At last
night’s full council meeting Cllr Gledhill tried, once again, to defend the
Tory-led Thurrock Council’s ‘service charge’ workaround to increase council
rents at a time when his Tory Westminster brethren pledged a 1% decrease in
council rents. He tried to make a
distinction between publicly owned land and land owned (and, therefore,
maintained by the Housing Department) to justify charging people the so-called ‘Grass
Tax’ (also known as the ‘Grounds Maintenance Charge’). This is a distinction without a difference
and can be countered with the following argument:
The
Housing Department may own the land but it is a department of Thurrock Council
which is publically funded which
means that all land (apart from that
which is privately bought and thus privately owned) is, in fact, publically owned land. As Thurrock Council is responsible for all
grass cutting, tree maintenance, play area maintenance, paths and pavements as
well as all health and safety on publically owned land, this means that the
cost for these items is covered in the Council Tax revenue which all residents
already pay.
Good
try, Mr Gledhill. Close but no cigar.
I have
noticed, however, that although the ‘Grass Tax’ has currently been suspended,
there is no mention of the other ‘service charges’ being imposed on certain
council tenants - the ‘Access Tax’ (‘Lift Maintenance Charge’), the ‘Safety
Tax’ (‘Communal Lighting Charge’) and the ‘Security Tax’ (‘Secure Door Entry
Charge’) – and whether they are going to be suspended as well.
I will
define the ‘Access Tax’ for you as it may seem strange to call a ‘Lift
Maintenance Charge’ thusly. For some
residents – the elderly, the disabled or those with mobility issues and
families with young children – all of whom regard a lift as essential, not
having a lift would deny them access to their council flat. This is an issue of discrimination against
those groups because if the lift(s) were taken away for any reason, they would
not have an alternative method of access to their flat. As this is an issue of access to one’s
council property, the term ‘Access Tax’ seems most appropriate.
I will
define the ‘Safety Tax’ for you. Communal
lighting is essential in areas that have, at times, wet floors or obstacles due
to cleaning by the caretaking staff, a service paid for by all council tenants
in such tower blocks and low-rise blocks.
The lighting is a matter of safety, therefore, the term ‘Safety Tax’
seems most appropriate.
I will
lastly define the ‘Security Tax’ for you.
Security doors are placed on buildings to deny entry to all people
except residents, visitors to a resident and tradespeople. This is meant to be a security measure to
protect the residents of the building from harm and the building from damage by
vandals. The use of the term ‘Security
Tax’ should therefore be self-evident.
As a
local authority now has responsibility for Public Health, anything that can
improve the health and safety of the community is the responsibility of the
council. This covers communal lighting as
well as any security measures, such as security doors, in publically owned
buildings. All of these items are
covered by grants from Central ‘government’ and Council Tax revenues.
I have
to ask myself the following questions:
Would the
Tory-led Thurrock Council remove the lifts from council tower blocks if
residents refused to pay the ‘Access Tax’?
If they did, they would open themselves up to court cases based on the
Equality Act 2010 from the elderly and the disabled residents.
Would
the Tory-led Thurrock Council remove all communal lighting from council tower
blocks and low-rises if residents refused to pay the ‘Safety Tax’? If they did, the council would open itself to
injury claims and compensation payments on those claims based on the fact that
the council is liable as the landlord of the building.
Would
the Tory-led Thurrock Council remove the security doors from council tower
blocks and low-rises if residents refused to pay the ‘Security Tax’? If they did, would anyone actually notice the
difference? I live in a block with a
security door and it doesn’t seem to provide much security anyway. However, if they did provide any level of
security, removing the security doors would open the building up to potential
damage from any passing ne’er-do-well and that would add extra expenses for
damage repairs.
And, to
take us back to the ‘Grass Tax’, would the Tory-led Thurrock Council stop maintaining
public areas by withdrawing grass cutting, tree pruning, pathway and pavement
maintenance and play area maintenance if residents refused to pay the ‘Grass
Tax’? If they did, the borough would
start to look unkempt and would turn possible investors off from investing in
Thurrock.
So, if
the Tory-led council wants to open itself up to massive costs (which would
probably be more than they would get from these ‘service charges’) and scare
off possible investors, I say go ahead, you’ll only have yourselves to blame.
Finally,
I’d just like to say that I hope that the debate around the ‘service charges’
doesn’t fixate on the ‘Grass Tax’ and that both the debate and the campaign is
similarly robust for the other ‘service charges’. I hope that people who are only being hit by
the ‘Grass Tax’ will fight for those who are being hit by the other ‘service charges’
as well. My building is being hit by
every new ‘service charge’ being introduced so I’d like to hope that, if the ‘Grass
Tax’ is stopped, the campaign will continue to stop all of the charges.
