHS (and their like) steps should be taken to keep separate the functions and spaces occupied by each body. Thus where both are in the same building, the distinction should be clearly identifiable. However, the ideal situation would be to have them in separate buildings.
Where clear distinctions could be made, any claim for exemption by the local authority, for the purposes of paragraph 16(1b) has greater chance of success than where attempt to prove such distinction could be complicated and unwieldy. This observation is one to be considered for corporate decisions on lease acquisition of office spaces to accommodate operations such as these.
Arize Ngwuocha THE TERRIER - Autumn 2011 55
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64