Can making a grant to a body somehow result in taking on an element of liability?

Question

Recently a small group of volunteers in our village decided to tidy up a patch of land in the centre of our village. This land is owned by a local charity, not the pc.  The volunteers obtained the consent of the charity to doing the work.  Tidying this area will greatly improve the appearance of our village.

The group decided that they couldn’t themselves do all the work necessary as it would require certain equipment (a heavy duty strimmer) which none of them had so one member of the group (Mrs C) spoke to her gardener and he offered to do the strimming work for £40.

Our clerk did have some discussions with Mrs C to clarify that the parish council didn’t own the relevant land. During those discussions Mrs C asked if the parish council could offer any financial support for the project. It became clear that her gardener did not have £10mn public liability cover.

Mrs C decided that she would pay her gardener herself but it seems she now wishes to apply to the pc for reimbursement.

Our clerk has suggested that Mrs C could send the pc a short note on behalf of the Volunteer Group seeking grant assistance in respect of this work organised by the group, with dates, details of the gardener, confirmation the landowner agreed to the work and confirming that £40 is the sum of the grant sought OR the gardener could submit his invoice direct to the parish council, and in either case the council could make the appropriate resolution to make the payment.

We don’t have a grants policy as far as I can see. 

All the above has created some concern as one of our councillors feels that, because of the insurance position, we should keep a distance from the project or “we will be taking on an element of the liability, and [that] even discussing the matter of the grant application formally could indicate a level of involvement.”

Other councillors feel that simply discussing the matter is acceptable, if the matter is raised with us, and can’t see how merely discussing the matter formally or informally could indicate a level of involvement or somehow some assimption of responsibility. 

However they say we can’t make a grant to an individual nor even to the group of volunteers as it isn’t a property constituted group with a bank account etc - but the parish council could consider a s137 grant to the landowner charity (which is a properly constituted body) for, say, the upkeep of this patch of land in whatever way the charity sees fit, and if the charity then in turn decided to reimburse Mrs C then so be it. 

As there hasn’t been an order from the parish council for works, goods or services, the parish council didn’t employ the gardener or enter into any contract with him, nor did it supply any tools or equipment and it had no say in what work was done, or when it was done, how it was done or to what standard, the parish council should be able to make such a grant if requested and that doing so in these circumstances would not result in the council taking on an element of liability.  It was for the landowner and indeed Mrs C to satisfy themselves about the insurance cover, as the landowner owns the land and is responsible for what is done on it with their permission and Mrs C employed or contracted with the gardener to do the actual work, so she has a level of responsibility too.  But not the parish council. 

I would be very interested to hear your views. 

Answer 1

What a perfectly sound common sense approach, I am sure one of the more informed members will conclude  your enquiry. I believe the default advise application is that of, presumably, a councillor has all the jurisdiction of an ordinary member of the public, hope this doesn't muddy the water's.

Comments

Thank you for this

Answer 2

It is not usual to award a grant retrospectively.
Also, I don't quite see why a grant should be given to a landowner to tidy their own land but, of course, I do not know the full circumstances.

Comments

Point noted that it’s not usual to make a grant retrospectively.  We’ve been talking for a couple of years about making a modest regular grant going forward to enable this particular plot of land to be properly managed.
Then the current scenario arose.
The landowner is a conservation charity with extremely limited funds, it’s an odd situation - they own plots of land in various villages but they don’t have the funds to maintain them.
If we did make a grant in the current circumstances I’d expect most of it to be used for future maintenance (mainly grass cutting) but what we are trying to figure out is whether, if the grantee decided to use some of the first such grant to reimburse the £40 spent by the volunteers. there is any way someone could  argue that somehow that makes the pc liable for the work that was done…..I don’t think so for all the reasons laid out in my initial post but I think the gardeners lack of public liability insurance is making some of our councillors nervous.

Answer 3

There are several considerations which arise as a consequence of the circumstance described.

Some might be considered important, some might be considered relevant and then the whole package might also be described as irrelevant since the absence of, or failure to abide by, existing policy has very little, if any, consequence anyway.

First of all, it is a red herring to consider whether the PC has any liability in any regard.  It doesn't.  It doesn't own the land, it didn't engage the contractor and it hasn't (yet) made any financial contribution.  So there is no liability.

The work has already been done - was there an accident?  If no, why would a public liability exist after the event?   It wouldn't.  The PC should have no interest in whether any, or to what financial limit, the contractor might hold public liability insurance.  It is completely irrelevant since the contractor was not engaged by the PC.

Can you make a grant?  Do you have a grant policy?  If you did, and it followed the normal format, it would probably preclude approval / payment after the event, it would probably preclude items of general / recurring  maintenance and it would require the benefit derived to be loosely commensurate with the cost of the grant.  There could also be minor details like requiring PR attributed to the PC for grant funding.

But if you don't have a s137 policy you can neither follow, nor contravene it.

You must however ensure you are lawfully empowered to spend the public money - how will you ensure that unless there is a policy or a legislative framework?  How will you demonstrate VfM and diligent management of public money with no policy?

So, whereas it 'could' result in criticism from the internal audit, it would make no difference if it did since there really are such limited and pointless sanctions as to make the whole audit process meaningless.

Google s137 policy, cut and paste into your own template, validate at next PC meeting.
You'll probably find most (½ decent) policies require payment to be authorised prior to expenditure / expence being incurred.

Answer 4

Personally, I would tell Mrs C that she made the deal with the gardener and her group made the deal with the charity. While I'm sure it looks much better as a result and the work has improved the local area, it has nothing to do with the Parish Council.

We're having a similar issue with our Council over the King's Coronation celebrations. Our Council doesn't own our village hall. There's a separate trust whose members don't see eye to eye with certain councillors who typically run such village events (normally at the village hall which is paid for). To stop those councillors running the events and claiming "good work done" in their election material, the trust members have pounced and announced to the parish that they are handling all the events for the Coronation. Now they want the PC to give them money to run the event! Personally, I feel that they should have considered the costs before jumping in, but equally, I'm aware that some Parish Council's make quite an income renting out their village halls, so I'm not too sure why they don't already have the money!