A COUNTY council has threatened to call in bailiffs after defiant town halls withheld thousands of pounds for services they say residents have already paid for.
Six town councils are refusing to pay Durham County Council for CCTV provision, saying it is a clear example of double taxation, which sees some households pay twice for some public services.
The issue, which it has been estimated could take £4m to resolve and cost poorer households more than £700, reached a flash point when the county council sent out invoices, above right, for two years’ CCTV provision.
But despite threats of court action Shildon, Sedgefield, Chilton, Great Aycliffe, Ferryhill, and Spennymoor town councils have written back saying they will not pay until the council makes a demonstrable commitment to tackling double taxation.
The county council argues there was a “unique arrangement”
made with the former Sedgefield Borough Council placing a “legal responsibility”
on it to pay for CCTV, which it has inherited.
In addition, the county council has paid out more than 100 rebates to town and parish councils – ranging from less than £100 to £38,475 – to try to redress double taxation.
Great Aycliffe Town Council leader, Bob Fleming said the rebates did not reflect the true cost of double taxation.
He said: “It is manifestly unfair and something that we feel very strongly about.
“People living in Newton Aycliffe, and other parished areas of County Durham are paying for services twice – once to their town or parish council and again through their council tax – to provide services in unparished areas of the county.
“There is an unfairness, but at the same time I think the county is trying to do something about it.”
Double taxation arises when county council “across the board” services are also provided by a town or parish council.
Taxpayers end up paying twice – once to the county council and a second time to their parish council, which levies an extra charge for its services which is added to local council tax bills.
The situation means people living in more affluent areas, including Durham City, Barnard Castle and Chester-le- Street, pay less council tax than poorer areas, such as the former Easington and Sedgefield districts.
Glyn Hall, head of housing at the county council, said a review of all CCTV arrangements was taking place across the county.
He said: “Currently there is legal agreement between the town and parish councils and the former Sedgefield Borough Council, which has been inherited by Durham County Council through the unitary process. This sets out clear terms and conditions for payments which must be made by the towns and parish councils to the former borough council.
“As this is a legal agreement between the two parties, reviewing it is a complex process which will take time.”
Double taxation is a hangover from before the unitary authority was formed when the seven district and borough councils provided differing levels of service.
Addressing the issue was one of the cornerstones of the county council’s bid for unitary status, but it has been accused of missing opportunities to resolve the situation.
Emails seen by The Northern Echo were sent to senior county council officers, a year before it went unitary, saying it needed to set aside £4m to resolve the issue.
Officers and councillors were criticised last November, for failing to address double taxation in the five-year medium- term financial plan.
At the same time, Bill Waters, chairman of the County Durham Association of Local Councils (CDALC), wrote to the county council suggesting the solution is differential council tax. The CDALC argues that by charging higher and lower rates of council tax according to the level of services received, county hall could not only resolve double taxation but also save the £250,000 it issues for rebates.
Don McLure, director of resources at the county council, said it is under pressure to make £123.5m in savings.
Mr McLure said: “The county council has already responded to local councils’ perceptions surrounding the issue of double taxation by providing some funds and has been clear that, due to the budget restrictions it faces, there is little more that can be done.”
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel