Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just watching the news about Southwark council losing a court case where they agreed a reduced rate for water for council tenants with Thames water but then failed to pass the savings on, they now have to repay ?8.8 million back to the residents in question. Quite right too that they have to repay it.


Question is how will Southwark fund this refund - are we going to see increases in fines for residents of Southwark for trivial things (parking, littering and so on)


Watch the Southwark space to see what happens next ...

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Typical Labour incompetence in financial matters-

> although judging by the North Cross Road parking

> fines thread they pre-empted this



Apparently it goes back to the previous administration, and carried on by the current one, therefore it's a council official thing and not a party thing (and as we all know council officials and not councillors run the local authorities despite what should be happening)

Southwark were paid commission by Thames Water for collecting from tenants on their behalf - the amount seems to have varied between 15 and 18%. In return for this Southwark took on the cost of collection and the risk of non-payment, but it's clear that they made a significant profit overall. The arrangement started post water privatisation so from about 1990, although the case only relates to the period between 2006 and 2013, and Thames Water had or have similar arrangements with 69 local authorities and housing associations.


So it's a bit misleading to say Southwark negotiated a discount and didn't pass it on, and also a bit unfair to single out Southwark amongst all the other LAs.

  • 2 months later...

How the hell did you get there from the posts above BB....The housing related account is in a bad way....so how can they afford the refunds from that?..do I have to spell it out...I suppose since a lot of you have me down as a right-wing fascist then you read into the posts and links what you have been brainwashed to think by the hard left.

Anyway there are a hard core of social tenants who do not pay rent because they know they will get away with it...and in the past courts have ruled and the tenants in arrears have to pay the arrears back 50p a week out of their benefits....this whole country is being exploited by free-loaders

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Maybe if you indicated what you were reviewing, pub, gastro pub, high-end gourmet, local Italian etc. - whatever classifications you wanted, then you need only indicate that your stars referred to overall quality in that category. So it it's pub grub then 5 stars means it's great pub grub, but not the same experience as 5 stars in a high end gourmet category. Your star system could then include implicitly value for money as well. 
    • Does OP know they can sell everything but alcohol even without a license?😄
    • Thanks, it's a real dilemma whether to do star ratings. A few people have asked me to do them but I've tried to resist as they are too reductive - people will look at them and won't read review! and they are difficult too - my last review of Victoria Inn, i'd give it five stars for value for money - how can you knock two courses for £18? – but 2 stars for quality - edible but nothing special. Which I guess is why some sites give star ratings for different things...
    • ok - Jeremy himself is against mandatory vaccines. Is he as extreme as his brother? No? Is it fair to discuss how the overall view of that family would inform Jeremy's response to the pandemic? I would argue very much so    
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...