Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just received the Southwark Council tax bill - up by 5.9% overall, but Southwark's costs have apparently increased by 2% for Adult Social care (but see below)  and only 3% for the rest of their activity (an apparent net 2.78% increase) - what drives it, apparently, over the 5% is an 8.6% increase by the GLA - no doubt the Mayor's vanity projects such as ULEZ expansion. On the Roads and Transport thread there is a discussion about increases in Southwark's discretionary charges but we shouldn't let the Mayor escape our interest - and he doesn't seem to have to operate on the 5% cap imposed by Central Government on local authorities.

[However, if I work through the council's own figures as presented in my bill, the actual overall increase shown against each category - Social care, other Southwark and GLA - is only 4.31% - I could not see, on the figures presented, where the 5.9% came from  - although my bill for next year is indeed 5.9% greater than this year. In fact, going back to last year's bill - I have discovered that the Southwark figures as presented are a lie - the adult social care contribution in my Council tax has actually increased not by the declared 2% but actually by 23.9%. The actual net increase for Southwark - ON THEIR OWN FIGURES as presented in this and next year's council tax bill is 5% - hiked to 5.9% by the Mayor's greedy 8.6%. What I don't understand (but I suppose it may be an error and not an intentional lie) is why the adult social care increase should be understated by a factor of 10!. I do understand, and would indeed applaud, additional expenditure on Adult Social Care, I just don't agree that it should be hidden in the figures, and indeed a false %age increase declared].

Edited to add - I have based these percentages on the actual figures I had this March and last for my band of council tax. As I'm sure there are roundings I accept that the apportionment across each band - and %ages will have been rounded - won't be quite the 'overall' percentage quoted by the Council, but the disparity between a 2% increase and a 23.9% increase is not a rounding error. The absolute totals of my band's allocation - over 3 headings - do match the council figures. 

Edited by Penguin68
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/341963-what-is-the-mayor-doing-for-us/
Share on other sites

I'll tell you what he's done for me; he's forced me to take my much loved old car off the road. It's thirty two years old; I've had it for fifteen years and it's done about 1,000 miles a year. It passes emission tests without fail so by no stretch of the imagination could it be regarded as a polluter, certainly not in the league of some of the crappy vans that smoke past my house.

If I thought Ulez was forcing traffic off the road and making the air cleaner I'd be less upset but Lordship Lane is choking with fumes from dawn to dusk. Furthermore, if I were to pay the £12 to use my car, would it then make it a non polluter? Of course it wouldn't. It's a tax pure and simple.

I could hire zip cars but that does somewhat eliminate the spontaneity of a trip to the coast or a morning in Greenwich (have you tried to get to Greenwich from Dulwich on public transport?). Meanwhile Khan swans around London in a bulletproof Range Rover (with bodyguards) purportedly because of death threats.

  • Agree 2

Assuming that you live within the south and north circulars, it was Mayor Johnson's intention to extend the ULEZ to the A205 A406.  He said this when he announced his intention of introducing the ULEZ at a large Guildhall event in 2015, which I attended.  So any disgruntlement should also be applied to Johnson.

  • Haha 1
35 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

what drives it, apparently, over the 5% is an 8.6% increase by the GLA - no doubt the Mayor's vanity projects such as ULEZ expansion.

Why imagine when you could just look up the facts? This was the first hit when I Googled "GLA 8.6%". Khan is spending it on the police, the fire brigade and TfL - the greedy bastard...

https://www.london.gov.uk/www.london.gov.uk/media-centre/mayors-press-release/Mayor_proposes_council_tax_increase_due_to_lack_of_Government_funding_for_the_police_fire_and_transport_services

  • Haha 1
22 minutes ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

Your story is demonstrating exactly what ULEZ was supposed to do: reduce or eliminate usage of older, dirtier cars in London. Well done on making the shift!

Did you actually read what I wrote? The mileage I was doing was comparatively nothing at all. Most cars do 15,000 or more a year. There is no discretion in the London ULEZ charging. In Paris their equivalent ULEZ exempts thirty year-old cars but in London it has to be forty for no particular reason. These old cars are modern classics and as a result will vanish from London. But of course the anti car squad want ALL cars off the streets. Well judging from the jams I see traffic levels have never been higher.

I started this thread because of the large %age increase asked by the Mayor - 8.9% against Southwark's 4.99% (giving a 5.9% total) - however I am also concerned that Southwark appears to be hiding its 23.9% increase on Adult Social Care Costs, reporting it as a very modest 2%. I absolutely recognise that more needs to be, and is being, spent on Adult Social care - but why the obfuscation (for those of you too sensitive to accept my initial description of 'lie'?).

TFL and the councils are as cash strapped as everyone else is. That's the bottom line, not going to make any difference who is Mayor or who is running the council. Screwed regardless, you can't get blood out of a stone.

Things have remained pretty benign economically but like the 70s,80s,90s economic problems I doubt it will stay like that for too much longer.

Sydney, the ULEZ has been debated over many threads on this site, particularly since it was extended (but less so when it was just within the South and North Circulars suggesting that the inner boroughs are less bothered).  My point is that it was a Tory mayor who proposed this, not Labour (who implemented it) and Johnson, if he had continued to be Mayor would have done pretty similar in the first two schemes.  I'm a transport professional who was involved indirectly and saw Johnson speak several times.  As Mayor he came across as pro European, seeing Berlin and Paris as allies, and I expect not that pro intervention that affected car owners, but both were political opportunism and point scoring against his Eton Chum Cameron. 

The 40 year exemption for classic cars is an odd one, and goes back 30 odd years when it was 25 year old cars that were exempt from Excise Duty, which I understand was to placate a few crusty Tory Lords.  I'm really not sure why classic cars are exempt from anything.  If you are low mileage then it may have made sense to keep your older car and just pay.  ULEZ is about reducing mileage of older polluting cars, most owners will trade up for newer cleaner models, but for some it would make economic sense to keep the car and just use it when necessary.  There have been many discussions on this, with strong feeling from both sides.

 

 

Hope this context is helpful

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
13 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

In fact, going back to last year's bill - I have discovered that the Southwark figures as presented are a lie - the adult social care contribution in my Council tax has actually increased not by the declared 2% but actually by 23.9%. The actual net increase for Southwark - ON THEIR OWN FIGURES as presented in this and next year's council tax bill is 5% - hiked to 5.9% by the Mayor's greedy 8.6%.

In a Commons Library research briefing on what council funding jargon calls 'local referendums', Section 3.5 (Social care precept) has:

"Billing authorities must display the percentage increase in the adult social care precept to one decimal place.  They must display this increase in relation to the total rise in the social care authority's amount of council tax, not in relation to the previous year's social care precept.  Thus, if a social care precept was raised from, for instance, £60 to £75, the increase would be displayed as, for instance, 2% not 25%.  As the social care precept has existed for only a few years, it is normally small in cash terms."

I've not yet reconciled the figures or got my head round the intricacies of council funding, which I'll leave to you or anyone else minded to do so, but it seems so close to what you've described that I'll be surprised if it's not pertinent.

Funding for adult social care in England: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7903/

Council tax: local referendums: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05682/

 

  • Thanks 4

That seems a very reasonable amd plausible explanation.

This thread is a great example of #southwarkderangementsyndrome in action. Someone doesn't understand a number on a council document? Clearly it's a LIE and part of a terrible conspiracy (even though that person can't identify a reason why that would make sense).

  • Agree 2

With the Mayoral election coming up, I've yet to see anything specific from Susan Hall - other than she will look for more money and make savings. Where do you think the money she has pledged for the £200m injection into the police will come from? thin air? removal of fares freeze? council tax increases?

While ULEZ is unpopular, the aim is to reduce air pollution and the current Mayor is making very good ground in getting London to be Carbon Neutral by 2030.

Do we really want a tory government AND a tory mayor? that's rhetorical. 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Agree 1

Is ULEZ unpopular? Not what polls show. There is (as with LTNs) a vociferous minority who's apocalyptic rhetoric provides good copy for certain news outlets. Most Londoners get the need for measures that slightly reduce the almost total dominance of cars and seek to tackle air pollution

https://www.onlondon.co.uk/poll-more-londoners-support-ulez-expansion-than-oppose-it/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2023/07/13/latest-polling-shows-overwhelming-public-support-for-ltns/

Edited by Earl Aelfheah
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Agree 1
9 hours ago, ianr said:

"Billing authorities must display the percentage increase in the adult social care precept to one decimal place.  They must display this increase in relation to the total rise in the social care authority's amount of council tax, not in relation to the previous year's social care precept.  Thus, if a social care precept was raised from, for instance, £60 to £75, the increase would be displayed as, for instance, 2% not 25%.  As the social care precept has existed for only a few years, it is normally small in cash terms."

Thank you, ianr, for this clarification. I am amazed, personally, that councils are encouraged/ required to present confusing information (the other %age increases are of that category, year-on-year, and not as a % of the overall tax bill) - it is very poor policy, in my view, to present data which is confusing (derived differently) without a clear gloss and commentary. And, frankly, it is, again in my opinion, a good news story that more of our money is diverted to Adult Social Care, as a %age of previous spend, which has been derisory. 'We are planning to spend almost a quarter more next year than this on Adult Social Care' is a good news story, considering what else the council spends money on. And (just for the record) presenting statistical material intentionally in a confusing and inconsistent manner without further gloss is a lie, whoever (Council or Parliament) is the author of it. Perhaps a well-meaning lie, but a lie none-the-less. And it makes assumptions about the statistical abilities of rate payers to 'notice' something is odd (or rather, in the main not to notice) which is saddening.

58 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

And (just for the record) presenting statistical material intentionally in a confusing and inconsistent manner without further gloss is a lie, whoever (Council or Parliament) is the author of it. Perhaps a well-meaning lie, but a lie none-the-less. 

It's weird and irrational to continue to insist that Southwark is lying even when it has been explained to you why the number is stated that way. You can't even identify a motive for why Southwark would want to lie. Why not just say you got the wrong end of the stick when you read the document? 

Please do try reading what I've written before you leap into criticism - I acknowledged that it wasn't the Council that determined to use misleading statistics (by presenting a column of figures which was entitled 'Percentage Change' - two of which were year-on-year figures and one of which was as a percentage of the total bill) - without in any way explaining that these apparently comparable figures  were reached differently, but Parliament.

It doesn't stop those figures being misleading.

I then went on to point out, that in my view is was a good thing to increase expenditure significantly on Adult Social Care and to hide this was a mistake, forced on the Council by Parliament.

I didn't attribute any 'motive' because the cause of the Council's actions was made entirely clear by ianr in the extracts he quoted, for which, again, I am grateful.

Clearly you do not understand that to say 'Percentage change' implying (and the figures support this) year-on-year within that category  for two-thirds of the categories listed - when, in one case, it's not that but Percentage of the whole bill is misleading.

The figures are not derived in the same way. For taxes raised by the London Borough of Southwark as a whole, and the taxes raised by the GLA you find the percentage increase by dividing the difference between last year's and this year's precept into the last year's figure, and multiplying by 100. Doing that reaches the same figures as shown on the bill.  If you do that for the third figure you get not the 2% shown on the bill, but 23.9%.

If you do not understand why that is 'wrong' then perhaps you might want to brush up on how to present figures properly. [NB a footnote to confirm the figures were derived differently would have been acceptable] 

Edited by Penguin68
Typo
1 hour ago, spider69 said:

Just for interest sake. Do you work for on on behalf of Southwark Council PR Department?

Ha ha....proper analysis, and scratching beneath the surface is something the council and their fan-boys absolutely hate, so many are happy to slurp on the council Kool-Aid and take everything presented at face value! 😉

This thread sounds like a song by Edwin Starr 

The Mayor, huh, yeah
What is he good for?
Absolutely nothing, uhh
The Mayor, huh, yeah
What is he good for?
Absolutely nothing
Say it again, y'all
The Mayor, huh (good God)
What is he good for?
Absolutely nothing, listen to me, oh

🤣

  • Haha 1

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

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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