Skip to main content

Bellwin

Councilrs in the north expecting a bonanza from Bellwin will not be surprised to find out that there is a substantial equivalent to an "insurance excess" before they get any dosh.

Typical government spin.

Sheffield's Threshold is: £1,393,290

In other words they have to pay the first £1.4 Million.

Furthermore it only covers some costs. The "small print" of Bellwin is the following:
EXAMPLES OF INCIDENTS THAT WOULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO QUALIFY
The following are examples of expenditure that would normally not qualify under this
scheme:
a) costs which are normally insurable, whether by the authority or any other party (e.g.
under household insurance policies);
The Department currently takes the Zurich Municipal SELECT policy, that can now be
obtained for costs exceeding £100,000, as its definition of what is normally insurable by
the authority for the purpose of schemes set up under section 155. Authorities should in
particular note that:
- the shoring-up or dismantling of damaged buildings is an insurable cost;
- authorities whose policies may bear less risk than the Zurich Municipal
SELECT Policy would still be bound by its definition of normally insurable risks
as regards qualifying expenditure under a Bellwin scheme: authorities whose
policies include cover for greater risks than the basic SELECT Policy should
exclude from their qualifying expenditure all costs for which they are covered
and will be compensated.
- Damage caused by terrorism remains an insurable cost.
b) Environment Agency levy costs and those costs reportable for FSS purposes relating to
flood defences.
c) loss of income (e.g., from facilities closed as a result of the emergency), as this falls
outside the scope of section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989;
d) the normal wages and salaries of the authority's regular employees, whether diverted
from their normal work or otherwise, and the standing costs of the authority's plant and
equipment;
e) longer term works of repair and restoration, such as tree planting and repair or
refurbishment of damaged but not dangerous structures;
f) any element of betterment, e.g. repairs to buildings to a significantly higher standard
than their condition on the day before the incident;
g) expenditure eligible for any other specific grants, e.g. police grant;
any amounts in respect of specific works on flood defence or coast protection which had
already been allocated within budgeted expenditure to these works
h) before the incident occurred (however, subsequent amounts for emergency work
resulting from the incident above the level of any amounts thus allocated would usually
be eligible for assistance);
i) any expenditure on flood defence or coast protection that will be compensated by the
Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by means of grant or credit
approvals;
j) any capital expenditure which is of a long term or preventive nature and not therefore
connected with the immediate action to safeguard life or property following an
emergency or disaster (refer to item q at Annex A for further guidance on this).

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re False Allegations Campaign

Many people will know that my family and I have been subject to a campaign of false allegations by Esther Baker for the past 4 1/2 years. Yesterday there was a court judgment Baker v Hemming [2019] EWHC 2950 (QB) which formally confirmed that the allegations were false. Esther Baker, who had brought a libel claim against me, dropped her defence of Truth to my counter-claim and was taken by the judge as no longer trying to prove her allegations. Due to Baker's various breaches of court rules and orders, she has been barred from further repeating her allegations even in the court proceedings. Further claim of mine in libel against Baker are ongoing. There is a good summary in the Daily Mail here.

This demonstrates the challenge in fighting false allegations in today's Britain. A substantial campaign was built up to promote allegations which had no substance to them. Various Labour MPs and in pa…

Problems with Outlook Express - emails lost dbx corruption

In the light of the enthusiasm shown for my post relating to the OCX control that must not be named (and probably Microsoft's most embarrassing error of recent years) I thought I would write someting about Outlook Express.

Outlook Express is the email client that comes as part of windows. I use it myself, although I have my emails filtered through a spam filter of my own devising written in java. It takes email off a number of servers using POP3 (Post Office Protocol TCP Port 110) and sends it using SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol port 25).

I have recently spent a few hours dealing with the problem that arises when .dbx files get corrupted during compacting.

Outlook Express (OE) stores the emails (and other things) in files with the suffix .dbx. Each folder has its own .dbx file. They are stored in hidden directories. This makes it harder to deal with things when OE goes wrong.

It is very important to back up your stored *.dbx files as otherwise if you have a disk crash/stol…

Standards Board and Ken Livingstone

The link is to the case where Ken Livingstone appealed the decision of the Adjudication Panel for England.

The Standards Board and associated Adjudication Panel have done a lot of damage to democracy in the UK. The courts are, however, bringing them into more sanity.

The point about Ken Livingstone's case is that it was high profile and he also could afford to appeal. The Standard Board has a problem in that those subject to its enquiries face substantial costs that they cannot claim back.

This is an issue that needs further work.

In essence the Judge found that what he said brought him into disrepute, but not the office of Mayor. We do need the machinery of the SBE and APE to concentrate on things that matter rather than people being rude to each other.