How much is your council tax going up? London boroughs with biggest bills revealed
London's 33 borough councils are starting to reveal how much their council tax bills will rise from April.
Most are expected to agree a near five per cent rise in demands, according to draft budget planning documents.
Councils that have already indicated such plans include Greenwich, Havering, Islington, Hammersmith and Fulham, Haringey and Tower Hamlets.
Newham is seeking an exceptional 9.99 per cent hike in a bid to prevent itself from going bust.
Haringey, which said it received outer London levels of funding despite inner London levels of need, is to ask the Government for £37m of 'exceptional financial support' to cover day-to-day spending and look after vulnerable residents.
In addition, Sir Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, has already said he wants his share of bills to increase by four per cent, primarily to provide more funding for the Metropolitan police.
This will increase the mayor's 'precept' from £471.40 to £490.38 for benchmark band D bills, a rise of £18.98.
Taken together, many households will pay in excess of £2,000 a year or £200 a month, as bills are normally paid over 10 successive months.
A total of 15 London boroughs already charge in excess of £2,000 a year for band D bills: Barking and Dagenham, Bexley, Brent, Camden, Croydon, Enfield, Haringey, Harrow, Havering, Kingston, Lewisham, Redbridge, Richmond, Sutton and Waltham Forest.
Boroughs almost certain to break the £2,000 threshold for average bills for the first time include Greenwich, Hounslow, Merton and Islington.
There are concerns that the dire finances of many town halls will see them target the poorest Londoners for the first time, meaning that carers, lone parents and people with disabilities will receive council tax demands.
Greenwich said it had 'no choice' but to take the 'tough decision' to increase its share of bills by 4.99 per cent. This will add £1.39 a week onto its band D bill - equating to £72.28 a year.
Greenwich leader Anthony Okereke said: 'Our draft budget serves as a stark reminder of the financial realities created by decades of underfunding by the previous government. This damage cannot be done overnight.
'The good news is that we've received a better financial settlement this year, which will help us continue improving services. We've also been successful in finding innovative ways to reduce the costs of temporary accommodation, which have been crippling other councils.'Islington said its likely increase would also amount to £1.39 per week - or £72.28 a year - at band D. When the mayor's precept is added, its benchmark bill will rise to £2,011.
Tower Hamlets mayor Lutfur Rahman said the borough was 'blazing a trail' by offering free school meals and grants to buy school uniforms to ease the cost-of-living crisis.
Havering said it would increase its share of bills by 4.99 per cent, taking its total band D bill to £2,313.55.
At the same time, it will close three of its 10 libraries - the branches in Harold Wood, South Hornchurch and Gidea Park - to save £288,000 a year.
Hammersmith and Fulham said it set the third lowest council tax in the country but indicated that its bills would rise by 4.99 per cent.
Havering said it had no option because of the increasing cost of adult social care and homelessness.
The council has approved plans to convert offices into temporary accommodation for homeless families.
Haringey said its band D total bill would increase by £100, from £2,107 to £2,207. This is due to its own share of bills increasing by £81.64 on top of the mayor's precept.
Some councils also plan to double their charges for second homes.
Each council's own share of bills is expected to include a 2.99 per cent hike in spending on council services and a two per cent increase in the amount spent on adult social care, which works out in practical terms as a 4.99 per cent rise.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

an hour ago
High court ruling on injunctions could imperil many court orders blocking the Trump administration
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court's decision Friday limiting federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions threatens to upend numerous lawsuits that have led to orders blocking Trump administration policies. Between the start of the new administration and mid-May, judges issued roughly 40 nationwide injunctions against the White House on topics including federal funding, elections rules and diversity and equity considerations. Attorneys involved in some of those cases are vowing to keep fighting, noting the high court left open other legal paths that could have broad nationwide effect. Here's a look at some of the decisions that could be impacted: Multiple federal judges have issued nationwide injunctions blocking President Donald Trump's order denying citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally or temporarily. The high court's decision Friday came in a lawsuit over that order, but the justices left unclear whether the restrictions on birthright citizenship could soon take effect in parts of the country. Opponents went back to court within hours of the opinion, using a legal path the court left open to file class-action lawsuits that could have nationwide effect. On June 13, U.S. District Judge Denise J. Casper in Massachusetts blocked Trump's attempt to overhaul elections in the U.S. An executive order the Republican president issued in March sought to compel officials to require documentary proof of citizenship for everyone registering to vote for federal elections, accept only mailed ballots received by Election Day and condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the new ballot deadline. California was one of the plaintiffs in that suit. The office of the state's attorney general, Rob Bonta, said in an email it was assessing the effect of Friday's Supreme Court decision on all of the state's litigation. A federal judge in California in April blocked the administration from cutting off funding for legal representation for unaccompanied migrant children. The administration has appealed. U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin in San Francisco said there was 'no practical way' to limit the scope of the injunction by party or by geography. 'Indeed, as discussed with the Government's declarants at the preliminary injunction hearing, there exists only one contract for the provision of the subject funding, and it applies to direct legal services nationwide,' Martinez-Olguin wrote. Plaintiffs' attorney Adina Appelbaum, program director for the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, said she didn't think the Supreme Court's decision would significantly affect her case. But she blasted it, saying the high court had 'turned its back on its role to protect the people,' including immigrants. A federal judge in February largely blocked sweeping executive orders that sought to end government support for programs promoting diversity, equity and inclusion. U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson in Baltimore granted a preliminary injunction preventing the administration from terminating or changing federal contracts it considers equity-related. An appeals court later put the decision on hold. Attorneys for the group Democracy Forward represented plaintiffs in the case. The group's president and CEO, Skye Perryman, said she was disappointed by the Supreme Court's ruling, calling it another barrier to seeking relief in court. But she also said it was limited and could keep at least some decisions blocking the Trump administration in place. A federal judge in February stopped the administration from withholding federal funds from health care facilities that provide gender-affirming care to patients under the age of 19. Explaining his reasoning for a nationwide injunction, U.S. District Judge Brendan Abell Hurson in Maryland said a 'piecemeal approach is not appropriate in this case.' 'Significant confusion would result from preventing agencies from conditioning funding on certain medical institutions, while allowing conditional funding to persist as to other medical institutions,' he wrote. An appeal in the case was on hold as the Supreme Court considered similar issues about minors and transgender health care. The high court last week upheld a Tennessee law banning key health care treatments for transgender youth. Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, senior counsel for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund Inc., was one of the attorneys who secured Hurson's ruling. He said the plaintiffs' lawyers were still evaluating the possible impact of the Supreme Court's decision, but he believed the high court recognized that 'systematic, universal relief is sometimes appropriate.' In May, a judge in Rhode Island blocked an executive order that sought to dismantle federal agencies supporting libraries, museums, minority businesses and parties in labor disputes. The administration has appealed. Rhode Island was a plaintiff in the lawsuit. The state's attorney general, Peter F. Neronha, said in a statement Friday he would "continue to pull every available legal lever to ensure that Americans, all Americans, are protected from the progressively dangerous whims of this President.' ___
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Flood-hit China expands social security net as extreme rain takes toll
BEIJING (Reuters) -China has expanded the economic safeguards for segments of its population affected by flood control schemes in times of extreme rainfall, including pledges of direct compensation from the central government and payments for livestock losses. In China, diverting flood-waters to areas next to rivers is a major step in managing downstream flooding. As extreme rainfall grows in frequency, China is increasingly utilising such areas, some of which have been unused until now and have been populated by farms, croplands and even residential buildings, stoking social tensions. According to revised rules on compensation related to flood diversions released late on Friday, the central government will now bear 70% of all compensation funds, with local governments responsible for the rest. Previously, the ratio was to be decided based on actual economic losses and the fiscal situation of local governments. Livestock and poultry that cannot be relocated in time before the arrival of diverted flood-waters will also be included in the compensation scheme for the first time. Previously, only the loss of working animals could be claimed for compensation. In the summer of 2023, almost 1 million people in Hebei, a province on the doorstep of Beijing, were relocated after record rain forced authorities to divert water from swollen rivers to some populated areas for storage, triggering anger over the homes and farms sacrificed to save the Chinese capital. China currently has 98 designated flood diversion areas spanning major river basins including the Yangtze River basin, home to a third of the country's population. During the 2023 Hebei floods, eight flood storage areas were used. Since the start of the East Asia monsoon in early June, precipitation in the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze has been up to two times higher than usual, officials from the China Meterological Administration told reporters on Friday. In other parts of China, daily rainfall measured by 30 meteorological stations in provinces such as Hubei and Guizhou broke records for the month of June, they said. Guizhou was the focal point of China's flood alleviation efforts this week, with one of its cities hit by flooding on a scale that meteorologists said could only happen once in 50 years, and at a speed that shocked its 300,000 residents. That prompted Beijing to issue pledges on Thursday to move vulnerable populations and industries to low-flood areas and allocate more space for flood diversion.


CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Supreme Court Makes Trump More Powerful, Changes Presidency - CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip - Podcast on CNN Podcasts
Supreme Court Makes Trump More Powerful, Changes Presidency CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip 47 mins The Supreme Court delivered a major win to President Donald Trump on Friday in his ongoing war with the federal judiciary, limiting the power of courts to step in and block policies on a nationwide basis in the short term while judges review their legality.