Traders found liable for Spalding Business Improvement District levy but magistrate labels process as ‘murky’
Forty-five businesses have been ordered to pay a town improvement levy - but a magistrate has labelled the process as ‘murky’.
Defendants representing firms in Spalding had their cases heard before Boston magistrates today (Monday, June 30), after refusing to pay their Spalding Business Improvement District bills.
However, chairman of the bench Allan Ovens went as far as encouraging five entrepreneurs who arrived in court to appeal the findings.
Their arguments gained sympathy from the magistrates, but the payments, plus costs, were imposed
“We have to find you liable,” Mr Ovens said.
“But you have my sympathy as there appears to be a lot of murky aspects to this whole process.”
He also encouraged one defendant, Nicholas Thompson, to ‘continue with your appeal’.
The Spalding Business Improvement District was passed by one vote in July last year, meaning all companies within the catchment area must pay a charge of 2% of their rateable value to the BID.
The scheme aims to raise £1 million over five years to increase footfall and boost prosperity in the town, via a number of proposals, including public events and hanging baskets.
Under oath, Rebecca Walmsley, South Holland District Council’s debt recovery officer, spoke on behalf of the authority, which collects the monies for the BID.
“South Holland District Council now has an obligation to collect the levy if the BID is in place,” she said.
Ms Walmsley confirmed all BID ballots were sent out to businesses and that the ballot - overseen by an independent verifier - was passed, making the levy legally binding,
She added that a 28-day appeal window was also put in place following the result of the ballot.
Mr Thompson who runs The Art of Ink tattoo parlour on Bond Street was also operating Furio’s fast food outlet at the time of the vote.
He argued that he shouldn’t be forced to pay the charge.
“The BID is of no benefit to my business, it’s very Mafia-esque how aggressive they have been,” he said.
“I never received a second ballot for my other business, which is not very fair.
“We had no information about any appeals process, so how could we appeal? It feels like we’re running on their rules.”
Macie Harman, who runs Macie’s Boo-Tique on Vine Street, told the court she didn’t feel obligated to pay the charges due to not receiving a ballot paper.
“How can I be expected to pay a charge I didn’t know about until a bill arrived?” she said.
“The ballot paper never came through my door.”
The court was told that because SHDC confirmed ballot papers were sent out to all businesses the result of the vote becomes legally binding, whether or not the paperwork was received by firms.
“The law is very clear, if the council representative said under oath that the ballots were sent then it is clear that is that all is necessary,” Mr Ovens told those in attendance.
“Regrettably this makes you liable.”
Also arguing his case was Paul Parkin, of Francis Street’s Back on Track Therapy.
He told the court he wouldn’t be able to pay the levy.
“Unfortunately, my situation is that I’m suffering with ill health,” he said.
“I’m just keeping my businesses going and working a few hours for my mental health.
“I sent an email asking what happens if a business can’t afford to pay the BID and never got a reply.”
Mr Parkin added that, as a physiotherapist, he had a protected title which was not on an original list of businesses affected by the BID, also questioning whether his healthcare centre on Francis Street could actually be classed as a shop.
He also raised the question why he, not his landlord, should foot the bill.
Julian Wheeler, who operates the Welland Photo Services business on The Crescent, argued that his business was also ineligible, having not been on the original list, like Mr Parkin’s.
“Five per cent of business votes are willing to sign an affidavit to say they did not receive a vote,” he added.
“Businesses requested ballots in time to vote and they did not get there. I’d say the process was flawed.
“There was, we are told, a 28 day appeal process, yet 5% of businesses’ first interaction was when the bill was issued. By then the 28 days had long gone.”
After seeing how the previous four cases had panned out, Rachael Thorne of Afterglow Tanning in Hall Place, opted to keep her representation short and sweet.
“There’s no point bothering,” she told the court.
“You’re going to find me liable, so I’ll let you get outside and enjoy the sunshine.”
A total of 89 defendants representing BID-area businesses were initially due in court today (Monday, June 30).
One case, that of Munchkins Day Nursery, was adjourned until August 11 to allow the owner to appear before magistrates, while the remaining 43 cases did not go ahead due to the levy being paid or charges being dropped.
