£50 Sewerage Charge

[Roger Mexico]

The two replies to Chris Thomas's written questions are available and, as suspected, show the complete lack of preparedness of government in dealing with the consequences of their own policies. Question 2 (to Bell):

 

 

Who is responsible for working on means testing the charging for sewerage treatment and infrastructure; and what schedule and budget have been established for this work?

Responsibility for determining means testing of people to pay the Sewerage Charge will be vested with the Treasury which will assume responsibility for the Social Security Division from 1st April 2014.

This, though, is not a straightforward matter and it would be premature to speculate or comment on how the burden of the Charge may be mitigated to afford relief to the more vulnerable in our society.

 

In other words Bell says he doesn't know, but as usual claims it's someone else's job. You'd think that the Chief Minister is supposed to be the one who making sure there is 'joined up government', but as usual he seems to see himself more as the Minister for Swanning Around Looking Smug. He seems to have treated all his previous ministerial posts in the same way - indeed the DED was created to be just that. I suppose he's a bit old to change his ways, which is why he's trying to get Chris Robertshaw to do his job for him.

 

Question 8 (to Robertshaw):

 

 

What proportion of the 2014/15 sewerage charge will be paid by social security benefits?

Unfortunately it is not possible to provide an answer to the question as written.

To be able to answer the question then, for every person claiming an income related benefit (income support, income-based jobseekers allowance or employed persons allowance) we would need to know whether their landlord is going to pass on the sewerage charge to the tenant and the amount of any other housing cost each tenant was required to pay. As housing allowances within income related benefits are capped, if a person’s housing costs are already at the cap or above they would not qualify for an extra allowance.

It is not therefore possible for the Department to assess this information and make a reasonable forecast of likely claims. For example, there is at present uncertainty as to whether some, all or none of the public housing bodies will themselves be passing the charge through to their tenants - in part or in full.

The department can confirm that tenants or home owners who are required to pay the sewerage charge could receive an allowance in their income-related benefit covering that cost. As an example, under regulation 28(1) of the Income Support (General) (Isle of Man) Regulations 2000 an income support allowance is provided to the claimant if the claimant or any dependant of the claimant is liable to pay charges or rates in respect of water, sewerage and allied environmental services. However, any benefit allowance made would be net of the 5% early payment discount – whether or not the tenant/home owner takes advantage of the discount.

 

This question does at least seem to have triggered some thought in the DSC, if only on how to avoid it. The quibbling about whether the public housing bodies will pass on the costs is simply disingenuous - of course they will pass it on in full as they do with all rates rises. Most private landlords will do the same and will have arranged their agreements so that such charges are passed on automatically.

 

It's possible that in cases where the rents are already set at the maximum allowable, if the cap is not adjusted to include these extra charges then the landlords will have to pay the difference[1]. But this is a government that will do anything to avoid offending the wealthy, so we can probably expect the cap to rise in parallel.

 

There may be some uncertainty in working out the figures for households where only part of the housing costs are paid or where the charge will apply jointly to several households. But this should already have been estimated if DSC was doing its job and the most recipients of assistance in housing costs will be simple to assess (those only on state pension for example). So the question could have been answered - and indeed the calculations should have been done before the charge was even announced.

 

The problem with aiming a government charge disproportionately at the poor is that the government will end up paying it disproportionately. It's a splendid example of the 'silo mentality' that they're all busy denouncing. Given that Robertshaw is now supposed to be in charge of eradicating this, he's hardly making a good start in his current department.

 

 

[1] Obviously this is less important when at the moment it's only a £1 a week, but it's been implied that it could rapidly rise to £300 a year and once a new revenue stream is there, the opportunity for the bureaucracy to exploit it will be irresistible.

 

edited for layout

Edited March 5, 2014 by Roger Mexico

[carbon selector]

(Confirmation of vote)

TYNWALD COURT, WEDNESDAY, 19th FEBRUARY 2014

________________________________________________________________________

6. Sewerage Act 1999

Sewerage Charge Order 2014 approved

The Chairman of the Water and Sewerage Authority to move:

That the Sewerage Charge Order 2014 be approved

.

[sD 2014/0040]

Hansard (temporary rolling Hansard link only) Starts page 124, vote at page 153

The vote:

The usual suspects and Skelly and Quayle got well rewarded. Seriously, what would happen if these people were voted out 2016?

Edited March 5, 2014 by carbon selector

[Lisenchuk]

If they had to gain support from a larger majority vote than their local constituencies then they probably would be voted out.

[doc.fixit]

 

I do realise that rates don't pay for all of those things but still don't agree with an all island rate.

 

I do expect though that I'm whistling in the wind and they will be imposed without giving any other system some thought.

Your just a tight arse then. We all use Island infrastructure in one way or another and we should, as residents, pay a fair rate for what we are connected to, or what we potentially could be connected to.

 

Everything ends up in the sea, in landfill, or in the incinerator, and you can't live without water or power.

 

At the moment the people who draw most on the infrastructure are the ones who pay less in rates because they live in remote places. It can't be right.

 

I also find it hard to believe that in this day and age there are that many total retrograde govag retards who never ever go to Douglas or any other major town and use some sort of shop or shared amenity. We're not living in the fucking dark ages where a pony and trap into the big smoke takes 2 days out of your life. We all use whole Island services and we should pay the same, as Island residents, to use those whole Island services.

Oh dear, resort to bad language to make an inferior point.

Last time I looked water and power are not part of the rates....WE ALL PAY THE SAME FOR THOSE ITEMS depending on the amount we use.

I have never heard such a total load of unadulterated claptrap obviously written by a government stooge or an elitist, arrogant, pseudo intellectual.

 

Have a pleasant day m'dear.

 

p.s. I have no problem with paying my way and would agree with a system where we actually pay for what we use or waste instead of an arbitrary system that has no relationship to either of those things, an all island rate does not meet those criteria. IMO.

[alibaba]

Roger Mexico's post is interesting (as normal).

 

I live in DSC housing, and on my rent book it has at the top the rent (£x per week) and rates (£x per week). Wonder if the new one, due before April will have an extra column for Shit Tax (£1 per week) or if they'll just send us a bill for £50.

[Roger Mexico]

Last time I looked water and power are not part of the rates....WE ALL PAY THE SAME FOR THOSE ITEMS depending on the amount we use.

 

Power is (mostly) paid for based on usage, but water is effectively 'part of the rates' - or at least a separate rate calculated in a similar manner[1]. Effectively it's an all-Island rate of 298.56 in the pound, though there all sorts of exceptions and supplements.

 

Reading through that document makes me wonder exactly about which non-residential properties will be paying the £50 charge. The actual wording of the Sewage Charge Order reads:

 

A person who on 1 April 2014 is the owner or occupier of any hereditament with a drain or sewer which communicates with any public sewer, is liable to pay a sewerage charge of £50.00 for the 2014/15 financial year.

 

But would that also apply to a property that just happened to have a rainwater drain on it for example and nothing else?

 

[1] For some strange reason the pdf is a scanned image so I can't copy and quote (cries of 'Thank God' at the back).

[Lisenchuk]

Does that mean that a residential house converted into flats will only be liable to one £50.00 charge for the whole residence?

[Roger Mexico]

Does that mean that a residential house converted into flats will only be liable to one £50.00 charge for the whole residence?

 

I don't really know. I suspect the idea is to just to bung £50 on every water rates bill they send out, so it would depend on whether the flats were rated separately for example. But in theory it probably depends on what the exact definition of 'hereditament' is in Manx Law. As with much else to do with this, you get the feeling that no one has thought it through.

[Rob Callister]

Does that mean that a residential house converted into flats will only be liable to one £50.00 charge for the whole residence?

Lisenchuk,

 

The simple answer is yes, if you convent a house into two flats then the landlord will get a bill for £100.

[Rob Callister]

In respect of local authority housing tenants, here is what I put on my Facebook page, which may be helpful to some tenants.

 

A very big thank you to Chris Thomas Brenda Cannell & Kate Beecroft for raising the questions in "Keys" this morning to the Chairman of the Water and Sewerage Authority.

 

Given the strong public opinion against the "toilet tax", I have struggled to explain the situation involving local authority tenants and how this amount will be levied and collected.

 

Unfortunately, the "Rent" is the amount of money the local authority requires to allow a tenant the right of occupation. It is not divisible, or able to be apportioned by the tenant, it is just rent.

 

One single sum. This rent is calculated by considering many different internal costs and external charges, including local authority rates and central government rates. The authority does not need the consent of its tenants to apply legally bound charges on a property.

 

I hope tenants of Onchan will understand the difficult situation we have been left but again I am very grateful that some MHKs have asked for clarity on the topic before the charge is applied in April.

[alibaba]

Hi Rob. Your above post doesn't really make much sense.

[Rob Callister]

Hi Rob. Your above post doesn't really make much sense.

How can I explain it better Alibaba,

 

The point I am trying to make is that local authority tenants will have little option but to pay the toilet tax charge of £50, less the 5% discount.

 

In the private sector, the ratepayers can refuse to pay the tax and the matter will then go through the Courts.

 

The toilet tax was rushed through without any consultation with local authorities, who will now need to find the extra funds in June in order to take advantage of the discount on behalf of their tenants.

[alibaba]

 

Hi Rob. Your above post doesn't really make much sense.

How can I explain it better Alibaba,

 

I don't know, re-read it and see if you can make sense of it yourself. It seems that there might be words or possibly even whole sentences missing.

 

Anyway, at least you are trying to get some information out. What I'm wondering, is will LA/DSC tennents be sent a bill for the whole amount, or will it be tacked onto the rates and payable weekly through the rent book?

[Rob Callister]

Thank you for the feedback Alibaba,

 

What the general public don't understand is the difficult situation central government is putting local authorities in.

 

If we take the "toilet tax" in Onchan for local authority tenants. This year the authority will need to find an additional £24,800 by June 2014 to cover the 496 houses. This will enable the authority to take full advantage of the 5% discount available.

 

We also have to remember that this amount is on top of the rates and other costs, which will also have to be found by the local authority.

 

The tenants will then pay over the 50 or 52 week period, this is because tenants only get one amount that covers everything.

 

If the charge increases to £100 (x 496 houses) our local authority will need to find an extra £40,600 and for a charge of £300 an extra £148,800.

 

This is clearly yet another example whereby central government is using local authorities as a "piggybank" to fund its own projects.

 

What will local authorities do if they don't have the reserves to make these advance payments?

[Moghrey Mie]

Bill the tenants directly?