Local authority bids to recover budget deficit
Lambeth sells 10 homes for £1.68m
Lambeth Council attempted to sell more of its social housing stock than any other local authority last month, as it claws back an overspend on last year’s annual budget.
Figures from EIG, which collates data from all auctions across the country, revealed Lambeth made 14 properties available for auction in October, selling 10 homes for £1.68 million. Camden Council raised more money than any other local authority, selling the eight properties that it made available at auction for £2.7 million.
Both authorities said the properties were auctioned to help raise funds to meet the decent homes standards.
Lib Peck, cabinet member for housing and regeneration at Lambeth, said it was the council’s policy to sell off one and two-bedroom flats that were ‘prohibitively expensive’ to repair.
Ms Peck explained: ‘These sales help to fund the refurbishment of empty properties - for every one property sold, we can repair and bring back into use three homes that have lain empty - for the benefit of those in housing need.’
In January this year Lambeth was branded ‘reckless’ by a committee of three councillors who investigated a £6 million overspend in its annual homelessness accommodation budget of £11 million.
Abigail Davies, head of policy at the Chartered Institute of Housing, said: ‘Councils are trying to recoup money either because it is not easy to upgrade the properties being sold or the local authorities in question need to raise the revenue to improve other properties in their stock.’
A spokesperson for London Councils said local authorities were in the business of providing the best quality affordable homes so selling off stock was always a ‘last resort’.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (13)
Harry Lime | 13/11/2009 9:45 am
It doesn't say in this article if the "empty properties" that they're refurbishing are owned by Lambeth Council, if not, the selling of council stock to refurb "other" people's properties, regardless of any nomination rights they may obtain, seems perverse. If the refurbed units are owned by Lambeth it seems even worse!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 13/11/2009 11:40 am
Unless right to buy (and sell) is banned this is what happens. Social landlords will use any excuse to sell stock to cover up for their maladiministration and inefficiency in others sectors for which individuals should be prosecuted. And there is very little anyone can do to stop it.
Anyone who maintains this can be controlled, is either living in dreamland or has some personal speculative interest in it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Peter | 13/11/2009 11:47 am
This is not a new policy and it has been going on for many years in Lambeth. The process begins when a property becomes void. An assessment is made on the cost of repair and if the costs exceeds the set limit i.e £10K than the property it will recommended for disposal (through an auction).
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 13/11/2009 12:00 pm
Peter | Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:47 GMT
You quoted 10k as an example or as the actual figure?... Because it seems to me a very good price to pay to keep a property, compared to buying or building a new one.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
panjandrum | 13/11/2009 1:02 pm
Lambeth had almost 1000 empty units less than a year ago, consisting of about 600 long-cycle voids and 400 shortlife units. Lonf cycle voids arose because Lambeth didn't place any orders for void works for ove 6 months due to an 'administrative error'! The Housing Revenue accopunt was at least £11M overspent due to their inefficiency and incompetence.
They are evicting all shortlife occupants and rehousing only those people who they have a statutory duty to rehouse. These properties then stand empty until they decide what to do with them. They invited RSL's to submit proposals to acquire shortlife units, with vacant possession, and several RSL's submitted proposals. None were accepted because they didn't come close to market value. RSL's could only buy the properties at considerable discount due to the amount of work needed to bring the properties up to decent homes standard. Lambeth's incompetence means that its stock of unlet social housing is being sold to private developers at knock-down prices at auction (Lambeth had to withdraw properties from auction 6 months ago because they didn't reach the reserve prices)
Scandalous!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 13/11/2009 2:10 pm
panjandrum | Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:02 GMT
exactly.... To only way to stop these kind of things is abolition of the RTB.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 13/11/2009 2:23 pm
The Lambeth councillor says every propety sold pays for 3 to be refurbished (ignore whether its councils property at this stage).
Lambeth sells 10 properties for £1.68m or £168,000 each. So £168k pays fro 3 properties to be refurbished - at a cost of £56k each!!!! Some bloofy refurbishment that!
Then we are told above that if refurbishment cost of void exceeds £10k they are put on disposal (ie sale) list. So that doesnt square at all as the £56k allocated to refurbishment would be to refurbish a property on the disposal list.
Confused.....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
panjandrum | 13/11/2009 2:29 pm
Kass - this has nothing to do with RTB - this is a council selling-off empty council housing to the highest bidder
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
panjandrum | 13/11/2009 3:53 pm
Joe - theoretically lambeth are only disposing of 1 & 2 bedroom properties that require about £10K of work (they have a formula for doing this) and are retaining larger family units. Most of these properties, especially the shortlife, are ina very dilapidated state and £56K per unit is small beer for these units - £56K doesn't get a lot of building work these days.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 13/11/2009 4:29 pm
panjandrum | Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:29 GMT
yes, you right... I should have said maybe social landlords should not be allowed to sell stock.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment