"Council paid tax bill on staff's free parking perks"

There’s been another twist in the tale of free parking for staff of Boston Borough Council.
A letter to Boston Eye from local businessman Darron Abbott – who stood for the council at last year’s elections – highlights abuses of the system, and a deal with the taxman under which the council footed the bill for charges that should have been paid by the permit holders.
“Having read with interest recently the various comments made about the charging of council staff for parking, I am surprised that the current administration has opened themselves up to this one,” writes Mr Abbott.
“Whilst most of them are new and a little naïve, I cannot believe that they had not noticed the subject being raised in the past.
“I have tried to raise the issue for a number of years, only to be met with a refusal by the councillors and officers to act on what is in my opinion is discrimination against the parkers of Boston. (Perhaps Councillor Richmond would like to offer his thoughts on this one).
“The excuses for not implementing the charges are still the same - apart from the one they offered three years ago, which was the staff may become depressed at the thought of paying for parking.
“Another excuse given by the council for providing the staff with free parking was that they may need their vehicle for use on official business, I assume this reason has been dropped with the purchase of the five pool cars last autumn.
“Let’s face facts, despite the promises made by the Conservatives that if they took power from the BBI they would also take power from the officers, they have failed to do so. The decision not to charge staff for parking was not taken by councillors but by officers; the phrase turkeys voting for Christmas comes to mind.
“Despite the council’s spokesperson declaring that the permit can only be used whilst the staff are working, from the evidence I gathered when we lived next to the Staniland car park this was not adhered to.
"Whilst I appreciate that this was a couple of years ago I cannot believe the behaviour of the staff has changed. Phil Drury (the council’s Strategic Director and Deputy Chief Executive) and Ian Martin (Economic Development Officer) were both made aware at the time of the abuse of the permits - not just the times of use, but breaches of other parking regulations knowing full well the car park attendants would turn a blind eye to their misdemeanours.
"On many occasions, council staff were found parking in the Staniland car park on Saturdays and bank holidays knowing that their staff permit would mean that no penalty notice would be issued. Then there was the case of one female employee of the council selling her car to her brother and not handing back her permit - he parked for free for a long time. When it was pointed out to Phil Drury, yes, the permit was taken back, but there was no action against the member of staff.
“It appears there are 281 staff permits issued,  and when multiplied by the cost of £328 it appears the loss of revenue to the council is £92,168.
“But it could be worse - as I found during my enquires a couple of year ago.
“I will apologise if the facts have changed and someone from the council produces evidence to prove me wrong. I also apologise if this gets a bit technical.
“The provision of parking for the staff constitutes a taxable benefit, and the staff should pay tax at the prevailing rate on the cost of the permit of £328. This would be 20% for anyone earning less than £42,475 and 40% for those earning more than this.
“When I enquired as to why the staff was not taxed on this benefit, it was suggested that an arrangement had been reached with the Inland Revenue for the council to pay the tax on behalf of the staff.
“This would mean that if all staff were paid below the 40% tax band the amount paid to the Revenue would be £23,042. Of course, we all know that many of the officers are paid more than the £42,475. "This would increase the tax payment due from £82 per person to £218.66 per person.
"On top of this the council would have to pay Class 1A National Insurance contributions at 13.8% which at the lowest amount be £15,898.98.
"So in summary, the lost revenue could total in excess of £131,108.98 - that’s hell of a contribution the ratepayers make to these hard hit poor council staff.

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com   Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.
Our former blog is archived at: http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com