'Action needed on anti-social behaviour in council homes' - Your Letters: December 30

As a former Councillor and MEP I still get people asking me for help with issues, which is normal for anyone who has been reasonably well known in politics.

Recently I have been trying to help with a spate of issues concerning drug taking and the associated consequences in council houses. Obviously not only is this illegal and against tenancy contracts but can be distressing for the neighbours.

You would imagine that this might be a relatively simple matter especially when senior elected councillors have stated that they do not want people abusing drugs in council properties.

However it has opened my eyes to the extent that at least some council officers believe they are a law unto themselves, these unelected civil servants appear to be making major policy decisions on the hoof and ignoring their elected councillors.

I have been involved in several meetings where I have been told that council officers believe that drug taking is now endemic and a sign of changing social norms.

Even worse than this the council officers appear to have dismissed the concerns of concerned neighbours and actively supported the continued tenancy of people abusing illegal drugs.

I have worked with tenants who have ended up having to speak with two separate housing officers, an enforcement officer and an arbitration specialist with absolutely no results. Not only is this a costly waste of time and money but it is symptomatic of a bureaucracy out of control.

In one case, neighbours were told that council officers would no longer deal with drug related issues and they should phone 101 for the police. The distressed neighbour called the number no less than seven times without anyone answering. Obviously, this is not the council's fault but it adds to the feeling of decent people being abandoned.

Whilst I in no way blame the sitting councillors for this mess it is clear that something needs to be done.

I intend to take up as many of these cases of anti-social behaviour and drug abuse as possible and force the council officers to do their job according to the tenancy contracts and law of the land.

Bill Etheridge, Sedgley

IT MAKES SENSE TO WORK AT HOME

I confess that I am totally baffled by Kenneth Clibery’s letter of 23 December.

What “benefits” does he believe are paid to people working from home?

What is his source for that belief?

All I can find, on the HMRC website, is the possibility, in some strictly defined circumstances, for tax relief “if you have to work from home”. The next paragraph states unambiguously, “You cannot claim tax relief if you choose to work from home.”

Why is he so enthusiastic about forcing people to go to what he calls a “workplace”?

A workplace is the place where you work, which may well be your home, as it is for many self-employed white-collar workers.

I think of three young people in my own family. Two have to be at the same place each working day to do their job: as a clinician in a hospital and as a chemist responsible for the safe disposal of hazardous waste.

The third works in a managerial capacity in the building trade.

He has an office in east Staffordshire to which he can connect remotely. His responsibilities involve site visits throughout the Midlands.

Following his recent marriage he is moving to live in rural Leicestershire.

If he needs to visit a site in Northampton, it makes little sense for him to drive up the A5 to the office (at the company’s expense and in company time at a wage sufficient to attract the higher rate of tax) when he can drive straight home and complete necessary documents from his computer there, perhaps before he would even have reached his office.

Alan Harrison, Bloxwich

SIR KEIR NEEDS A REALITY CHECK

Surely even someone as obviously thick as Starmer must have by now realised that the ex-Bank of England tea lady's position is tenuous?

Keir, dear, you seem to have believed the lady's CV and think that she is some kind of brilliant economist.

My advice K is to make your New Year resolutions the following: Never to reply to any question put to you with the answer: "22 billion Black Hole"; "My dad was a toolmaker"; "Fix the foundations"; "Doubling up/down"; "Fully costed, fully funded" and most importantly, sack Rach and get someone with at least an O-Level in Economics. I'll do the job for free!

Alan Etheridge, Sedgley

Send us your letters for publication to [email protected]

Letters to the editor must include the writer’s name and address and will only be published anonymously in exceptional circumstances. The editor reserves the right to condense or amend letters.