Destroying the defence of Thurrock Council's 'service charges'

Cllr Gledhill states that “the housing department is responsible for a number of area based facilities – including 14 play parks, 50 hectares of green space,13 hectares of footpaths, a further 30 hectares of hard surfaces and over 2,000 trees. It also provides 4 million kilowatt hours of electricity for heating and lighting in our communal areas, helping to keep 3,000 of our tenants safe in their blocks.”

Let’s look closely at this statement and how it fails to justify some of the new ‘service charges’.

In the leaflet, Council tax bill 2017/18 – services, which is downloadable from the Thurrock Council website (https://www.thurrock.gov.uk/paying-your-council-tax/your-council-tax-bill-explained), it is clear that the Tory-led council’s much lauded but very much unsuccessful “Clean it, Cut it, Fill it” initiative is funded by Council Tax.  This initiative includes making “our borough is cleaner, looks tidier, and safe to ride or drive around”.  It is clearly stated that, as part of this initiative, the council has “cut more grass” which means that grass-cutting is included within the Council Tax payments made by all residents of Thurrock.  This means that the “50 hectares of green space” mentioned in Cllr Gledhill’s defence of the service charge is already on shaky ground as grass-cutting is part of the grounds maintenance charge which is just one of the new charges being added to council residents’ rent bills.

The same leaflet also states that Thurrock Council will put “£1.3million into play equipment for our parks over the next three years” which means that play areas are also covered by Council Tax payments.  This takes care of the “14 play parks” that Cllr Gledhill mentions in his defence of the service charges.

In the leaflet, Council tax bill 2017/18 – funding, which is downloadable from the Thurrock Council website (https://www.thurrock.gov.uk/paying-your-council-tax/your-council-tax-bill-explained), the following item is included in the Capital Grants section: “Highways and environment”.  The Thurrock Council website includes the following items under the Environment and Safety section – “Roads and pavements” and “Parks and countryside”.  Under the “Parks and countryside” section is a section called “Trees” (https://www.thurrock.gov.uk/tree-maintenance/tree-maintenance) which states that the council “prune and maintain council-owned trees” and that “we are responsible for trees growing in” “parks and open spaces” and “amenity greens”, all of which are another blow to the defence of the grounds maintenance charge.  This takes care of the “over 2,000 trees” Cllr Gledhill mentions.

The “Highways and Environment” section of the Thurrock Council website also includes a section called “Play sites” (https://www.thurrock.gov.uk/play-sites/playgrounds) which states that “Thurrock has over 70 playgrounds that are free for all to use”.  This means that, despite the location of the playground, any child can use it so it would be discriminatory to charge council residents for an amenity that is not only already paid for within the Council Tax charge but is open to anyone.

Under the “Roads and pavements” section of the Thurrock Council website is a sub-section called “Pavement maintenance” (https://www.thurrock.gov.uk/pavement-maintenance/pavements) which states that the council is “responsible for maintenance of the highway, including pavements and footpaths”.  This means that the “13 hectares of footpaths” and “a further 30 hectares of hard surfaces” are covered by the Council Tax that every resident of Thurrock already pays so to add an additional charge for this service is discriminatory to those residents affected.

So far I have proved that not only are the services that Thurrock Council are proposing to charge council tenants for are already covered by Council Tax payments but that the “14 play parks, 50 hectares of green space, 13 hectares of footpaths, a further 30 hectares of hard surfaces and over 2,000 trees” are not the responsibility of the Housing Department but are under the departments that cover environment and safety issues.

Cllr Gledhill states that Thurrock Council “provides 4 million kilowatt hours of electricity for heating and lighting in our communal areas, helping to keep 3,000 of our tenants safe in their blocks”.  This is not strictly true as some high-rise blocks don’t have communal heating.  Regardless of the heating issue, communal lighting is a safety issue which brings it under the purview of public health (“Public health is about helping people to stay healthy, and protecting them from threats to their health.” - https://www.gov.uk/government/topics/public-health) as lighting in communal areas prevents accidents that can cause bodily injury and prevent mental health issues, that are covered by Public Health, involving paranoia and Nyctophobia (fear of darkness).  Communal lighting can also cut down on the incidents of crime within multi-storey buildings which is listed under the “Environment and Safety” section of the Thurrock Council website as “Community safety and crime” bringing it under the same departments responsible for environment and safety issues.  All the issues I have raised under communal lighting apply to anyone who lives in or visits the buildings in which the communal lighting is installed therefore it would be discriminatory to charge residents in those buildings for something that benefits non-residents as well.

It could also be argued that lighting in communal areas of buildings are on a par with street lighting as communal areas can be used by the public and are not strictly part of a resident’s accommodation.

Cllr Gledhill mentioned lift maintenance in very vague terms and not as part of his full defence of the additional ‘service charges’ but I will counter the argument that a charge should be added for it anyway.  To place a charge on lift maintenance is discriminatory towards the elderly residents of high-rise blocks who have lived in those buildings for years, families with young children in pushchairs and disabled people who need a lift for access to their home.  A great many residents who live in high-rise blocks would rather live in a house but were given no option when they were offered a council property and, as such, a lift is a necessity for access to their home for themselves, their visitors and the emergency services such as paramedics and ambulance crews.  Given that lifts cannot be used in the event of a fire, charging residents in high-rise buildings for a service that only allows access to their homes under some circumstances but cannot be used to save them from being burnt to a cinder during a fire is a little unfair.  The maintenance of such a ‘service’ should be covered by the departments that cover environment and safety issues and public health which are paid for by Council Tax payments.

Cllr Gledhill does not mention in his defence of the new ‘service charges’ the issue of door entry systems but this is because he would find it difficult to justify charging for it.  Door entry systems are part of a security system that is supposed to be for the community safety of residents in those buildings; this means that the installation and maintenance of such systems comes under the purview of the departments that cover environment and safety issues which are paid for out of Council Tax payments.

However, even if you disagree with that argument, there is the argument that the ‘secure’ door entry systems are nothing of the sort as people can walk in off the street behind a genuine resident who doesn’t have the legal power to prevent people from doing so.  It also doesn’t stop criminals who live in those buildings from letting in their criminal friends to conduct drug deals for instance.  There are also a number of residents who will open the door for anyone who buzzes their flat and asks to be let in, regardless of whether they know them or not.

Cllr Gledhill is trying to make the stealth rent increase as merely charging for ‘services’ but, as has been shown, some of the ‘services’ are already covered by Council Tax payments and some are discriminatory in their application.  However, Cllr Gledhill has already blown his own lie out of the water with the following sentence - “all of these charges can be included as part of the rent for Housing Benefit purposes”.  If this is the case then what is really happening is really just an increase in rent.

This is simply Cllr Gledhill’s administration’s way of getting around the 1% decrease in council rents, imposed upon them by their own Parliamentary Party in Westminster, so they can increase council rents like they wanted to from the moment the Tories took control of Thurrock Council.