Saturday 13 August 2011

Ah, Those Law-Abiding, Taxpaying Travellers…

A councillor has hit out after discovering taxpayers have been footing most of travellers’ electricity bills at three sites in York.
Wha..?
Figures obtained by Independent councillor Mark Warters revealed City of York Council spent a total of £195,085 on power supplies in 2010/11 at the sites in Clifton, Osbaldwick and James Street.

The amount compared to a budgeted figure of £102,260, and the council received an income of only £8,362 from electricity cards bought by travellers to offset the cost, meaning an overspend by the authority.
They are putting in place steps to recoup that money though, right?

Right?

Maybe that should be the next FOI request…
The council said it had long paid part of the travellers’ electricity bills, but revealed this was no longer happening following recent changes.
Do they want a bloody medal?!?
Steve Waddington, the authority’s assistant director of housing and public protection, said when the sites were first built, it was common practice nationally to install single electricity supplies, because power companies did not want to provide individual supplies to each pitch.

Landlords – in this case City of York Council – charged the cost of any electricity used and some, but not all, of the costs were recovered from the travellers through cards or tokens to use supplies.
Why not? Why not all of the costs?

Oh, and don’t think the change came about because they realised it might not go down too well with the ratepayers, who they now cannot stop from finding out about it.

Oh, no. It was partly led by the caravan utilising nomadic types themselves. Because they felt they were getting ripped off.

Yes. Really:
He said the change had come about partly because, as things stood, travellers had been unable to switch suppliers and obtain discounted prices.
*blood reaches boiling point*

Why bother whinging about bills you aren't paying anyway!
Christine Shepherd, of York Travellers Trust, said travellers’ sites had historically paid commercial rates and said it was right local authorities had changed that. She said it was also right that councils had brought in a meter system instead, which was fairer.

She said: “That’s how it should be.”
Shall I tell you how else something ‘should be’, Christine?

The full cost of the outstanding money - taxpayer's money - needs to be recouped. By bailiffs, if necessary.

8 comments:

Captain Haddock said...

Just plug the thieving scum into the National Grid .. decent, law-abiding, taxpaying people deserve something in return ..

Ranter said...

I fucking hate pikeys!

blueknight said...

Now that the riots have made the scales fall from the Govt's eyes, here's hoping that they will take a hard look at these professional crooks

selsey.steve said...

Pikeys.
Don't pay NI but get preferential treatment by the NHS.
Don't pay vehicle licence but get given a free pass by the 'police'.
No vehicle insurance? No problem.
No planning permission? Again, no problem.
Don't pay your power bills? Nope, we'll pay them for you.
This is one sick country.

Rob said...

The council paid 'part' of the cost. My rough calculation is that the council paid 95% of the cost. This stretches the definition of 'part' beyond even the limits I allow these days for our corrupt overlords. These people are lying, devious bastards.

However, look at it from their point of view. It's free money. They look compassionate to other left-wing loons. They csn go to dinner parties with their friends and feel good.

Rob said...

Two other points:

Why is it 'fair' that pikeys should no longer pay commercial rates?

The council claim they are no longer footing the bill - so who IS stumping up the £195,000?

JuliaM said...

"Now that the riots have made the scales fall from the Govt's eyes, here's hoping that they will take a hard look at these professional crooks"

You have far, far more faith in the government than I do!

"The council paid 'part' of the cost. My rough calculation is that the council paid 95% of the cost. This stretches the definition of 'part' beyond even the limits I allow these days for our corrupt overlords."

Indeed.. :(

"The council claim they are no longer footing the bill - so who IS stumping up the £195,000?"

Damn good point!

KenS said...

when the sites were first built, it was common practice nationally to install single electricity supplies, because power companies did not want to provide individual supplies to each pitch.

That wouldn't be because they knew they'd rarely get paid would it? Commercial companies have a bit of economic sense. How about getting them to run the councils?