Rank: Super forum user 
|
FFI raised £14.7m for 2015-2016. However it cost the HSE £17.5m to actually rercover the FFI. Hhmmm.
|
 1 user thanked Victor Meldrew for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Pretty much sums up what happens when any government function tries to act like a commercial business. Failure of the agency or excessive "rip-off" by yet another external party given a licence to print money?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Pretty much sums up what happens when any government function tries to act like a commercial business. Failure of the agency or excessive "rip-off" by yet another external party given a licence to print money?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
It'd be interesting to see the breakdown of those costs though. I mean, it is meant to be cost-recovery (regardless of our combined thoughts on that). So if it includes the time spent undertaking the visit, writing the letter etc., then arguably those were inevitable anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Can someone post a weblink or reference of the FFI costs please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Page 63 Mick http://www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/reports/ara-2015-16.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
HSE should raise their prices to cover their losses!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Originally Posted by: score  HSE should raise their prices to cover their losses!
Good idea!
The more "failure" costs a business, the more likely the bean counters will realise competent H&S advice make good sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I thought that when FFI was first discussed that they were expecting to recover double that amout in fees? I suspect that companys are not better than first thought, so .....?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: score HSE should raise their prices to cover their losses!
They have done - by 4%.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Victor Meldrew Originally Posted by: score HSE should raise their prices to cover their losses!
They have done - by 4%.
I think I see the problem, no good at maths. They need to increase their prices by just over 19% to break even, so 4% is still going to leave them short. Not difficult 17.5 - 14.7 = 2.8 (2.8/14.7)*100 = 19.04762% Go for 20% to help fund the rest of HSE, say updating RIDDOR guidance :o) Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Originally Posted by: chris42 Originally Posted by: Victor Meldrew Originally Posted by: score HSE should raise their prices to cover their losses!
They have done - by 4%.
I think I see the problem, no good at maths. They need to increase their prices by just over 19% to break even, so 4% is still going to leave them short. Not difficult 17.5 - 14.7 = 2.8 (2.8/14.7)*100 = 19.04762% Go for 20% to help fund the rest of HSE, say updating RIDDOR guidance :o) Chris
Don't you just hate a maths genius ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.