Pressure is building on council bosses to reverse controversial service charges being levelled at council tenants.
Thurrock Ukip have demanded a U-turn on the introduction of the charges, which are set to hit social housing tenants next month.
Earlier this month, the Gazette reported the council intended to introduce service charges totalling as much as £400 a year for some tenants to cover maintenance costs.
Graham Snell, Ukip Group Leader, stated: “If they don’t step back from this disastrous ‘Grass Tax’ and allow proper scrutiny to take place then all options are on the table.
“This includes calling for a vote of no confidence in the Leader of the Council.
“Rob Gledhill is solely responsible for this mess and may find himself out of a job if he doesn’t accept that he has shown an error in judgement.
“The Tories need to understand that we will do what is necessary to protect the integrity of the council.”
Labour leader Oliver Gerrish backed the suggestion that a vote of no confidence could be necessary.
He said: “There are some very serious questions to answer about how this policy was brought forward.
“We hope a motion of no confidence is not necessary and that the administration will make a U-turn, but we will not flinch from doing everything in our power to support our residents and fight for a fairer Thurrock.”
In response to the statements, Mr Gledhill defended his decision and said: “I am surprised that the Ukip leader has called for this without even contacting me to discuss the issue at all.
“This year we were the only party who agreed £7.5 million of improvements over five years to boilers, improved insulation and urgent repairs to the exterior of our homes across the borough.
“With nearly 900 homes still with single glazing, whole estates in need of exterior improvements and more than 30,000 repairs to be carried out per year, there are difficult decisions to be made.
“We must also remember that had the rent increases proposed by Labour been enacted tenants would have been paying an average £8.36 more in rent per week.
"This would have been used to continue the terrible spending plans they had in place that put vanity projects ahead of realistic, affordable home delivery.”
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 here