If it's true that we are paying the PoW 1.5 million a year rent for Dartmoor prison...

[CurlewKate]

...among many other things, do you think that's OK? If so, why?

As is your absolute right. But your posts just make you look disingenuous when you don't post full context. Not a great look.

“Over 87% of all duchy-let properties are rated E or above. The remainder are either awaiting scheduled improvement works or are exempted under UK legislation.”

Well, they would say that wouldn'tt they....

According to some tenants, that's not quite the case.

I'd like to read about that if you have sources/links?

Thank you @BustingBaoBun that’s annoying but I’m hoping I won’t need to be here so long (side-eyes mother) as anticipated

@Viewfrommyhouse the article is linked to on this thread. But next time I'll make sure I include a proper quote to the whole article so that people who can't manage to find it have a properly cited response. Thanks thread police.

What’s the going rate for that area?

How does this tent compare to that?

Guys is in central London - so I’m assuming this site is also in London or v easy distance to it, Guys needs to be looking for a cheaper site, if this one is too expensive (not clear at all whether it’s overpriced from the info given, or if it’s simply the case that London rents really are that high)

The Duke of Westminster charges charities that use his Central London buildings for offices a peppercorn rent.
One I worked for was charged £400 a year for a large Georgian, 6 story building in prime london.
There's no reason why our Royals can't do the same.

How on earth would you expect me to know how much a warehouse in London near Guy's hospital rental value is? Or why they use this warehouse but should be looking for cheaper
😅😂

This.... from an article.

The duchy put out a press release saying it had “granted” the hospital trust a red-brick 1980s warehouse close to Tower Bridge. “We are delighted to be able to help and support the trust’s ambition to upgrade to an all-electric fleet,” Adrian Bayliss, the duchy’s commercial manager, said.
However, the contract below reveals that to use the 27,000 sq ft two-storey warehouse, the NHS is paying rent of £829,348 a year to the King’s duchy. That will amount to at least £11.4 million over 15 years.

It's all over google. Many articles this morning on this.

Well, I expected you (or the investigators) to know - because it’s been slanted to look as though this is evil over-pricing.

But as it’s close to Tower Bridge, and no-one knows what the market rate is, we have no idea whether it’s expensive, normal or absolute bargain basement for the area.

How on earth would I know. That is so funny!

My point is... it is our National Health Service... why can't they charge a peppercorn rent? Why just about £1million a year? Whatever the market rate is. Surely that would go down well when Charles bleats on about inequality if it were shown that public services aren't paying vast amounts to his Duchy which, at times, is classed as a 'private estate'.

I knew there would be royal shills on this board defending this.

Let's repeat this -13% of the houses they let are unfit according to the law. The average for rhe country is around 1-2%. We are talking houses with no central heating, no heating at all upstairs, relying on a wood burner for the whole house or fully reliant on wood and coal. Refused double glazing because Charles doesn't like it. As landlords they don't care about the law, their tenants or the environment.

Yes some of what's been revealed might be perfectly justifiable (why shouldn't the rich get richer?) and in many cases no laws have been been but boy squeezing every drop out of the MOD, NHS and tenants looks BAD.

They really should be cleverer than this. You can be rich and privileged and not look like a raging hypocrite.

I strongly feel on principle that the Royals and all landlords should be subject to the same tax laws and capital gains tax legislation as every other citizen of the UK.

I don’t claim to understand the full picture but for that to happen there needs to be total clarity over financial matters.That is fundamental fairness and justice.

And the Labour government should start amending agreements that lead to these sorts of obscure arrangements that keep privileged people very privileged and widen the gap between rich and poor.

They also need to clamp down on the use of claiming charity status in order to avoid paying tax. It makes no sense to me that private schools that cater to children with SEN get the hit and the royals do not!

The Ministry of Justice said in 2015 that they wouldn't be renewing the lease and it was scheduled to be closed last year. In 2021 after negotiating with the Duchy of Cornwall it was announced that it would remain open after 2023 and for the foreseeable future.

So William is raking in rent for a building which is unusable due to radon levels and was the focus of concerns due to its age and conditions long before that.

Also, I find it shocking that the Royals supposedly play no part in politics and yet get advance warning from the government of any legislation that may affect their finances?

Surely that’s a conflict of interest? Especially if they lobby against the changes like the late Queen did?

Also, why does the ordinary citizen have to have their financial matters published for all to see after their death, and the Duke of Edinburgh’s will is kept under wraps?

I think all of these things are fundamentally unjust.

@BecauseRonald
Great post.

And yes, it does look bad, and I don't understand why they do not realise it looks bad. Are they so much up themselves, with useless PR people and advisors that they just don't get it?

To me, it is treating the great british public with disdain. They have no idea about the real world. So when I hear Charles talking about inequality, and William about homelessness... it goes over my head because they are at the top of the tree as far as inequality. And they make no effort to change.

They're utter hypocrites.

@EdithWeston
I've found this just for you!

On the £11M charged to the NHS Guy's hospital for storing their electric ambulances

The lease shows that the rent charged by the duchy from the NHS is 67 per cent more than the £15 per square foot that was being paid by the Metropolitan Police, which vacated the same warehouse only a few months earlier

Please don't ask me why Guy's doesn't find somewhere cheaper, there is obviously a reason for this. It is emergency ambulances after all.

They often charge peppercorn for ground rent - I know that from direct experience.

Without the detail, it's really not possible what's going on with this rental agreement. What's included and how it compares to the other similar sites.

Guys will no doubt be under an obligation to find best VFM in all its procurement.

But no landlord is obliged to give NHS discounts; even though, given the area it is quite possible that did happen in this case

(For avoidance of doubt, I'm not trying to defend the duchies at all costs. I'm trying to work out how far this is a hatchet job and which elements are not. Providing a figure in the most eye-catching way, without context - such as typical local comparators - is one of the hallmarks of a hatchet job)

As the landlord William is liable for remedial work to be carried out, surely? And why have the MOJ entered in to this contract in the first place, knowing the issues with the building.

Couldn't agree more.

Loads of hospitals schools etc are rented from landlords this is no different just a high profile landlord. If you have a new hospital or school near you the likelihood is it is rented from a business

That's Bodmin.

Well no, because for other landowners aren’t given the option to voluntarily pay tax, unlike the King and POW.

How long did the Met have the lease and what were the terms for increases within that lease? (If this is the basis for a clinching argument, then that info will be known as it is directly relevant)

And although it is an increase on that (old) lease, how does it compare to the market rate for that area? This still isn't demonstrating if the rent is high, medium or low for the area

No, I'm not asking for the moon on a stick - I'm interested in the full information, because without that context we still don't know if they are being generous, fair, or rapacious