DIYbanter - View Single Post

nightjar

On 06/06/2015 15:42, wrote:
On Saturday, 6 June 2015 15:16:15 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 06/06/2015 13:33, nt wrote:
On Saturday, 6 June 2015 10:43:30 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 05/06/2015 23:57, nt wrote:
...
The flipside is that without all that there would be far less good work done...

That is debatable.

less money = less work.

The debatable bit is whether the charities actually get more money by
employing collection companies or by doing the collections themselves.

That's not hard to answer

The collection companies are only legally required to hand over 10% of
what they take to the charities.

They're legally obliged to hand over whatever their contract with the charity says.

They can be sued for breach of contract if they fail to do so, which is
not quite the same as being bound by statute.

It usually amounts to far more than 10%.

It may do if the charity has enough clout to negotiate a contract that
gives better than the legal minimum. However, the fund raisers for small
charities that I have spoken to have never been able to get offered
better than the legal minimum.

You seem remarkably ready to defend the collection companies. Do you
work for one?

--
Colin Bignell