West Bromwich BID: £1.4 Million, Plenty of Questions – And Apparently “I Do Not Need To Do This”

 

West Bromwich BID: £1.4 Million, Plenty of Questions – And Apparently “I Do Not Need To Do This”

I have written previously about the West Bromwich Town Business Improvement District (BID) and the questions surrounding its finances, transparency, marketing, governance and, ultimately, whether businesses paying a compulsory levy are receiving genuine value for money.

With the BID holding its Annual Update on Thursday 23 July 2026, I thought this was an ideal opportunity to revisit matters.

More importantly, rather than simply criticising from the sidelines, I sent the BID Chair, Lisa Hill, a comprehensive list of questions ahead of the event and invited the BID to respond.

The reply arrived this morning.

And, well...

It probably deserves inclusion in this update.

First Things First – Apparently I'm Not Invited

Lisa Hill responded:

“This is NOT a public meeting. Levy Payers are the only ones invited to this meeting.”

Fair enough.

I hadn't actually claimed it was a public meeting, nor suggested I possessed some automatic legal right to attend.

The BID Annual Update is for levy payers.

Point taken.

But I find the response interesting nonetheless.

I am a local citizen journalist examining an organisation operating at the heart of West Bromwich town centre, working closely with Sandwell Council and West Midlands Police and administering a compulsory levy imposed upon hundreds of local businesses.

Would it really have been such a terrible thing to say:

"Darryl, it isn't a public meeting, but given the questions you've raised, you're welcome to sit quietly at the back as an observer."

Imagine the message that would have sent.

Transparency.

Openness.

Nothing to hide.

An opportunity for the BID itself to explain what it does and why.

Instead:

“This is NOT a public meeting.”

Door closed.

Hey ho.

Their meeting. Their choice.

But Then Came The More Interesting Sentence

Lisa continued:

“I will look at answering your questions below over the next couple of days and reply to you. I do not need to do this, but I will answer as much as I can.”

Now that really caught my attention.

“I do not need to do this.”

Perhaps not.

The BID is a Community Interest Company, not Sandwell Council, and it isn't generally subject to the Freedom of Information Act in the same way as a public authority.

But that rather misses the point.

Nobody should have to force an organisation like this to be transparent.

Surely it should want to be transparent.

The BID is funded through a compulsory levy.

Businesses don't simply decide whether they'd like to pop a tenner into the BID collection tin.

Qualifying businesses within the BID boundary are billed.

So when somebody asks:

Where does the money go?

What reserves do you maintain?

What has the marketing achieved?

Where are the original BID documents?

What is the measurable return for businesses?

What is genuinely additional to Council and police services?

I wouldn't expect the first instinct to be:

“I do not need to do this.”

I'd expect:

“Of course. Here are the figures.”

That's how you build confidence.

To Lisa's Credit...

There is another side to this.

Lisa has said she will answer the questions.

That should be acknowledged.

She says she will respond over the next couple of days and answer as much as she can.

Good.

I genuinely welcome that.

And when those answers arrive, I'll publish and assess them fairly.

If something I have questioned has a perfectly reasonable explanation, I'll say so.

If documents exist, let's see them.

If the finances can be satisfactorily explained, excellent.

If the marketing statistics demonstrate fantastic performance, I'll happily report them.

Accountability isn't about reaching a predetermined conclusion.

It's about getting the evidence.

So let's see what comes back.

Why Am I Asking These Questions?

Because some of the figures deserve explanation.

The latest Companies House accounts for West Bromwich Town BID CIC, covering the year ended 30 June 2025, record:

Current assets: £14,181

Net current assets: £15,078

Accruals and deferred income: £15,260

Net liabilities: £182

Let me repeat an important qualification I've made previously.

That does not establish that the BID is insolvent or unable to meet debts as they fall due.

But it does mean that the published balance sheet shows no meaningful accumulated financial reserve.

And that raises an obvious question.

How Do You Reach BID3 With £182 Net Liabilities?

The BID3 proposition anticipates investment of approximately £1.4 million over the five-year period to 2030.

We're therefore not discussing a little voluntary community group running a tombola and keeping its accounts in a biscuit tin.

This is a formal Business Improvement District administering substantial compulsory levy income.

After approximately ten years of BID operation, why does the latest published balance sheet show net liabilities of £182?

What is the BID's reserves policy?

What financial contingency exists?

How much unrestricted money is actually available?

These aren't “gotcha” questions.

They're elementary financial-governance questions.

And The Accounts Tell Us Remarkably Little

The BID legitimately takes advantage of the micro-entity reporting regime.

That means the Companies House accounts provide only limited information.

We don't get a readily accessible detailed public breakdown showing exactly how much went on:

marketing;

events;

staff;

administration;

ambassadors;

security;

cleaning;

consultants;

professional fees;

website and digital activity;

individual projects.

Again:

perfectly lawful.

But “legally sufficient” and “properly transparent” aren't necessarily the same thing.

Particularly when the income comes from a compulsory levy.

So I have asked Lisa:

Will the BID publish its full management accounts?

That one answer could resolve a considerable amount of speculation.

Then There's A £17,773.65 Question

During my latest research I identified a Sandwell Council creditor payment dated 10 November 2025.

Recipient:

West Bromwich Town BID Community Interest

Amount:

£17,773.65

Description:

“Other Creditors – West Bromwich Bid 1”

There may be a completely routine explanation.

It could relate to collected levy money, accounting reconciliation or another perfectly ordinary transaction.

I'm certainly not claiming otherwise.

But I'd like to know.

So I asked.

What exactly was the £17,773.65 payment for?

Simple question.

Hopefully, simple answer.

And What About The Historic Loans And Public Support?

Previous scrutiny has raised questions concerning historic borrowing, grants, Council payments and other financial assistance involving the BID.

So rather than speculate, I've asked the BID to identify them.

How much?

From whom?

For what?

Repayable or not?

Repaid or outstanding?

Again:

Put the information on the table and the question disappears.

Transparency really can be that simple.

Then We Come To The Missing History

One issue has followed West Bromwich BID for years.

The original establishment documentation.

There have previously been questions about the whereabouts of:

• feasibility work;

• consultation records;

• the original business case;

• establishment documentation;

• ballot material;

• detailed voting information.

The later BID3 ballot is considerably better documented publicly, and that should be acknowledged.

But it doesn't reconstruct the original paper trail.

So I've asked Lisa directly:

Does West Bromwich BID possess original documentation which Sandwell Council no longer holds?

And:

Will the original establishment documentation be published?

I'm struggling to see why either question should be controversial.

Now Let's Talk Marketing

This is where things become particularly interesting.

The BID has previously boasted about a combined social-media audience running into tens of thousands.

It promotes through Facebook, Instagram, X, LinkedIn and now TikTok.

Excellent.

But here's my problem with combined follower numbers.

If Fred follows the BID on:

Facebook,

Instagram,

X,

TikTok

and LinkedIn...

Fred can potentially become five followers in a combined headline figure.

Fred remains one bloke.

So I've asked for the individual figures.

Platform by platform.

And not merely followers.

Reach.

Impressions.

Engagement.

Video views.

Click-throughs.

Website users.

And, most importantly:

What did any of it achieve for businesses?

Social Media Is Not A Participation Trophy

Putting something on Facebook does not automatically constitute successful marketing.

A post can exist and achieve almost nothing.

A video can have views but generate no customers.

An account can have followers who never engage with it.

What matters is the outcome.

If the BID promotes Joe Bloggs Butchers on Monday, can it demonstrate that the promotion reached thousands of relevant local people?

Did anybody click through?

Did anybody visit?

Did Joe notice an increase in customers?

That's marketing performance.

Everything else risks becoming vanity statistics.

Activity Is Not The Same As Achievement

And this distinction runs throughout the BID.

I don't claim West Bromwich BID does nothing.

Clearly it doesn't.

There are:

events;

ambassadors;

litter picks;

security initiatives;

business visits;

Christmas activities;

training;

marketing;

partnership work.

Plenty of activity.

But after approximately ten years, surely we're entitled to ask:

WHAT CHANGED?

Has footfall increased?

Have vacancies fallen?

Are businesses surviving longer?

Are more independents opening?

Has customer perception improved?

Is West Bromwich materially safer?

Has customer spending increased?

What measurable improvement can be attributed to the BID?

Holding 50 events is an output.

Increasing town-centre footfall is an outcome.

There is an enormous difference.

A Business Improvement District Or A Community Safety Partnership?

Another question I've put to Lisa concerns the substantial emphasis on:

security;

crime;

police liaison;

ambassadors;

Business Crime Reduction;

counter-terrorism awareness;

community safety.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with businesses wanting a safer town centre.

Quite the opposite.

But businesses already contribute towards public services.

Sandwell Council has responsibilities.

West Midlands Police has responsibilities.

The BID then collects an additional levy.

So:

What exactly is additional?

Where is the baseline services agreement?

What would Sandwell Council provide if the BID disappeared tomorrow?

What would West Midlands Police provide anyway?

And what specifically does the BID levy buy on top of that?

Otherwise businesses risk paying extra to compensate for inadequate baseline public services.

And Where Are The Board Papers?

I've also asked about governance.

Why aren't comprehensive Board minutes routinely available?

Why not publish:

attendance;

declarations of interest;

major decisions;

contract approvals;

performance reports;

risk information?

This is supposed to be a business-led organisation.

Surely the businesses funding it should be able to follow its decision-making.

The £1.4 Million Question

Ultimately, all of this boils down to one question.

BID3 potentially represents approximately £1.4 million of further investment.

So I have asked Lisa:

What objective evidence can the BID provide that an average levy-paying business is financially better off because West Bromwich BID exists?

That's the killer question.

Not:

“How many posts did you make?”

Not:

“How many meetings did you attend?”

Not:

“How many photographs did you take?”

Not:

“How many events did you organise?”

What difference did the BID make to the people actually paying for it?

Tomorrow's Meeting

The BID has made its position very clear.

It is NOT a public meeting.

Levy payers only.

So I won't be there.

Personally, I think allowing a local citizen journalist to attend quietly as an observer would have been a useful demonstration of openness.

Lisa thinks otherwise.

That's her prerogative.

But perhaps some levy payers attending tomorrow might ask some of these questions themselves.

They are, after all, paying the bill.

Now We Wait For The Answers

Lisa has said:

“I will look at answering your questions below over the next couple of days and reply to you.”

I'll hold her to that — fairly.

When the response arrives I'll examine it against every question submitted.

Answered.

Partially answered.

Not answered.

New question raised.

And I'll publish the results.

Because this isn't about whether Lisa Hill technically “needs” to answer me.

She doesn't need my permission to run the BID either.

The issue is much simpler:

An organisation taking compulsory money from businesses should welcome scrutiny of what it does with that money.

Transparency isn't an inconvenience.

It's part of the job.

One Final Thought

The easiest way for West Bromwich BID to demolish criticism is not to complain about people asking questions.

It's to answer them.

Publish the accounts.

Publish the KPIs.

Publish the Board information.

Publish the original documentation.

Publish the marketing results.

Publish the baseline agreement.

Show the outcomes.

And demonstrate the value.

If the evidence proves West Bromwich businesses are receiving fantastic value for their compulsory levy, I'll happily write the headline:

“I Was Wrong About West Bromwich BID.”

But first...

Show us the evidence.

#WestBromwich #WestBromwichBID #Sandwell #BID3 #LisaHill #BusinessLevy #LocalBusiness #FinancialTransparency #PublicAccountability #CitizenJournalism #ValueForMoney #TownCentreRegeneration #SandwellCouncil #ShowUsTheEvidence #TransparencyMatters