29-03-2025
Labour council forces residents to pay its workers' parking fines
A Labour council has forced its residents to pay for its own workers' parking fines, The Telegraph can reveal.
Homeowners have been forced to pay for parking charges and other costs incurred by council workers after the local authority was unable to recover the funds from their own staff members.
The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham put the unpaid penalties on the service charge bills for residents of an affordable social housing development in the area.
The fines included the costs of council staff using the Dartford Crossing, which is 12 miles away from the borough and the development.
The Labour-run council acts as the freeholder for homes in the Weavers Quarter development in Barking, and contracts itself for caretaking, cleaning and gardening services.
The disclosures have put further pressure on Labour to follow through on its manifesto promise to abolish the leasehold system.
Matt Lismore, 30, a resident, said that he felt as though the council sees 'leaseholders in social housing as cash machines to be looted'.
The borough provided a partial breakdown of the service charges for the financial year 2022-23 following a freedom of information (FOI) request.
The documents, seen by The Telegraph, reveal that residents paid for two penalty charge notices (PCNs) for parking violations in October 2022, amounting to £65 each.
A lawyer working on behalf of the council in January of this year defended the charges being included in service charges.
In a letter seen by this newspaper, 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.
'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.
'These therefore form a part of the operating costs of the service. The total impact on leaseholders is negligible and de minimis.'
The FOI documents also show that on four occasions residents footed the bill for council workers using the Dartford Crossing in Kent, despite the bridge being located in a different county to the council area.
The council appears to have a Dart Charge account, which means that small vans pay £2.63 and cars pay £2 to use the crossing. Residents in the block paid almost £17 in charges for the year.
The council said that it would investigate how Dartford Crossing charges had ended up being added to leaseholders' bills.
When approached by The Telegraph, the council said that the costs relating to parking fines only equated to 62p per leaseholder, and would be 'offset' in the next service charge when the authority recoups the costs.
The Weavers Quarter was a new housing development that was completed in 2019.
Since residents moved in, service charges have gone up by over 100 per cent from £1,400 per year to £3,000, mostly as a result of insurance increases.
Other items listed in a breakdown of service costs includes £1,750 for bottled spring water, the use of which is not specified.
Mr Lismore, who is a Labour Party supporter, said: '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.
'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 '.
'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.'
In the Labour Party general election manifesto, Sir Keir Starmer promised to 'act where the Conservatives have failed and finally bring the feudal leasehold system to an end'.
The party also pledged to 'bring the injustice of 'fleecehold' private housing estates and unfair maintenance costs to an end'.
Matthew Pennycook, the housing minister, said earlier this month that the Government would ban the sale of new leasehold homes at the end of this Parliament.
The system would instead be replaced with 'commonhold' schemes, where owners will have more control over the buildings in which they live.
However, concerns remain among those who have already purchased leasehold properties, and what protections will be in place to guard against freeholder malpractice.
'Parasitical freeholders'
Harry Scoffin, the founder of the campaign group Free Leaseholders, said: '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 added: '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.
'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.'
A council spokesman said: '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.
'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.
'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 council has a policy of recovering all PCNs incurred by its employees directly. In the time made available to respond to this enquiry it is not possible to know where we are in the recovery process for these two PCNs. To avoid confusion and provide greater clarity on leaseholder costs however the council will review its financial cost coding.'
'We are investigating charges relating to the Dartford Tunnel Crossing, this is something that hasn't been brought to our attention before.
'In relation to the service charge increase and in accordance with usual practice, the council is currently assisting the First Tier tribunal with that review.'
A Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government spokesman said that while they could not comment on specific cases, 'leaseholders should not be subject to opaque and excessive costs'.
He 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.'
