This year under the direction of the Labour Party’s Assistant Mayor for Housing and Neighbourhoods, Cllr Elly Cutkelvin, Leicester City Council are proposing to increase the rent they charge on council homes by the maximum possible 7.7%. This increase will seriously limit the ability of the approximately 40% of Leicester’s council tenants who are not in receipt of housing benefit to be able feed themselves and their families.[1] Yet in talking to this controversial news at the Council’s recent “Overview Select Committee” meeting (that was held on February 8, 2024) the Council’s lead director for housing, Chris Burgin, maintained a strangely positive outlook stating:
“I am pleased to be able to report back to the Commission that the budget has been put in front of the Tenants’ Forum members in December. Overall all members fed back that they thought the Housing Revenue Account budget proposals was a good budget proposal. Tenants’ Forum members main concern was about the 7.7% rent increase proposed, but ultimately they determined that based on the financial pressures and their desire not to reduce the capital programme or services provided by the Housing Revenue Account, they would support all of the proposals.” (Webcast, February 8, 2024, from 1hr 32)
Burgin may well have been pleased with himself, but it is important to note that he went on to point out that the “more detailed feedback” from the Tenants’ and Leaseholders’ Forum could be found in Appendix G of the report that was in front of the councillors present at the “Overview Select Committee”. This appendix however does not paint such a happy picture of the responses that were given by the three Tenants’ Forum members (Joe Carroll, Jean Williams and Peter Hookway). This is because although Burgin stated that the representatives from the Forum thought that the budget proposals were “good” even if their “main concern” was the rent increase, it might have been more accurate to say that the Tenants’ Forum members thought the proposals were bad and that they all disagreed with the proposed rent increase, but were effectively bullied into accepting the increases.
The Council minutes from the December meeting with the Tenants’ Forum members observes:
“Jean Williams stated she thought the 7.7% increase was too high and raised concerns that social rents were becoming no longer affordable. She stated there is a lot of poverty in the community and the increase will have most impact on those who are working. Also, people of pension age who have savings and are not entitled to additional benefits. Jean raised concerns about other increasing costs for these people, such as Council Tax rises. Jean stated she was aware some people’s wages had increased over the last 12 months, but this additional money was being taken straight out by rising costs. Jean stated that a rent increase between 5.5% and 6.5% would be more acceptable.”
Joe Carroll then “stated he agreed with the views of Jean Williams in the fact that he thought the rent increase proposal was too high” as did Peter Hookway who “also believed the rent increase proposal was too high”. Hence the only way in which the Council could spin that the Tenants’ Forum representatives agreed with a rent increase was by making it clear to them that if they did not agree to the increase then other cuts would be made. Hence the minutes of the meeting conclude: “Although they felt the proposed rent increase was too high, they did not support any service cuts or scaling back on the Capital Programme funding…”[2]
For an earlier discussion of how the Council attempted to browbeat the Tenants’ Forum representatives see my earlier article “Director of Housing blames council tenants not Leicester City Council or the government for soaring energy bills.”
Another related matter that was discussed with the Tenants’ Forum members at the most recent “Overview Select Committee” meeting was the proposed annual costs for providing District Heating. Here the Council explains that in Leicester:
“Approximately 1,900 tenants and an additional 1,000 other households are connected to the district heating scheme. These charges are not covered by Housing Benefit or Universal Credit Housing Costs, so all tenants and other households on the scheme will be impacted upon by the proposals. The Council is undertaking a programme to fit meters into properties served by district heating. This means households will have greater control of their energy usage and the costs associated with this, which could reduce. At the start of November 2023 approximately 600 properties have had meters installed. This number will increase as the meter fitting programme progresses.”
For those lucky properties with a heat meter already fitted the total for the “fixed charged” element of tenant bills is estimated to be £284.90 for the entire year (2024/25) with the additional “variable charge” set for energy used estimated to cost 8.7p/kWh of heat.
Yet the situation for the majority of council tenants who are on the district heating network who have yet to have a meter fitted is much worse. So while in 2023/24 the total annual charge was “capped at £1,611, with the HRA [Housing Revenue Account] picking up the cost of this subsidy for tenants,” at present “no budget provision has been made in either fund for this in 2024/25.” The Council’s current proposal to cut this subsidy for the year 2024/25 will therefore mean that tenants in two, three, and four bedroom properties will be paying more for their heating: tenants in a two bedroom property will have to pay an estimated annual charge of £1,646; those in a three bedroom property will pay £2,071; and a four bedroom property will pay £2,512.
When the City’s Director of Housing met with the Tenants’ Forum members to discuss these proposed changes last December, the minutes of this meeting noted how:
“Jean Williams stated the variable charge still appeared high, particularly for some properties in St Matthews that are on the end of the district heating network. This means they have to wait a longer time for the gas to reach their property when they turn on their heating, for which they are charged. [Director of Housing] Chris Burgin advised that a piece of work needs to take place to look at whether thermal efficiencies can be made to these properties to address this issue.”
“…Jean Williams felt it was not fair that people with meters would see a 24% decease in their fixed costs (which does not include energy use), whereas people without meters would only see a 9% reduction in their fixed costs (which does include energy use).
“Concerns were also raised about some properties in St Matthews and Aikman Avenue, where meters currently cannot be fitted under the current programme, due to the design of the properties. It was felt there was some inequality between households who can have a meter fitted and those who can’t. Joe Carroll raised concerns that people without a meter have no control on their energy usage.
“Chris Burgin advised the Forum members that a wider piece of work had already started to look at options around the DH network and for fitting meters in properties that are unable to have this under the current programme. This work would also include a review of the payment structure if it is determined meters cannot be fitted. The Forum members welcomed this work and asked for this to be reflected in the budget proposals for 2025/26.”
—————————————-
For more details about the successful “Enough is Enough” campaign that forced Leicester City Council to backtrack from their earlier plans to quadruple energy charges for those on the District Heating network, see:
· “Leicester housing campaigners succeed in pressuring city councillors to reject City Council’s proposal to quadruple district heating charges” (February 4, 2023)
· “Residents effected by District Heating proposals pledge to join together to lobby City Council” (Facebook, February 22, 2023)
· This report of the outcome of the successful lobby (Facebook, February 24, 2023)
· And see “Leicester and District Trades Union Council calls upon Leicester City Council to set a legal no cuts budget” (Facebook, February 17, 2023)
FOOTNOTES
[1] The Council note that of their approximately 19,000 council home tenants, “around 60%… receive housing benefits that will increase in line with the proposed rent charges.”
[2] It is also worth noting that “One area of concern raised was around the charges for communal cleaning as Forum members felt there were issues with the current service delivery and the quality of this.” As the Council point out they were already aware of this issue and are apparently dealing with it, although no doubt this should be an area that deserves closer scrutiny as complaints have been raised over a long period of time.
Thoughts of a Leicester Socialist 