Subscribe to updates
You'll receive weekly summaries about Camden Council every week.
If you have any requests or comments please let us know at community@opencouncil.network. We can also provide custom updates on particular topics across councils.
Camden Town District Management Committee - Wednesday, 7th January, 2026 7.10 pm
January 7, 2026 View on council websiteSummary
The Camden Town District Management Committee met on Wednesday, 7 January 2026, to discuss the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) budget for 2026/27 and proposed rent and service charge increases. The committee voted against most of the proposed rent increases and several service charge hikes, but supported a modest increase in communal lighting service charges, an increase in garage rents, and a general 3% increase for other fees and charges.
January DMC HRA Budget 2026/27 and Rent Setting Report
The committee considered the report from the Director of Finance regarding the HRA budget for 2026/27 and recommendations for rent and service charges. A significant portion of the discussion focused on proposed rent increases. The committee voted against supporting a CPI + 1% rent increase, a CPI + 1% plus £1 per week rent convergence, and a CPI + 1% plus £2 per week rent convergence.
Several proposed increases to tenant service charges were also put to a vote. The committee did not support an increase for Caretaking (5% or 62p), CCTV (6.8% or 8p), Communal M&E Maintenance (5.8% or 9p), Grounds Maintenance (10% or 25p), and Responsive Housing Patrol (6.9% or 6p). However, a 2% (6p) increase for Communal Lighting service charges was supported.
In terms of other charges, the committee voted to support an increase in garage rents for tenants, raising them by £2 per week to £20 per week. A general increase of 3% for all other fees and charges, as detailed on pages 30-34 of the report, was also supported. The committee did not feel it could vote on service charges for leaseholders as outlined on page 35.
The committee also decided to support a freeze on Heating Pool Charges.
During the discussion, officers clarified that the Council was not seeking to recover cumulative rent losses from tenants but rather to illustrate the lost income that could have been reinvested into housing stock and services. It was also explained that the inclusion of TMOs (Tenant Management Organisations) in a pie chart was for presentation purposes due to their small budget share. De-pooled service charges could no longer be reincorporated into the overall rental figure. As of October 2025, 72% of tenants were receiving Universal Credit or Housing Benefit, with the majority of those on Housing Benefit having their full eligible rent met.
Officers agreed to provide further information to DMC representatives on various aspects of the budget, including:
- Repairs Service budget heads and their meanings.
- The Council's Solar Panel installation programme.
- Performance monitoring for the Grounds Maintenance Service.
- How the Council would promote the use of empty garages for tenants.
- A breakdown of costs identified on page 34 of the report.
- Details of the heat metering installation programme and how heating charges are calculated.
The committee raised several general concerns, including a perceived lack of accurate data to justify budgetary proposals. They felt that future HRA Budget and spending reports should avoid referencing cumulative rental loss, as it did not provide a complete picture. Greater transparency was called for to enable tenants and residents to make informed decisions. The committee acknowledged the potential impact of rent and service charge increases on tenants paying full rent, possibly leading them to seek benefits. They also noted that the report lacked sufficient detail for informed decision-making and that this, along with a perceived unwillingness to provide requested budgetary information, gave the impression the Council was not fully engaging with tenant views. The committee reiterated that they should not be asked to provide views on leaseholder service charges. Furthermore, concerns were raised about the need for improved Caretaking supervision to ensure a better and more consistent service, and that further work was needed to ensure the Responsive Security Patrol Service was effective.
Following these discussions, the committee resolved to approve the views set out above.
The meeting concluded at 8:20 pm.
Attendees
Topics
No topics have been identified for this meeting yet.