Issues with being paid for using our house as film set

pramsay13

There will be absolutely no governance issues with the charity paying for the use of your home.
Only issue I can see might be your home insurance.

MattMattMattUK

RedMonty said:

The disability charity my partner works at want to make a short film as part of their work - this is a fully funded lockdown project, using professional disabled actors and disabled professional crew etc, all of whom will be fully paid.  The film set budget is £1000, which they were expecting to pay for the right set. They couldn't find the right set, so we have offered them the use of our house for the 3 or 4 day shoot.  They said our house is perfect, so no problems there, and the £1000 will come in useful for our young kids. 

Now they've said there are ethical issues over paying us to rent our house.  This is because my partner works there at management level on a full time salary (and part of her duties is on the film project).  I kind of see their point.  At the same time I'm a bit miffed, because it will be a great deal of inconvenience for us and our kids. It's our family home & we may have to move out for the duration of the shoot. 

What do you think?  

Personally I think it would be an ethical and conflict of interest issue, especially for a charity.  

lincroft1710

If the charity consider it an ethical issue to pay you for the use of your home, then they should not use your home.

bris

Looks bad to me, having a senior employee creaming a grand off charity funds for the use on his house. Yes it stinks but is no one on here allowed to say that?

silverwhistle

If you've read the whole thread you'll have noted that the commercial rates would be higher.

The charity could, of course, put out an appeal for a location at the suggested rate to see if there were any takers, but failing that alternative the use of charity funds in that way might be the cheapest option and the ethical issue rather subsides.

Thrugelmir

RedMonty said:

 It's our family home & we may have to move out for the duration of the shoot. 

Then the Charity directly pays the cost of the alternative accommodation. The transaction is then at arms length. 

Manxman_in_exile

Mickey666 said:

Sounds easy enough to me - avoid like the plague!
They are (presumably) a professional outfit so let them find their own film set the way other professionals would.  As others have mentioned there will all manner of insurance issues with having a film crew parading through our house and perhaps £1000 wouldn't even cover it - have you checked?  Or will the charity be paying any additional premiums?

Your partner might work for the charity but they're under no obligation to provide them with a film set.  Why can't any of the other employees offer their houses instead?

I can't think of many things worse than having a film crew rampaging around my house.  Sorry.

elsien said:

So it’s ended up with wanting you to move out of your house for several days with very little to gain at your end because they can’t afford the going rate to do it properly elsewhere?

Can’t see that that’s particularly ethical either (charity worker here as well, btw.) 
Just because they’re a charity doesn’t mean they get to take the proverbial. 

I agree with these two.  If they don't want to pay (what appears to be below the going rate) let them find somewhere else and do it on a commercial basis.

If they then find that the going rate is too expensive for them, tell them to get quotes in writing to justify paying you a lower rate than they could get elsewhere.  

Being a charity doesn't make them a special case.  As long as there is a properly evidenced audit trail as to why the decision was made, I don't see why there should be a problem.  (I understand some charities pay senior staff - like their CEOs - enormous amounts of money.  Do their auditors query these salaries?  Why aren't they working for free?).

I'd be more concerned about the insurance position.  Not about damage to the OP's property or injury to the OP's family members, but to neighbours and other third parties.  Is the charity saying it'll accept liability for all those risks?  I'd want an indemnity from their insurers (or your insurers might want an indemnity from them).

Personally I wouldn't touch any of this with a bargepole.

Sandtree

Manxman_in_exile said:

I agree with these two.  If they don't want to pay (what appears to be below the going rate) let them find somewhere else and do it on a commercial basis.

If they then find that the going rate is too expensive for them, tell them to get quotes in writing to justify paying you a lower rate than they could get elsewhere.  

Being a charity doesn't make them a special case.  As long as there is a properly evidenced audit trail as to why the decision was made, I don't see why there should be a problem.  (I understand some charities pay senior staff - like their CEOs - enormous amounts of money.  Do their auditors query these salaries?  Why aren't they working for free?).

I'd be more concerned about the insurance position.  Not about damage to the OP's property or injury to the OP's family members, but to neighbours and other third parties.  Is the charity saying it'll accept liability for all those risks?  I'd want an indemnity from their insurers (or your insurers might want an indemnity from them).

Personally I wouldn't touch any of this with a bargepole.

I think we are seeing the opposite sides of the same coin.... the charity thought about and then said it doesn't work for them and its the OP trying to convince them to do it because they want the money.