Wedding and civil parntership fees up by 27% from 21 October in Labour led Southwark council for non statutory fees. 27%!
This during the week the Labour council leader proclaimed his adherence to traditional values. So why is he effectively taxing weddings so much more?
The council report studiously avoids stating percent increases. It also doesn’t include all London authorities in its comparisons. It does state that they should charge sufficient fees to cover costs “The cost of service provision has therefore also been a consideration in arriving at the proposed fees” and adhere to the Medium Term Resource Strategy (MTRS) 2010/11 – 2012/13.
So why have Southwark increased its fees by this amount when 90%+ of its registry staff costs are salaries, Local Government has a pay freeze and the service is meant to be self funding?
Labour Southwark are penalising people for falling in love. Rather than saying “I do” couples will be saying “I’m sorry but I can’t afford it.” It is a heartless move from a mean spirited Labour Council who would rather squirrel away millions in their reserves than help people celebrate the happiest day of their lives
The statutory minimum fee will still be £40 but if you want to use the Garden Room for the ceremony you’ll be charged an extra £180 up from £140 or 29% increase. If you want to have the ceremony at another approved premise elsewhere then the new cheapest wedding fee will be £335 (up 27%) versus £160 in Wandsworth and £70-£125 for the equivalent of Southwark’s Garden Room in Kingston-upon-Thames or £270 for an approved premise wedding fee.
What’s so weird is the Approved Premises fees just cover a few hours times of a Registrar or assistant Registrar. Hence why more efficient boroughs can charge so much less.
It seems clear that the law should be changed so any Registrar can lead the service at any Approved Premise. This would create real competition between Registrars and ensure couples who want to demonstrate the commitment and love they feel are not being ripped of in Southwark going forward.
Hi James, I thought this deserved a response:
http://peckhamryelabour.blogspot.com/2011/10/lib-dems-and-truth-marriage-of.html
Gavin
Hi Gavin,
Many thanks for inviting me to comment.
I understood that councils can only recover the actual cost of ceremonies under The Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Approved Premises) Regulations 2005. Reg 12(6) only permits fee recovery of reasonable costs of providing a registrar.
So I could see an inflation rise related to cost increases as per the medium term finance plan. But I fail to see how an increase of 27% complies with the law or that plan.
Perhaps you could enlighten me Gavin?
Best wishes, James
It does James. Which is why the decision you’re criticising contains the words: “The cost of service provision has therefore also been a consideration in arriving at the proposed fees.”
More importantly, your own Lib Dem Medium Term Finance Strategy signed off by the Lib Dem Executive in 2008 stated the intention: “To generally increase discretionary fees and charges by 2% above the current rate of inflation for the type of service being provided with the objective of ensuring Southwark’s fees and charges are at a minimum at least equal to most appropriate London average (e.g. inner London, family, groupings etc)…”
Or put another way, pretty much the same policy which is now being implemented by Labour. Were you on the Executive in 2008? Was this planned fee rise “a heartless move from a mean spirited Lib Dem Council”?
A more likely explanation is that your blog post is just another example of rank political opportunism.
Hi Gavin,
Your comments seem bizarre. The medium term financial strategy you quote is for discretionary charges until such time they reach the London average. Wedding fees by law have to be related to costs and therefore are not discretionary.
Hi James,
The first line of the report states “That the Cabinet Member agrees the proposed non-statutory fees and charges…” Marriage fees are defined as discretionary, as they were when the Lib Dem MTRS agreed to raise them
Not according to the law The Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Approved Premises) Regulations 2005. Reg 12(6) which only permits fee recovery of reasonable costs
Precisely. The decision about what is a reasonable cost is at the discretion of the council. Which is why your Lib Dem Council was able to plan to raise them in the way that you did.
So you think a legal requirement to charge what it costs means that with a wage freeze increasing the charge by 25% is reasonable and legal?
What a curious view of the world.
What sort of commercial jobs have you held?
Yes, yes, James. I’ve heard your tiresome “I work for a FTSE 100 company” speech before. Stick to the point.
Your own cabinet agreed to put up these fees in precisely the same way. That, I’m afraid, you can’t wriggle out of.
Hi Gavin,
Not sure when you heard that as I don’t work for a FTSE100 anymore.
My own executive agreed to rises but nothing like as steep and the price of marriages doesn’t fall in this strategy but is regulated by law.
James,
Your Executive’s decision to raise “discretionary fees” in 2008 included raising wedding fees.
The statutory fee is determined by the General Register Office. Couples can choose an enhanced ceremony which is provided at a fee determined by each local authority. This is the discretionary fee set annually in Southwark.
The council’s policy on increasing these marriage fees (enhanced, statutory or otherwise) hasn’t changed since 2008.
Will you now publish a correction?
Gavin
Gavin, you’ve increased this part of the price of getting married by 27% – do you have no shame?
Gavin for c parity councils may charge fees “(6) The superintendent registrar in whose presence persons are married on approved premises shall be entitled to receive from them a fee of an amount determined by the authority as reasonably representing all the costs to it of providing a registrar and superintendent registrar to attend at a solemnization.”
So how have Southwark Labour incurred 27% higher costs when a pay freeze is in place and if so on what?
The mid term finance strategy did not and does not say break the law.
James,
You’ve got yourself into a real pickle on this haven’t you? I’ve said it a few times, but I’ll say it again: The policy has not changed. Your own Executive passed a medium term financial strategy with the aim of increasing these fees in precisely the same way. Wriggle all you like, this fact won’t change.
Will you now publish a correction?
Hi Gavin,
Which part of the MTRS do you think you’re following considering that by law it has to be related to costs incurred and be reasonable?
And does increasing it y 27% comform to any reasonable test?