Let’s dive straight into what our research has uncovered, which is as follows:

(1) When sending out the Minehead BID year 2 levy bills in July 2019, Somerset West & Taunton Council (SWT) did not comply with The Business Improvement Districts (England) Regulations 2004. Consequently SWT did not conduct their BID responsibilities as the billing authority in a lawful manner, and the bills sent out are invalid.

(2) The failure of Minehead BID not to prepare financial information in a timely and transparent manner as it should for its levy payers. This demonstrates a lack of financial planning, transparency and accountability.

The legislative breach is by SWT as the billing authority who sent out the BID levy bills without the financial information they are lawfully required to provide, to explain to levy payers what they are actually paying for. Here’s a summary of the regulations for sending out annual levy bills in the BID Technical Guide for Local Authorities (have SWT even got or read this document? Appears not!):

“The local authority is also required to issue an annual billing leaflet with the levy bills and this should include the previous year’s financial summary and the forecast for the forthcoming year as per Schedule 4 to the BID regulations, paragraph 3 (2). In practice, a billing leaflet is often produced by the BID with the inhouse design style and approved by the local authority prior to printing.”

But despite it being SWT who have broken central government regulations, their “partners in crime” Minehead BID are really just as culpable as they should be fully aware of the regulations on how annual levy bills are to be sent out, and as the guidance suggests, in practice the BID needs to prepare the financial information for the council.

Here’s a copy of the relevant paragraphs from the 2004 BID regulations, in which Schedule 4, paragraph 3 (2) provides detail of what the billing authority is required to supply with the demand notice (levy bill), and if they don’t then paragraph 4 clearly says the BID levy bill is invalid and how it should be corrected:

The Business Improvement Districts (England) Regulations 2004, schedule 4.

These are quite serious allegations, but unfortunately true and despite breaching central government legislation, there is no body to hold local authorities and BID companies to account. BID legislation is woefully inadequate and has allowed a culture of a lack of accountability and transparency to run rife throughout the UK without oversight or enforcement. Evidently both SWT and Minehead BID have failed together in their basic duty to ensure BID regulations have been followed, regulations which are there to support and protect levy payers by ensuring they are provided with financial transparency. Ultimately the consequences of this situation are much more than just not complying with regulations, as it shows us more of the many negative aspects and risks of BID’s:

Local authorities and BID companies can do what they want without any checks or recourse, they’re not accountable to anyone. The Minehead levy payers are probably none the wiser to how they’ve being treated in this instance (although they will be now!). Given that the levy bills are invalid, the levy paying businesses could have every right to refuse payment until the correct financial information has been provided by SWT in accordance with the regulations.
SWT would be Taunton BID’s local authority responsible for our BID, and the billing authority. How can we trust SWT to oversee our BID effectively, if it isn’t aware of or pays attention to their own responsibilities. Another thing, SWT have not even been passing on the BID levy funds to Minehead BID as they should in a timely manner, there have been months of delay despite having a service agreement to send on monies monthly.
By not preparing and sharing the financial information when they should have, it shows a disorganised BID company not having prepared financial information or spent the time to plan and properly forecast for year 2. Incidentally we found the following was minuted in their July 2019 Board Meeting; “CC advised that there was a need to itemise costings and income and set them out in the accounts more clearly so that it can easily be seen where money in has come from and how money has been spent.” Seems worrying that a year on the BID Board can’t clearly see where money has come in from and how it has been spent! No wonder they weren’t in a position to provide SWT with the financial information they needed to send. Even if Minehead BID have published the financial information since such as for their AGM 2 months later, SWT still broke BID legislation and the bills are still invalid until SWT have corrected the mistake in accordance with BID regulations.
Clearly it’s all about demanding money from levy payers when they can, as soon as they can. From year 1 (ending 30th June 2019) Minehead BID have carried over £58,052 into year 2 which is more than half their annual levy income, so there was just no urgency to collect the levy if they weren’t ready with financial information for their BID businesses. Their greed for SWT to collect the next years' levy was obviously more pressing for them.
The BID Consultant who advised setting up Minehead BID and set up its governance is the same Taunton is using now, and given her failures with Minehead how can we trust she will set up Taunton BID correctly for future success if it is voted in. This is just one of several problems we’ve found that a good BID Consultant would have mitigated against, we’re saving much more for our ballot campaign phase.
It demonstrates a lack of transparency with regards to financial information. One thing BID levy payers have a legal right to annually with their levy bills is detail of how their money has been spent the previous year and how it is forecast to be spent on what the next year, and yet they were denied this.
There will likely be no repercussions for SWT or Minehead BID, because contrary to what Taunton BID are telling people about a BID company being accountable to its levy payers, or anyone else for that matter, it just isn’t (another mistruth Taunton BID are spreading).
The actions of both SWT and Minehead BID show disrespect and contempt for the BID businesses, from which confidence could be lost and trust broken.
This can all lead to reputational problems for the BID company, which if not checked could ultimately lead to its downfall, as happened with Taunton BID in 2012. A lack of transparency over financial information contributed to the reputational problems of Taunton BID, see our article on this here.

SWT has only one major legislated responsibility to do each year for Minehead BID, and that’s to collect money from the levy payers, and they can’t even do that correctly. It’s SWT as the billing authority who have broken central government regulations, but for their part in this Minehead BID have shown a distinct failure in their duty towards both SWT and their levy paying businesses with a lack of accountability and transparency! If it takes us to highlight such a failing, just imagine what else could be going on ”behind the scenes” with Minehead BID, as with other BID’s across the country?

What this also shows us Taunton, is that with both the same council and BID consultant leading our BID neighbours “down the wrong path”, what chance have we got? When you combine this with all the other BID risks we’ve highlighted, problems with BID’s in other towns, Taunton’s already poor BID history, and finally the reputational issues with mistruths and spin we’re already seeing from Taunton BID; how on earth can we really trust Taunton BID? The answer is simple, we can’t!

An example of the nature of the financial information SWT (with Minehead BID) should have sent the levy payers with their year 2 levy demand notices.

A note about our research into Minehead BID

Whilst we’ve highlighted many of the risks and negative aspects of BID’s with examples from towns across the UK, its only natural we also look “closer to home” with Minehead BID because;

It’s within the geographical area of and a partner of Taunton’s very own district council, Somerset West & Taunton (SWT).
The BID Consultant who led the Minehead BID development and advised on setting it up and putting it’s governance in place etc, is the same BID Consultant we’re using now for Taunton BID (and for that matter the person who led development of the failed Taunton BID 2007-12).
Having established itself in the summer of 2018, Minehead BID is one of the newest BID’s in the UK, and so you’d think they would have learnt the lessons of those before it!

SWT breaks BID regulations by sending out invalid Minehead BID levy bills.