Right to buy

strawberries1

I perceive the aim of RTB is to ensure a gradual errosion of social housing.

BobQ

Generali wrote: »

....and rather ironic that an OP that was presumably meant to be critical of the Conservative Government has ended up demonstrating the ineptitude of London local Government, the vast majority of which (20/32 boroughs) are run by Labour!

http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/londonfacts/elections2014/

Another London centric view of the world.

Inefficiency is wrong whoever does it. My OP could equally be viewed as saying that a coalition elected to deliver austerity by reducing waste and inefficiency (which they claimed was rife in public sector) has not only failed but has presided over a 400% increase. If it is all due to these London Labour councils so be it, but that does not stop the Government doing something about it does it?

antrobus

BobQ wrote: »

Another London centric view of the world.....

Well you started it.:)

The Audit Commission statistic on detected RTB fraud cases is a national figure. As far as I can see there is no regional breakdown. So it is merely an assumption that the 400% increase in detected in RTB fraud cases applies to London. The actual figure might be bigger or smaller.

BobQ wrote: »

....Inefficiency is wrong whoever does it. My OP could equally be viewed as saying that a coalition elected to deliver austerity by reducing waste and inefficiency (which they claimed was rife in public sector) has not only failed but has presided over a 400% increase. If it is all due to these London Labour councils so be it, but that does not stop the Government doing something about it does it?

What are you suggesting? That the Government should intervene to remove the power to administer RTB from these "London Labour councils"?

BobQ

antrobus wrote: »

Well you started it.:)

Fair point, the article is as you say is not London specific.

My mistake!

Not convinced that central government can be excused all blame for fraud in local government, they after all set the rules.

I agree detected fraud is not a cost to the public purse if it is all recovered, but the question should always be asked what fraud of a similar kind goes undetected.

I confess I did not read the Audit Commission Report, not enough time in the day.

strawberries1

Several LAs carry out desktop valuations and that is terribly fraught with errors and under valuations. Some LA surveyors have been investigated for misconduct as a result but most cases dropped as no evidence of impropriety; desktop valuations are simply guesses with some 3 beds being labelled 2 beds.

MARTYM8`

wotsthat wrote: »

RTB is a scheme to transfer money from the taxpayer to random people for reasons I still don't entirely understand. Seems to be working perfectly.

Totally agree. Every time one is sold up to £100,000 of taxpayer assets are basically handed over to a random lucky person who has probably already benefited from years of taxpayer subsidised below market rent housing.

And that's before you factor in the costs which may arise in the future from less social housing being on local authority books - leading in part to the £25bn a year housing benefit bill the taxpayer also picks up.

When is Osborne going to introduce a policy to allow private sector tenants to have the right to buy their homes off their landlord at a £100k discount. Sounds barmy when you think about that - but its the same logic.

strawberries1

And a lot of RTBs are purchased with cash despite the tenant being on housing benefit etc. Only recently are solicitors being asked to confirm they've checked source of funds and they simply state source of funds checked! If you press they'll state if came from inheritance abroad or inheritance full stop!