We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Council want to demolish my flat
Options
Comments
-
I have no clue as to whether the £90k was an above market value price. If it was market value, then I think the £30k initial offer must have been incredibly low, and it was wrong of the council to start that low.
Playing devils advocate I would ask why it was wrong? They were acting like a business and trying to get the best deal they could, no different to any business, we all complain when the public sector doesn't do business like the private sector and then we complain when they do.
I have worked on projects for the public and private sector and when a private developer wants to buy land or property to build on they will start off with very low offers and gradually up them until they either get the land or back out if it becomes too expensive making the project unviable.0 -
MisterBaxter wrote: »Playing devils advocate I would ask why it was wrong? They were acting like a business and trying to get the best deal they could, no different to any business, we all complain when the public sector doesn't do business like the private sector and then we complain when they do.
I have worked on projects for the public and private sector and when a private developer wants to buy land or property to build on they will start off with very low offers and gradually up them until they either get the land or back out if it becomes too expensive making the project unviable.
Best deal for who?...council contractors as it is going that way as their contractors will no doubt be taking over all council housing. Councils will have have to negotiate with contractors regarding social housing. We all know what contractors are like and councils are obliging them despite the council been totally funded by the tax payer. Contractors are certainly not cheap for doing very little.0 -
Best deal for who?...council contractors as it is going that way as their contractors will no doubt be taking over all council housing. Councils will have have to negotiate with contractors regarding social housing. We all know what contractors are like and councils are obliging them despite the council been totally funded by the tax payer. Contractors are certainly not cheap for doing very little.
Best deal for the public who ultimately are paying for the acquistion of property. The acquistion of property results in payment to the owner of the property and has nothing to do with council contractors. Why would anyone other than the owner being bought out want the public purse to pay more for a property than they need or have to. In that sense they are operating in the same way as a private business looking to acquire land or property.0 -
I agree with what you say regarding CPO, it is how social housing rents are changing. Government do not want the councils to deal with housing as they are very bad at it, but council approved contractor are only in it for large profits and doing very little for it. Therefore the government/mayor are going for change by bringing council rents 80% of private rents sector. How can the average person pay that amount of rent on the minimum wage in London.0
-
How can the average person pay that amount of rent on the minimum wage in London.
The "average" person won't be on minimum wage.
The person on minimum wage will be claiming any combination of working tax credit/ council tax benefit/ housing benefit etc to make up the difference.I'm a Forum Ambassador on the housing, mortgages & student money saving boards. I volunteer to help get your forum questions answered and keep the forum running smoothly. Forum Ambassadors are not moderators and don't read every post. If you spot an illegal or inappropriate post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com (it's not part of my role to deal with this). Any views are mine and not the official line of MoneySavingExpert.com.0 -
The "average" person won't be on minimum wage.
The person on minimum wage will be claiming any combination of working tax credit/ council tax benefit/ housing benefit etc to make up the difference.
I read somewhere there is a cap on rents allowances and other benefits, private rents in London are very high. There are no rent controls either therefore people renting will have no protection whatsoever. People losing their homes under CPO this is not good.0 -
I have no clue as to whether the £90k was an above market value price. If it was market value, then I think the £30k initial offer must have been incredibly low, and it was wrong of the council to start that low.
The whole topic online is full of claims and denials so its always hard to understand the truth.
The outcome is that after 4 years of negotation by the council, her family was evicted and, according to an interview by the BBC, ended up living with her son with 80k compensation swallowed up by legal fees and without taking up any of the offers of social housing (I'm surprised that when a homeowner is offered above market value for their properties that they are also offered a social housing tenancy but there you go).
Her legal rep and herself never denied the 360k request which was based on how commercial companies owning land in the area had managed to get huge returns on their investment when they bought patches of land in the area and the council paid way over the odds for them. Those companies could have also been subject to Compulsory Purchase Orders but instead trousered highly inflated sums.
Apparently, that 30k sum was the one recommended by the government district valuer but the consensus is that she would not have been able to have bought a similar property in the area with that, so yes, it looks like a laughable sum. I came across an article that insinuated the 30k sum was arrived at many years previously when the area was selected for commonwealth games regeneration (demolition) and hadn't been uprated with property price inflation.
She did not accept the 90k offer which, in my opinion, is way above market rate and was clearly in excess of what she needed to buy a like for like property in the local area. Having said that, she alleged that the council had a habit of not putting the offers they said they made in public in writing to her and that at the time of the repossession case in court, she didn't have an offer higher than £71k.
She said she turned down multiple offers of re-housing because they weren't in the local area or the rents were too high (she owned her flat outright so didn't have to pay rent).
"It has also emerged that, in early 2002, Mrs Jaconelli was offered a property within a new housing development on nearby Springfield Road. Again, in 2006, she was offered shared equity of a property in nearby Cranhill by the local housing association she had been dealing with for the previous five years, but again refused. It has also emerged that in the past fortnight the family has been offered a number of properties, including houses in Carntyne and Knightswood, in the east and west of Glasgow, as well as a five-bedroom flat in Hillhead in the west end."
I don't know if the above offers are true or not. Getting a 5 bedroom flat in Hillhead is the equivalent of being offered a massive council flat in Mayfair, it's one of the trendiest and affluent areas in the city with only one or two other small pockets nearby surpassing its status. It's about 5 miles from her demolished property.
She played a risky game of brinkmanship and lost, evicted at dawn by the police, ending up without being able to purchase a replacement property nor a secure social housing tenancy. I wonder if her bid to be treated like the commercial property developers were was her undoing - demanding a sum around 5 times greater than the current valuation of her property is absolutely nuts. It's a shame her solicitor led her down this fantasy path. Barricading yourself in a property when the Sheriff court has granted a CPO seems like total denial.
She was also allegedly smeared by the local council for alleged council tax arrears of 5k, claiming a single persons CT discount when her husband lived at the property with her and alleged 10k business rate debts owed by the hubby to the council for his commercial property.
Very sad.0 -
MisterBaxter wrote: »Playing devils advocate I would ask why it was wrong? They were acting like a business and trying to get the best deal they could, no different to any business, we all complain when the public sector doesn't do business like the private sector and then we complain when they do.
I have worked on projects for the public and private sector and when a private developer wants to buy land or property to build on they will start off with very low offers and gradually up them until they either get the land or back out if it becomes too expensive making the project unviable.
But the council have CPO powers that have to be used reasonably. They therefore need to behave reasonably at all times, especially when dealing with vulnerable leaseholders.
A private developer makes an offer, but he does not hold a gun to the vendor's head. At the end of the day, the vendor can simply say no, at any price. That is a really big difference.No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?0 -
MisterBaxter wrote: »Playing devils advocate I would ask why it was wrong? They were acting like a business and trying to get the best deal they could, no different to any business, we all complain when the public sector doesn't do business like the private sector and then we complain when they do.
.
EDIT - I thought the evicted resident was the owner of the property but it looks like weirdly they owned it, then sold it to a HA, then bought it back (and then were subsequently offered numerous social housing tenancies)?!! How did that weird journey happen?
A couple of articles indicate that after buying the property in the 70s for 3k, they sold it back to a local housing association "[They] owned their home outright, but in common with their friends and neighbours, sold it to Bridgeton and Dalmarnock and Housing Association in 1981, with a right to buy it back within 10 years. They did so in 1998 at the favourable price of £30,000, based on a 1990 valuation."
AFAIK, a council is supposed to offer to an owner subject to a CPO, the market valuation of the property as outlined by the District Valuer - this isn't a business to business proposal that is subject to the usual negotation/offer process that you've outlined. It's not clear that the council upped their offer to keep in line with property price inflation. Apparently they offered that same derisory sum for 7 years.
In the case I outlined, the owner was offered a sum that many consider would make it impossible for them to buy a replacement property, offering a sum equivalent to that which they paid many, many years before. Something seems to have gone very awry in the process. Supporters of the evicted owner are adamant that far from being an objective valuation of the property, it was an exploitative rip-off.
Of course, sympathy evaporated when the owner's legal rep started off their negotiation by demanding x5-6 the market value of the property (apparently later cut from 360k to 250k but still perhaps around 3-4 times the value of similar properties in the area) but then it seemed that private consortiums that owned parcels of land in the area got massive returns back on their investment. For example, a developer of an adjacent plot, allegedly reaped a profit of £5.5 million on a £45k investment that the city council paid.
In fact, some believe that it was the owner trying to pitch herself like a commercial business that ultimately led to her downfall - the CPO process for a residential property appears to give short thrift to the owner's fancy notions of the value of their property and looks to the District Valuer for guidance. That's why she got evicted - the Sheriff sided with the council though the council never applied its strict valuations and CPO process to commercial companies.
The council appear stingy - the 30k offer that was made originally relate to a much earlier 1998 price paid and which was actually based on a 1990 valuation, so a good 10 years perhaps 15 plus years behind the times. The owner appeared greedy, wanting many times the value of her property, expecting to be compensated with spacious West End flat prices for a pokey east end flat (though supporters say this levy was required to pay her high legal fees).
More info here
http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2011/03/25/the-siege-of-ardenlea-street-the-jaconelli-outrage/0 -
But the council have CPO powers that have to be used reasonably. They therefore need to behave reasonably at all times, especially when dealing with vulnerable leaseholders.
A private developer makes an offer, but he does not hold a gun to the vendor's head. At the end of the day, the vendor can simply say no, at any price. That is a really big difference.
Until the formal CPO is served and offer is just that 'an offer' there is is no obligation to accept it, obviously things change once a formal CPO is initiated as there is a statutory scheme. I agree there is the expectation that the Council will be held to a high moral standard and where they have the power to forcibly acquire then it also right that there is a legal mechanism to ensure that those on the receiving end are protected but this protection also comes with a balance to the wider public financial interest.
An honest council looking to acquire would let those affected know exactly what their rights are, in the case of the OP they are being offed market value plus 7.5% compensation and are being told that it is a non-negotiable offer, clearly if they had provided each owner with a copy of the CPO guidance booklets they would know that this is less than they will get if it goes all the way to CPO. Before initiating a CPO you have to be able to show that you have tried to negotiate so the negotiations have to start somewhere.
In the case of the OP it looks like they have gone in with a low offer, if they get any takers they have done well for themselves, if the have any sense they will work on the presumption that the first few offers will be rejected so they have given themselves some room to manoeuvre.
Like I said I was playing Devils Advocate, balancing the needs and rights of the individual against the commercial and financially driven approach. As a Council Tax payer I would want my Council to spend not a penny more than they needed to, as a homeowner facing losing my home I would want to screw them for every penny I could.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards