UK (Parliament Politics Magazine) – Labour Council in East London Under Fire for Charging Residents Worker Fines, Including Charges for Dartford Crossing, as Part of Housing Service Charges.
As reported by The Telegraph, the Labour council forces residents to cover parking fines for council workers.
Due to the local authority’s inability to recover funds from its workers, homeowners are now responsible for parking fines and other charges incurred by council staff.
How did Barking and Dagenham Council shift workers’ parking fines to residents?
The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham charged unpaid penalties to residents’ service bills on a social housing development.
Council staff’s use of the Dartford Crossing, which is situated 2 km from the borough and development, was also included in the fines.
In Weavers Quarter, Barking, the Labour-run council acts as the freeholder and oversees caretaking, cleaning, and gardening services through its contracts.
The fines have intensified pressure on Labour to deliver on its promise to abolish the leasehold system.
Why are barking residents paying for workers’ fines?
In response to a Freedom of Information request, the borough published a partial breakdown of 2022-23 service charges.
Documents reviewed by The Telegraph reveal that in October 2022, residents were charged £65 each for two penalty charge notices (PCNs) related to parking violations.
A lawyer acting on behalf of the council justified adding the charges to the service charges.
What did Barking council say about adding parking fines to service charges?
In a letter they wrote,
“Much like any private provider, the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham incurs various operating costs. These costs form the basis of the calculation of the service charge. Regarding parking charges, any driver who incurs a parking charge is expected to pay the PCN accordingly.”
The letter continued,
“There will be occasions where the driver does not co-operate, and an HR process will be engaged. Exceptionally, the service may pay the PCN to avoid further escalation and additional charges or vehicle seizures, and then seek to recover the cost from the employee. On some rare occasions, recovery may be impossible,” adding, “These therefore form a part of the operating costs of the service. The total impact on leaseholders is negligible and de minimis.”
What did FOI reveal about Dartford Crossing charges?
According to the FOI report, residents paid for council workers using the Dartford Crossing, located outside the council area.
The council’s Dart Charge account shows rates of £2 for cars and £2.63 for small vans, with residents accumulating nearly £17 in charges for the year.
Barking Council responds to Dartford charges and fines
The council pledged to review the addition of Dartford Crossing charges into leaseholder bills.
According to the council, the parking fines added only 62p per leaseholder and would be “offset” in the next service charge as they recover the funds.
What did Mr Lismore say about Barking Council’s leasehold costs?
A Labour Party supporter, Mr Lismore, stated,
“Barking and Dagenham council exploit the feudal leasehold system in a sinister fashion, using their position as the freeholder of affordable housing developments to plug the gaps in their finances, either by inflating costs or in many cases inventing them entirely.”
He said,
“They see leaseholders in social housing as cash machines to be looted, an income stream to be tapped and maximised, a mentality that is simply incompatible with providing ‘affordable housing.’”
Mr Lismore added,
“At the national level, I am so proud of the Labour Party, who are getting on with the business of bringing the leasehold system to an end, but locally, too many councils are extorting leaseholders – an inconvenient truth we must confront and rectify.”
What did the Ministry of Housing say about leaseholder costs?
A Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government spokesperson said leaseholders should not be subject to “opaque and excessive costs,” but refrained from commenting on individual cases.
They added,
“All variable service charges must be reasonable by law. We are implementing measures in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act to increase transparency of these costs and ensure leaseholders can better hold landlords to account.”
What did Harry Scoffin say about freeholders and service charges?
Harry Scoffin, the founder of the campaign group Free Leaseholders, stated,
“Parasitical freeholders are the enemies of growth. It doesn’t matter if they’re an offshore shell company or a Labour local authority, vested interests are holding this country back. Densification is key to making our cities more dynamic and liveable. But service charge abuse is killing the flats market and our pockets.”
He said,
“If Labour are serious about turbocharging the economy, they will prioritise tackling service charge abuse, including for leaseholders living under the rule of councils they control.”
Mr Scoffin added,
“To end two-tier homeownership, this Government must legislate for a mass shift to commonhold by no later than the second session of Parliament. If ministers don’t put pedal to metal, they will go the same way as the Tories.”
What did the council spokesperson say about parking fines?
A council spokesman stated,
“The council does not make leaseholders pay for parking fines incurred by council staff and there is no direct cost to leaseholders for these two parking fines.”
They said,
“The costs are not a direct charge but are listed as indirectly forming part of the overall operating cost which leaseholders contribute to. In this case, this amounts to 62p per leaseholder,” adding, “Once the costs of the two PCNs are recovered, the indirect charge of 62p is erased and offset against the next service charge demand. This figure is applied to the caretaking service as the parking contravention was incurred by a council vehicle working for the leasehold estates.”
The spokesperson continued,
“We are investigating charges relating to the Dartford Tunnel Crossing, this is something that hasn’t been brought to our attention before.”