b'94% of authorities share some services with another council; more than half of councils (58%) own a trading company, and at the rate it is increasing, full coverage by 2020 is a possibility; a majority of councils (57%) operate a joint venture with the private sector; over a third of councils are using entrepreneurial methods in areas such as waste (46%), leisure and tourism (38%), IT/back office (38%) and housing (36%);As councils seek to maximise income from charging and seek to find new ways to generate income from new ways of working (for example, setting up trading companies or social enterprises to perform former directly provided services), there comes the almost inevitable backlash from the public, from users of services which now have a price tag attached and even from other businesses who might be affected by such council enterprise. Headlines in daily newspapers highlight the fact that there is wide variation to council charges nationwide. The Daily Express reported in March 2018 that councils could soon be charging nearly 50% more for parking to solve gaps left by funding short-falls and budget cuts. Motoring groups, such as the RAC, reported a 24% increase in parking fees and industry lobbyists cry foul alleging such increases are unlawful and amount to systematic profiteering at the expense of the motorist. But it is not only parking enforcement charges that have attracted headlines. As well as other charging initiatives, it was reported in 2013 that, out of a list of 201 ways to save money, local authorities could consider allowing sheep to graze on their land rather than use lawnmowers! As amusing as this sounds, the Swiss have actually now deployed lawnmower sheep to keep the grass alongside the state railway tracks neat. The railway company described the sheep as being superior to conventional lawnmowers. So perhaps this idea will be adopted in the UK one day after all. All of this public concern and interest shows that councils walk a fine line between, on the one hand, seeking to responsibly exercise their fiduciary duties to council tax payers to minimise the financial burden on them and, on the other, levying reasonable and lawful charges to recover costs for delivery of services from those who use those services. Unfortunately, council tax payers may be (and frequently are) also users of those services and have objections to paying for accessing services which they feel they have already paid for through the Council Tax.Businesses also feel a similar grievance as they pay business rates, but again may have to pay charges imposed by councils for particular services (eg business waste collection). To add to the debate, some retailers expressed anger at rebates and tax breaks which are given to social enterprises, many of which are either owned and/or controlled by local authorities or former local authority staff. The social enterprise agenda has been a key government policy aimed at encouraging more spin outs from public bodies. Among the attractions on offer to such a business model is the potential for not-for-profit vehicles and charitable trusts to mitigate their liability for business rates and VAT. Charities get automatic 80% relief from central government and can apply to their local authority for relief on the remaining 20%. Independent chains of gyms, swimming pools, fitness suites and cultural facilities complain that they are put at a huge disadvantage since councils levy taxes on them which can then be used to improve or maintain facilities set up and effectively controlled by them through either wholly owned companies or new start-up companies staffed by former local authority employees and which are not similarly 9'