Havering’s Council Tax: A Reverse Wealth Tax

Council Tax is based on 1991 property values. The eight bands, ‘A – H’, reflect those valuations, which haven’t been revised for 35 years. One outcome is that band ‘H’ houses pay a lower percentage Council Tax than band ‘A’. Council Tax is a reverse wealth tax.

Havering’s band ‘H’ Council Tax is £4,849.32.1 At the other end of the scale a band ‘B’ house pays £1,885.85.2 Council Tax was meant to be a property tax, which is absolutely not the case now.

There are many houses in Havering priced at £1m+, some of which are not in band ‘H’. Rightmove is advertising a house in Hornchurch for £3.9m.3 It’s in band ‘H’ and the Council Tax is £4,849.32. £4,849,32 is 0.12% of the price. This tiny amount isn’t even a ‘rounding error’. Simultaneously Rightmove is advertising a band ‘B’ property for £190,000.4 Their Council Tax is 0.99% of the value of the property. They pay eight times more than the band ‘H’ house in percentage terms. Council Tax means the poor subsidise the rich.

If the Band ‘B’ 0.99% Council Tax is used as the default, there would be sharp increases for expensive houses. A flat rate percentage Council Tax is a pure property tax. To equalise the Council Tax at 0.99% would level the playing field and end the subsidy that the rich receive from the poor.

Using the two houses that illustrate this blog, the Band ‘B’ house stays the same. This is absolutely not the case for the property valued at £3.9m. Their Council Tax increases from £4,849.32 to £38,610 p.a. This stonking increase is a vivid statement of the grotesque unfairness of the 1991 Council Tax banding system. Can you imagine the cries of horror of those who have this increase inflicted on them? Yet 0.99% is exactly what the poor are paying and it is equally unaffordable for them.

A percentageCouncil Tax is a fair property tax.

Conclusion

It will take enormous political courage, by Andy Burnham, to reform Council Tax. The losers will be the rich who can manufacture ‘outrage’ in the media. Meanwhile councils creak towards oblivion.

Addendum: Reforming Council Tax

There is nothing Keith Prince can do even if he wanted to. The point of this blog is to give a Havering context to the debate about Council Tax reform.

Notes

1 Council Tax bands and bills | London Borough of Havering

2 1 bedroom flat for sale in South Street, Papermill House, 363 South Str, Romford, RM1 I tried to find a band A property and couldn’t.

3 8 bedroom detached house for sale in Freeman Way, Emerson Park, Hornchurch, RM11 Accessed 16th July 2026

4 1 bedroom flat for sale in Grenfell Avenue, Hornchurch, RM12 Accessed 16th July 2026

Havering Council Meeting, 22nd July 2026 (part two)

Motion A concerned Hornchurch FC., “…this Council congratulates Hornchurch Football Club on their promotion to the National League.

Unwittingly the Labour group (1 hour 17 minutes)1 revealed Keith Prince’s hypocrisy. The council meeting was moved because of England’s semi-final game. Keith knew seven councillors would be absent but changed the date anyway. Democracy comes second to football in Keith’s world.

Motion B concerned a ‘Faith Champion’. It was drivel (1:24).

Motion C concerned the Climate Emergency (1:28) Reform’s policy was ably set out by Gary Payne. He dislikes tricksy statistical modelling, which is unfortunate because it commands respect in the wider political world. Gary did, however, think for himself and consulted Havering Friends of the Earth before the meeting. I think Reform is Greener than they seem. This was emphasised by Alex Donald’s contribution. (1:38)

Keith’s closing speech was astonishing. (1:45) He challenged the legitimacy of HARA’s amendment. This should have been done prior to the debate. The principal legal officer rose to the occasion, with icy politeness, and rejected Keith’s interpretation. He should have spoken to her in his office to discuss his worries. For Keith to use his position as Leader of the Council to challenge a ruling and lose, is an aberration. Perhaps he realised he’d won the vote but lost the argument?

Motion D concerned ULEZ (1:51) Fundamentally this was idiotic. The information demanded is unavailable because it isn’t collected in the way Reform believes. Trevor McKeever’s speech was a masterful (1:57) destruction of the basic premise. Every Reform/HARA contribution had an unstated opinion that respiratory deaths were a price worth paying.2 It would be nice if they came into the open and said flat out how many deaths are acceptable.

Best Speech: Trevor McKeever

Best Sniggering (joint winners) Martynas Cekavicius and Bailey Nash-Gardner

Notes

1 Motions.pdf All four motions are here For the webcast go here Annotator Player All timings refer to this webcast.

2 Speeches from Khuram Ali (1:51), Gillian Ford (1:55), Luke Barry (2:02) and Keith Prince (2:05)

ULEZ Havering’s ULEZ Data (davidtaylor.online) indicates the number of lives saved and the quality of lives of those not suffering respiratory diseases

Havering Council Meeting, 22nd July 2026 (part one)

Apologies “….have been received from Councillors Kevin Ayres (Reform), Petru Eugen Dinsorean [Reform], Diane Smith, Russell Smith [Reform], Geoff Starns [Reform], John Tyler, Liz Tyler, [RA] Christine Vickery and Tom Vickery [Reform]. This is a 16% absentee rate, a Red Flag for most organisations.

Question Time1

Question Time (QT) was a filibuster. Answers became speeches and it ended with the Mayor pulling the plug. Reform councillors were in heaven with a captive audience.

Q1 Sue Ospreay (26 minutes) asked Keith Prince about Launders Lane. His jot-trot through the history made my heart sink. Needless to relate he said nothing….at length.

Q4 Stephanie Nunn (40) asked Robert Whitton about the Romford Plan. He was silkily elusive and charming. Charm goes a long way and everyone believed in a better tomorrow after he’d finished.

Q7 Gillian Ford(54)asked Keith about housing. He doesn’t like other boroughs buying houses in Havering. Keith is helpless and indignant, which isn’t a good look. Gillian’s killer question about Havering’s export of homeless residents ended Keith’s happiness. He was reduced to a ‘Don’t know’ answer, which is the ultimate cop-out at QT. He should know.

Q8 Martin Goode (58) was on top form. A straight-forward question to Sue Benjamins became a meandering speech. Her economic model depends on heroic assumptions. Regeneration and additional business rates are her economic 5th Cavalry coming to rescue Havering. Martin was polite and didn’t spoil her fantasy.

Q9 Graham Day (1:08) was enjoying himself before the Mayor pulled the plug.

Best Question: Martin Goode

Best Answer: Robert Whitton

Note

1 Annotator Player All times noted relate to this webcast. The questions that were tabled are here  Council questions.pdf

School ties are a tax on learning

Education is compulsory and so is school uniform. The making of school uniform compulsory is a matter for each of Havering’s 18 academies. They choose to enforce compulsory uniform; it is not an obligation imposed by the government. One element is the school tie. They can cost anything up to £10 and have no impact on learning. Demanding the students wear a school tie or be banned from school is enforcing a quasi-tax. School ties reflect a by-gone era when they were routinely worn by adults. That era has long gone. Schools should catch up on social reality.

School ties are a tax on learning – YouTube This podcast is 3 minutes long

Keith Prince: His Rendezvous With Reality

May 7th was exhilarating for Keith. Victory made him the darling of the media. He appeared on TV and in most national newspapers. He even appeared on the front page of a prominent French newspaper. Nigal Farage and Robert Jenrick came to share the limelight. Keith proudly said that Havering was under ‘New Management’.

That was May.

Keith is a veteran politician and knows a thing or two. But he was amazed to be mugged by the MetPolice. Havering hires five officers as additional local police. In early June the cost increased to £600,000 a year. That’s a stonking £120,000 per officer per year. Keith ‘tackled’ the Mayor about it and was brushed off. He didn’t even demand evidence from the MetPolice as to how £600,000 was reached.1

On the 3rd July Keith met executives from the Essex and Suffolk Water Company, the ‘baddies’ in the Gallows Corner saga. He emerged defeated. He was helpless in the face of their shifty and evasive ‘explanations’. (see Addendum)

“Sadly, they are still unable to provide a firm completion date, and based on their updates, it looks unlikely that the junction will be fully reopened before October.”2

A gallant effort at populism was a damp squib. Keith banned the flying of the Gay Pride flag. He did it with a flourish via a video podcast outside the Town Hall. Keith was obeying a Farage edict to ban the Gay Pride flag as opposed to doing it because it was suitable for Havering. Farage is using stereotypes to drive policy. Obviously, this is ridiculous for a populist political party with gay members. The policy has failed as can be seen from successive by-elections defeats.

Amazingly there was a reaction. Havering’s Gay Pride Activists were provoked as they were meant to be. What was unexpected was that they broke into the Town Hall and erected the flag anyway.3 Gay Pride forced a score draw.

Thus far Keith has faced relative trivia. But what happens when brutal events occur and he has to upset LOTS of people? Adult and Children’s social services, homelessness, the £100m+ of government debt are menacingly going to spring into action and wreck his policies. Needless to relate Farage has nothing to say about substantive local government issues.

Addendum: Prince’s meeting with the Essex and Suffolk Water Company

“As Leader of the Council and Assembly Member for Havering and Redbridge, I have continued to pile on the pressure. Today [3rd July 2026], I met with Transport for London and Essex and Suffolk Water (ESW) to demand a clear completion date, proper answers, and firm accountability from ESW for the ongoing delays. Residents should not be left in limbo, and businesses should not be expected to keep absorbing the impact without clarity or action.

Sadly, they are still unable to provide a firm completion date, and based on their updates, it looks unlikely that the junction will be fully reopened before October. As both Council Leader and London Assembly Member for the area – I will continue to raise this directly with the Mayor of London, demand regular progress updates from both TfL and ESW, and press for stronger accountability and further compensation and support for those most affected.”

Source Living in Havering – Friday 3 July – 12hedonic@gmail.com – Gmail

Notes

  1. London Assembly (Mayor’s Question Time) from 12/06/2026 This is the clip of the Q&A Keith had with the Mayor. It’s about three minutes long. It’s hard to understand the £120,000 when you examine police pay scales Pay and benefits | Police staff | Careers | Metropolitan Police
  2. Gallows Corner is a hub junction and has been closed since June 2025. Prince continued his bombastic approach on the 7th July 2026. “Councillor Prince has given TfL until the end of October to complete the works….” Notwithstanding his utter failure at the face-to-face meeting (see above) ‘Enough Is Enough’: Havering’s Leader Councillor Keith Prince Gives TfL End Of October Deadline As Gallows Corner Delays Drag On – The Havering Daily
  3. Havering bans the Gay Pride Flag – Politics in Havering

Havering bans the Gay Pride Flag

Keith Prince banned the flying of the Gay Pride flag. This was a wonderful piece of *gesture* politics. It was free, it got ‘good’ PR and his supporters liked it. Gay Pride activists climbed onto the Town Hall roof and flew the flag anyway. One unexpected consequence is that it reveals serious weaknesses in the supposed protection that CCTV provides.

The podcast is three minutes long Reform 1: Gay Pride 1 – YouTube

Havering Councillors’ Register of Interests, 2026: Part Two

The Reform party is believed to be ‘divisive, fear-mongering and intimidating’. But probably not in Havering. However, until May 2026 many Havering councillors in their Register of Interests statements gave home addresses, employment details and much more.1 Now the Register is a ‘need-to-know’ statement.

There is a legal expectation that councillors list their employment and address. Only a well-founded fear that they will suffer violence or intimidation of them or their family over-rides this obligation. It’s implausible all 55 councillors asked for protection from violence or intimidation of them or their family. It’s so implausible it looks like a coordinated and significant attack on democratic values.

What’s going on?

Here are ten case studies1.

Robert Attree:2 He answered ‘None’ to all 12 questions. Didn’t Keith Prince explain that’s he’s now a public figure.

Malvin Brown: He’s a landlord but replied ‘Withheld’ to Q4 about property owned in Havering. A landlord without property? Is this the equivalent of a pub without beer?

Graham Day: He’s an optometrist but doesn’t say where or who he works for.

George Harwin: He’s employed but it’s a ‘secret’. Does he work for Nigel Farage?

Joe Lock: He owns land ‘outside’ Havering but none inside Havering. Does he live in Havering?

Barry Mugglestone: He’s changed his tune. Prior to May he used to say what buy-to-let property he owned but now it’s withheld. Why?

Alex Sibley: He’s a landlord who doesn’t list his property. Perhaps he’s very rich and wants to conceal it?

Angelica Ola: A young woman who allegedly hasn’t got a job or property. How does she defy economic gravity?

John Tyler: Another councillor with property which is unidentified. “Violence or intimidation” must stalk the mean streets of Cranham.

Robert Whitton: He’s a ‘Master of the Universe’ investor BUT he doesn’t own property in Havering. This is implausible. Perhaps he doesn’t live in Havering?

Discussion

Does it matter? Is it nit-picking?

Havering has 55 councillors. They were elected to work on behalf of the community and it’s very important their biases are understood. Most councillors are male, rich property owners and middle-aged or old. At least eight councillors are landlords and eleven are directors of various businesses. The electorate need this information when reviewing their substantive decisions.

How is it possible that every councillor has deliberately avoided basic questions. Are they all living in fear? Decision-making is coloured by people’s biases. Those biases are influenced by wealth, age, and their lived experiences. Councillors must put aside personal preferences to make good decisions for the community. Havering is hurtling towards bankruptcy and very difficult decisions will be made in the near future.

Councillors who base decisions on the protection of their own ‘sacred cows’ are thoughtlessly reacting. They aren’t reviewing the actuality. Reacting isn’t a policy, it’s a reliance on prejudice. Its only virtue is making powerful councillors happy.

Addendum: The right to not reveal personal details

The sensitive interests’ provisions provide for details about a registered interest to be excluded from versions of the Register of Interests available for public inspection (or published online) where a member and monitoring officer agree that the disclosure of that interest could lead to violence or intimidation of them or their family. They provide for members to disclose that they have an interest but for the details to be withheld from the public register.

Source: Simon Hoare, Letter from ‘Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, 18th March 2024 (my emphasis) This is guidance on Localism Act, 2011, Section 32.

Notes

1 I know of no example of a councillor, who revealed their address or employment details and were then subject to “Violence or intimidation”. 2 Your Councillors | London Borough of Havering You go to the councillor that you want to review and click on *Register of Interests*. This example is given because he’s the first member on the list Councillor details – Councillor Robert Attree | London Borough of Havering

Havering Councillors: Their ‘Register of Interests’ Statements, 2026

When you are first elected, co-opted, or appointed a member to your council or authority, you must, within 28 days of becoming a member, tell the monitoring officer who is responsible for your council’s or authority’s register of members’ interests about your disclosable pecuniary interests…..A person’s pecuniary interests are their business interests (for example their employment, trade, profession, contracts, or any company with which they are associated) and wider financial interests they might have (for example trust funds, investments, and assets including land and property).1 (emphasis added)

It is a criminal offence if, without a reasonable excuse, you fail to tell the monitoring officer about your disclosable pecuniary interests, either for inclusion on the register if you are a newly elected, co-opted or appointed member….2 (emphasis added)

Councillor Malvin Brown’s Register of Interests statement reads strangely.

Q1. Please state your employment or business carried out or any Partnerships or Directorships?

Answer: Landlord

Q4. Do you have any beneficial interest in land or property in Havering?

Answer: Residential address withheld – Localism Act 2011, section 32A.

He says his employment or business is ‘Landlord’ in answer to Q1. Yet he says that he doesn’t own land3 or have a beneficial interest in ‘land or property’ Q4 apart from his house. This is implausible and should be challenged by the Section 151 officer.

Councillor Martynas Cekavicius is also interesting.

Q11. Do you hold membership of bodies influencing Public Opinion or Policy?

Answer:

Member, Gidea Park & District Civic Society–
Member, Emerson Park and Ardleigh Green Residents’ Association

Martynas belongs to a Residents Association but according to his answer to Q4 he doesn’t own land. Once again, this is strange. Belonging to a Residents Association is typically the activity of houseowners. This too should be probed to reassure voters that he has fulfilled his legal duty of candour.

Councillor Robert Attree’s ‘answers’ are odd. There are 12 questions in the Register of Interests document, which he is legally bound to answer truthfully. He has replied to all 12 questions ‘None’.4 Robert appears to be an elderly man and it’s unlikely that he doesn’t own his residence, which could make difficulties with Q4. Alternatively, he might not live in Havering, which again is problematic.

Conclusion

This isn’t nit-picking. If councillors can’t fulfil their legal obligations by accurately filling out a very simple form then that is worrying. What else can’t they do? These three councillors are part of the story. They are a sample from 55 councillors that were elected on May 7th 2026. Every Register of Interests statement should be reviewed with a critical eye as opposed to being mindlessly accepted as truthful and accurate.

Notes

1Title This is the government’s guidance for councillors

2 loc.cit

3 That is, other than his personal residential property

4 Your Councillors | London Borough of Havering Every councillor is to be found on this site.