Land Registry Privatisation.

buglawton

I doubt that the sold prices public data can go backwards, but the more granular info and stats could be flogged of course. If there are 4,500 civil servants running in then maybe it should be: 1 big computer, 100 computer staff, 2000 admin/security/legal people. There needs to be more transparency anyway on what our civil servants are actually doing.

jamei305

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays wrote: »

Trains are better now - and if you don't believe me/are too young look at the rocketing passenger numbers. BR was a joke.

BR was deliberately run down prior to privatization. There have been a lot of job cuts at the Land Registry recently, they have now have a 3+ month backlog for simple title registrations. This even has an effect on the housing market as sold prices aren't published until months after the fact. Obviously if it's privatized this gives the new owners plenty of scope to "outperform" the old publicly run institution. :undecided

marksoton

I don't think a complex infrastructure like the railways can be compared to something like the LR.

Not sure i'd want the LR privatised though. Having said that the biggest information and revenue raises are DVLA in my opinion...

Thrugelmir

Jamesjames wrote: »

Is this ever going to be a good thing? Would it benefit buyers or sellers in any way? Your thoughts please.

[/URL]

Would it be of benefit to taxpayers? I doubt buyers or sellers would notice any particular change given that they have little direct contact.

gazter

jamei305 wrote: »

BR was deliberately run down prior to privatization. There have been a lot of job cuts at the Land Registry recently, they have now have a 3+ month backlog for simple title registrations. This even has an effect on the housing market as sold prices aren't published until months after the fact. Obviously if it's privatized this gives the new owners plenty of scope to "outperform" the old publicly run institution. :undecided

It must have been deliberately run down for fifty years then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisation_of_British_Rail#/media/File:GBR_rail_passengers_by_year_1830-2015.png

Thrugelmir

csgohan4 wrote: »

Look at the trains, it costs more to take a train than to drive which is silly, since one of the reasons was the environmental impact

What's the true cost of motoring (including parking)?

bobobski

This was proposed a couple of years ago, went through consultation and then was scrapped. Personally I don't care either way who owns it as long as the system is good. As a property lawyer I deal with the Land Registry every day and it's great; according to the previous consultation, it's also very profitable. The main concern is that information will no longer be freely available. Obviously a great investment for the right buyer, as they'd get access to so much information, but we need to hope they continue to allow the public to access that information too.

Query why the idea is being proposed again when it was scrapped before, though. As a government department of sorts, it's actually very small. Profitable, but small. So I'm sure it's valuable for what it is, but selling it isn't going to solve the country's debt crisis...

Thrugelmir

bobobski wrote: »

Profitable, but small.

And the ongoing pension provision for past and current employees?

bobobski

Thrugelmir wrote: »

And the ongoing pension provision for past and current employees?

I don't recall that being in the previous consultation but I haven't read it recently. It's still up on the government's website if you wanted to take a look. But I would assume profitable means profitable, not "well we would be profitable if we didn't have all these liabilities...".

marksoton

bobobski wrote: »

This was proposed a couple of years ago, went through consultation and then was scrapped. Personally I don't care either way who owns it as long as the system is good. As a property lawyer I deal with the Land Registry every day and it's great; according to the previous consultation, it's also very profitable. The main concern is that information will no longer be freely available. Obviously a great investment for the right buyer, as they'd get access to so much information, but we need to hope they continue to allow the public to access that information too.

Query why the idea is being proposed again when it was scrapped before, though. As a government department of sorts, it's actually very small. Profitable, but small. So I'm sure it's valuable for what it is, but selling it isn't going to solve the country's debt crisis...

There i'd suggest is the problem. They will. But at a cost.