Greens leader Zack Polanski cleared over London houseboat council tax row

Greens leader Zack Polanski has been cleared of allegations that he breached the Greater London Authority (GLA) Code of Conduct amid concerns that he may have failed to pay the correct council tax while living on a houseboat.

Mr Polanski, who is a London Assembly member, explained in a witness statement published on Wednesday that he believed council tax fees were being managed through the mooring fees he regularly paid for the boat.

Mr Polanski faced mounting questions last month over whether the houseboat, moored in east London, was his primary residence and therefore liable for council tax.

The party originally said he only stayed on the boat “occasionally”, but then issued an apology from Mr Polanski for what it called an “unintentional mistake”.

This led to Conservative London Assembly member Neil Garratt and Anna Turley MP, chair of the Labour Party, to ask City Hall to look into whether Mr Polanski had breached conduct rules.

But a decision by the monitoring officer for GLA said on Wednesday Mr Polanski’s council tax position arose “solely from his personal living arrangements” and bore no “sufficient link to the member’s public role”.

“I have decided that no further action needs to be taken with this complaint,” monitoring officer Rory McKenna wrote.

“This is because the conduct complained of falls outside the scope of the code; and the member was not acting in an official capacity.”

In his witness statement, Mr Polanski explained he moved to the houseboat with his partner in August 2022, having previously lived in London as a “property guardian” – a living arrangement whereby an individual can occupy an otherwise vacant building in exchange for “relatively modest licence fees”.

“This was one of the few affordable housing options available to me in London during a period marked by economic uncertainty, austerity measures and significant cost-of-living pressures,” Mr Polanski wrote.

He went on to explain that, under those arrangements, he paid a licence fee to the relevant provider which included council tax.

“Whilst unconventional, this became my normal experience of housing administration and associated household outgoings,” Mr Polanski wrote.

“I have personal experience of financial hardship and housing insecurity,” he added.

“Having lived through periods of economic difficulty on a limited income, I understand first-hand the challenges faced by many Londoners.

“My previous living arrangements reflected those circumstances rather than any attempt to avoid financial obligations.”

At the time of making his statement on June 10, Mr Polanski said he is still waiting for the London Borough of Waltham Forest to confirm whether he owes council tax.

He also admitted having failed to carry out further inquiries into his council tax position at the time, but strongly denied having acted dishonestly.

“I readily acknowledge that I did not undertake further enquiries at the time regarding the specific council tax implications of living on a narrowboat,” Mr Polanski said.

“This is why I have already unreservedly apologised for that unintentional mistake.“However, I wish to make absolutely clear that there was never any intention on my part to evade council tax, avoid legal obligations, or obtain any improper financial advantage.

“Any failure to appreciate the position arose solely from a misunderstanding of what was required in relation to an unusual and unconventional living arrangement,” he added.

Mr Polanski further pledged that, were he to be found liable for council tax, he will pay the required amount in full.“Conversely, if it is determined that no council tax liability exists, I intend to make a charitable donation equivalent to the amount that might otherwise have been payable to a homelessness charity, reflecting my commitment to public service and social responsibility,” Mr Polanski added.

In her complaint to City Hall, Ms Turley had also raised concerns that the matter could be pursued as a potential criminal offence under section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 – which forbids local authority members in council tax arrears for two months or more from voting on council tax or budget decisions.

But the monitoring officer replied that he “did not consider there to be grounds to pursue the matter as a potential criminal offence or to refer it to the police”.

Mr Polanski responded to this allegation in his statement and wrote: “I also strongly reject any suggestion that I knowingly participated in votes affecting council tax whilst aware that I was in arrears or otherwise disqualified from doing so.”

Mr Polanski’s lawyers told the monitoring officer in a letter the complaints were “vexatious” and “politically motivated”, and amounted to “the type of ‘tit-for-tat’ complaint that the GLA complaints procedure identifies as unsuitable for investigation”.