IAM 'Skill for Life' increase

[7db]

Perhaps they need a radical cost cutting exercise. Most from plush West London to Wales or something.

[Gareth]

Most from plush West London to Wales or something.

Perhaps that'd give them a chance to enjoy driving again

[MGF]

I never thought Chiswick was particularly plush... Relative to Wales though....

[Red Herring]

I think there are several groups who are considering some "independence" from the IAM. In effect associates will be able to pay their sub to join the group (typically £15-£20) then participate in observed drives/rides at whatever rate that group currently charge (some car groups provide this for free, some bike groups ask for a contribution towards observer petrol) until such time that they are deemed "test ready". The associate can then decide if they want to put in for the IAM test, or the RoSPA one, or even in some cases not bother with a test at all. Given that one of the original reasons the SFL was introduced was to avoid associates training and then not taking the test (so no money ever went to the IAM) it does seem they have gone full circle.

The only real barrier to groups doing this is the question of liability insurance/protection and I understand some groups are actively looking into just how much cover they do provide and what alternative providers are available.

[vonhosen]

I think there are several groups who are considering some "independence" from the IAM. In effect associates will be able to pay their sub to join the group (typically £15-£20) then participate in observed drives/rides at whatever rate that group currently charge (some car groups provide this for free, some bike groups ask for a contribution towards observer petrol) until such time that they are deemed "test ready". The associate can then decide if they want to put in for the IAM test, or the RoSPA one, or even in some cases not bother with a test at all. Given that one of the original reasons the SFL was introduced was to avoid associates training and then not taking the test (so no money ever went to the IAM) it does seem they have gone full circle.

The only real barrier to groups doing this is the question of liability insurance/protection and I understand some groups are actively looking into just how much cover they do provide and what alternative providers are available.

Do you think the DSA will regard any payments going on in break away groups differently to within the IAM or RoADA ?

[Red Herring]

I don't see that it would be any different to what goes on now, Each group is a charity in it's own right affiliated to the IAM, all they are doing is breaking the affiliation. The club subs are not money paid for training, and as far as i am aware the token offered towards fuel and observer costs is not regarded as income by the tax man.....any experts on such things out there?

[ROG]

I have heard that the £139 will be allowed to be paid in three lots - anyone got more info

[crr003]

I have heard that the £139 will be allowed to be paid in three lots - anyone got more info

"The two part payment system will continue for those groups that wish to utilise it."

(But that attracts a £5 admin. fee)

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

Each group is a charity in it's own right affiliated to the IAM,

I think that probably depends on the size of the group. Registered charity status is not available for organisations wtih a turnover under about £5000. Our Rospa group is certainly not a charity in its own right.

[martine]

I think that probably depends on the size of the group. Charitable status is allegedly not worth it for organisations wtih a turnover under about £5000. Our Rospa group is certainly not a charity in its own right.

What's the downside of being a charity?

[MGF]

You need to register, keep the register updated and have a rule book detailing your charitable purpose. As mentioned in another post you are limited as to how you conduct your affairs. I gave an example in another post of having to avoid political campaigning.

If you are not after the reputational benefit of being a charity then the only other incentives are the generous tax benefits.

If your turnover is very low it is unlikley you will benefit from tax privileges.

(If you turnover less than 5k a year you don't need to register although are still technically bound by the law relating to charities).

I don't see that it would be any different to what goes on now, Each group is a charity in it's own right affiliated to the IAM, all they are doing is breaking the affiliation. The club subs are not money paid for training, and as far as i am aware the token offered towards fuel and observer costs is not regarded as income by the tax man.....any experts on such things out there?

The DSA don't decide what amounts to payment for tuition although as the regulators for ADIs I understand their position is that the IAM do not charge. A position which is becoming increasingly untenable bearing in mind the increase in SFL costs in my view.

Whether or not you have the approval of the DSA should you make payments that merely cover admin costs including petrol costs and possibly insurance then I don't see a problem. Especially as the main rationale of independence is to avoid the increasing costs of membership of the IAM.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

I think that probably depends on the size of the group. Charitable status is allegedly not worth it for organisations wtih a turnover under about £5000. Our Rospa group is certainly not a charity in its own right.

What's the downside of being a charity?

Having to prepare formal accounts, responsibilities of Trustees etc. However having read the website it's more black and white than that. Being a registered charity is not an option to organisations with a turnover under £5000.

You’re thinking about setting up a new charity. That’s great. We are delighted that you want to play an active part in a charity. When your organisation has an income of £5000 or more you are required by law to register with us. It is not our policy to register charities that do not meet this minimum requirement.

[SteveG]

My four penneth, for what it's worth.

Before I start I should state that I resigned from the IAM in January of this year having passed my test in 2002, become a Qualified Observer in 2004, a Senior Observer in 2006 and been Joint Chief Observer of Bristol Group from May 2008 until my resignation. I believe Bristol Group (the only one I can speak about) does a fantastic job of preparing associates for test and promoting advanced driving in the Bristol area.

The link between local groups and National IAM is a very one-sided affair. IAM HQ lay down the rules by which groups must abide to remain affiliated but then reject any and all requests for assistance on the grounds that groups are independent bodies. Confusing at best - downright frustrating for most of the time. IAM HQ is not accountable to the groups in any way, shape or form.

I can see no reason why a group couldn't break their affiliation with National IAM but continue to have associates/trainees/pupils/whatever-you-decide-to-call-them apply for the IAM (or RoSPA) test as individuals. IAM HQ need not know (indeed has no right to ask) who has prepared the candidate for test, but even if they did know they couldn't refuse to test that candidate as long as he has paid the required fee.

If the IAM can't deliver SfL for £130 then I, for one, would like to see the Charities Commission investigate where the money is being spent. On the basis that the groups do all the actual work of preparing an associate for test and only receive £30 for their efforts what do IAM HQ do with the other £100? Obviously, some of that money goes to pay the examiner and to provide the IAM's driving manual but I suspect that still leaves rather a lot to be accounted for.

Unless and until the IAM get back to basics - providing advanced driver training to the public - and divest themselves of their commercial interests they will continue to become less relevant. If they were serious about making cost savings they'd move out of London and dispense with at least two of the three MD's they employed to repace Christopher Bullock. The organisation is being run by professional businessmen (not the die-hard advanced driving evangelists that created the IAM) who appear to have lost sight of the original tennets of the IAM and who put making money ahead of delivering advanced driver training.

[MGF]

What's the downside of being a charity?

Having to prepare formal accounts, responsibilities of Trustees etc. However having read the website it's more black and white than that. Being a registered charity is not an option to organisations with a turnover under £5000.

As I said above not being registered doesn't stop you being a charity and having the tax benefits and restrictions. You also don't need to prepare formal accounts for the CC unless you have a turnover of over £10,000.

[martine]

I think that probably depends on the size of the group. Charitable status is allegedly not worth it for organisations wtih a turnover under about £5000. Our Rospa group is certainly not a charity in its own right.

What's the downside of being a charity?

Having to prepare formal accounts, responsibilities of Trustees etc. However having read the website it's more black and white than that. Being a registered charity is not an option to organisations with a turnover under £5000.

You’re thinking about setting up a new charity. That’s great. We are delighted that you want to play an active part in a charity. When your organisation has an income of £5000 or more you are required by law to register with us. It is not our policy to register charities that do not meet this minimum requirement.

Take the point about it not being an option where t/o < £5k but the admin side of being a charity is very simple. The formal accounts are nothing more than any club or organisation should do - you don't need to use an accountant but you do need to get it independently audited. The annual charities return is very basic for small charities consisting of basically income/expenditure and a list of trustees. Being a trustee has legal conotations but really isn't onerous.

The plus side is (apart from the tax advantage) being a registed charity makes it clear to the public where you're coming from i.e. not to make money and stops dead all those awkward questions about who's earning what. I'd like to think it makes it easier to get support from other organisations (councils, media etc).