|
|
 |
| |
‘Stealth tax’ claims over latest service charge plan
‘We’d be happy to pay extra if we got a decent service’ say tenants
NEW service charges have divided tenants across Camden in a debate over whether they are a justified extra fee or an unfair stealth tax on residents.
Tenants are also split on who is to blame for the higher charges with the government under fire for removing traditional subsidies.
All of Camden’s five housing districts have voted on whether they approve of individual charges for services such as estate patrols, grounds maintenance and even television reception.
The suggested charges include nearly 50p a week for lighting, 80p for CCTV security and a £1 a week for TV signals.
The charges met with opposition in Camden Town and Kentish Town and only partial support in Holborn, Hampstead and Gospel Oak.
Brian Pordage, Chairman of the Camden Federation of Tenants and Residents Associations, who lives in Kentish Town, said: “It seems to me that council tenants are being taxed extra in service charges for services that should be covered by our rents. We are being asked to pay more rents and ever-increasing service charges. It is an extra tax.”
Meric Apak, a tenants leader in Artisan Dwellings, also in Kentish Town, said that he blamed the government rather than the council for the charges.
He said that the charges were being used to make up for withdrawn subsidies.
He said: “I feel very strongly about this. If we keep going like this then we will end up with market rents and then where is the social in social housing? Where is the affordable in affordable housing? I think tenants should be involved in the decision-making process, not just asked to rubber stamp policies.”
In Kentish Town residents refused to even take a vote on the charges, while in Camden Town a vote was taken but all proposals were voted down.
Paul Tomlinson, from Ampthill Square in Camden Town, said: “Council tenants are already facing increasing rents due to rent restructuring over a nine-year period.
It must be emphasised that whilst tenants have expressed a view on service charges, because they have been asked to do so, and their views appear to support the council in its bid for government subsidies, it should not be interpreted that tenants have wanted more service charges to be introduced.”
Elsewhere, tenants said they would just about be happy to pay more if they got a better service.
Charlie Hedges, a former councillor who once ran the Town Hall’s housing department and is a tenant in Kilburn, said: “I’m in two minds on this. I’m leaning towards supporting this if we are going to get a better service. But I told them that I would not vote in favour of satellite television. I said if they put that up I would take them to judicial review.”
Silla Carron, chair of the tenants’ association on Clarence Way, said that residents expected to get the services they paid for but in the past had been let down by dog patrols being taken away from them and poor service from gardeners.
She said: “If people are getting value, then they would pay it – but they have to be getting the services that they are supposed to be paying for. We thought about paying £5 a week extra to get the old dog patrol back.”
Cabinet councillors were due to discuss the charges at a meeting last night (Wednesday).
Lib Dem housing chief Councillor Chris Naylor has previously blamed the government for reducing subsidies given to inner London authorities to keep rent rises low.
|
 |
|
|
|
