Thurrock Council’s stealth rent increase – Cllr Gledhill’s distinction without a difference

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.