Privatisation of Land Registery and Office Closures

westv

Thrugelmir wrote: »

What's your measurement of efficient? Productivity, cost, use of occupied premises, use of technology. Compared to the private sector the public sector is light years behind. Culture is a major factor as well.

It's not "my" measurement.

westv

http://www.homewardlegal.co.uk/blog/will-land-registry-privatisation-affect-homeowners

"The Land Registry as it now exists has made great strides in recent years to improve efficiency and cut costs. It has computerised the register and done much to enable solicitors and other customers to access its services on-line. This has enabled it to drastically cut its fees recently for most property transfers."

Generali

westv wrote: »

http://www.homewardlegal.co.uk/blog/will-land-registry-privatisation-affect-homeowners

"The Land Registry as it now exists has made great strides in recent years to improve efficiency and cut costs. It has computerised the register and done much to enable solicitors and other customers to access its services on-line. This has enabled it to drastically cut its fees recently for most property transfers."

It seems like a very odd article. Perhaps the writer should stick to law and avoid forays into the world of economics:

Is this what anyone wants? Commercial companies normally try to expand their business and maximise their profits. But surely the Land Registry should be not be run to make a profit, nor should it try to carry out services beyond its present remit. Far better to concentrate on doing its present job efficiently.

In common with a lot of Britons, probably due to over-exposure to the BBC, the writer seems to think that profit = costs + rip-off. If the Land Registry can be run more effectively in the private sector or provide things that people want to buy from them then perhaps the LR can make more money without screwing things up, like the utilities, railways and countless other very poorly run companies privatised by the Thatcher and Major Governments.

Moby

It never ceases to sadden me how comfortable some people are with other people losing their jobs. 'Ah well it might save the tax payer money' ...so to speak. Of course the consequences long term are always corrosive for society and the tax payer ends up paying anyway!

westernpromise

Moby wrote: »

It never ceases to sadden me how comfortable some people are with other people losing their jobs. 'Ah well it might save the tax payer money' ...so to speak. Of course the consequences long term are always corrosive for society and the tax payer ends up paying anyway!

Baloney.

The taxpayer chucked hundreds of billions into companies like British Steel, British Coal, British Leyland, etc etc etc and got a negative return and the Austin Allegro. They no longer suck up taxpayers' money and some even pay tax.

Generali

Moby wrote: »

It never ceases to sadden me how comfortable some people are with other people losing their jobs. 'Ah well it might save the tax payer money' ...so to speak. Of course the consequences long term are always corrosive for society and the tax payer ends up paying anyway!

By that logic we'd still be paying billions of groats to keep fletchers, coopers and fullers in gainful employment.

Ultimately that's how a capitalist economy works successfully. We work out better ways to do something so people lose their jobs. They then are employed doing something else in another part of the economy.

ukcarper

I thought one of the main arguments for privatisation was competing forces price down but won't the Land Registry be a monopoly so face no compition.

stator

westernpromise wrote: »

So if it makes money, you sell it for a price that reflects that.

If it makes £2 million a year you sell it for £150 million. The new owners make it more efficient and do the same for lower cost. So they make money, pensions invested in their stock make money, and George gets £150 million. Everyone wins.

75 year payback? I don't think so.
More like Mr Osborne sells it on the cheap, as the Tories always do, for let's say £10 million to some rich friends in the city, terms "Long term stable partners"
Then the private operator cuts staff, closes offices. Outsources and Offshores IT.
They make a lot of money for a while.
Queue times increase. IT systems crash. The government has to step in and force them to clean up their act, introducing minimum standards (possibly paying them tax payers money to do so, depending on how badly the original contract was written)
Private company slowly increase service until it meets that absolute minimum standard. Private company keeps making money.
Meanwhile general public gets screwed over. Hundreds of thousands of transactions delayed or compromised because of inept handling.

The Land Registry have a very important job to do. It should be honest, reliable and impartial. It should not be run by a private company anymore than our court system should be privatised. There are some things that the government should always keep control of.
The whole reason you pay stamp duty is for the government to recognise your claim to the land. If you're paying a private company to process your claim instead, the tax is unjustifiable.

Generali

ukcarper wrote: »

I thought one of the main arguments for privatisation was competing forces price down but won't the Land Registry be a monopoly so face no compition.

The Government can regulate prices downwards, as with utilities when they were privatised as monopolies.

ukcarper

Generali wrote: »

The Government can regulate prices downwards, as with utilities when they were privatised as monopolies.

Is that free market capitalism don't see point of privatisation of Land Reg other than short term game.