A correspondent explains why he won’t be voting Conservative on Thursday

Unless your readers live in a new house on an estate they will have little understanding of what happens today.

I moved onto a new estate which had a grassed open area. I was aware that there was some infrastructure to prevent flooding beneath it and knew that I would have to pay a share of the upkeep. I did not fully understand was that it was a public open space which was available for anyone’s use, not just the residents on the estate.

Maintenance charges have rocketed whilst quality of service has been poor. Any talk of with holding service charge payments is referred promptly to debt recovery. The whole system is unregulated and frankly, stinks.

I have dug deep to try to understand how a simple purchase of a freehold house is suddenly caught up in a land charge where I am compelled to pay for maintenance of land owned by someone else.

The root cause of the problem seems to have started with the council. In this case EDDC. As part of the planning condition for the estate the developer had to provide a public open space and a SUDS system to prevent flooding. In all probability it was an attempt by the council to stick their fingers up at the developers and force them to provide facilities for public benefit at no cost to the local authority.

The next stage was to make the developers responsible for the maintenance of the new open spaces. They could either do that themselves or pay a lump sum to the council to maintain it for the next 25years. Clearly the developers were unable to afford that so they passed the maintenance charges on to the residents within the title deeds for each house.

That was very unpopular and most developers, wanting to distance themselves from the problem, gave the piece of public land to a land management company. It seems that none of those companies are regulated and can charge what they like. If you don’t pay their bill they could apparently seize your house. All quite outrageous.

There has been lots of bad press about these land management companies and the matter discussed in Whitehall although the housing minister has taken little interest.

In East Devon our Conservative council has decided to stick their nose in the trough and has decided to offer to take over the public open spaces at Cranbrook and offer to carry out the maintenance of the public open spaces and charge F band houses £370 per annum and H band houses £512 per annum. Both of those figures are in addition to the normal council tax which is supposed to cover supply and maintenance of public open spaces !!

So lets look at this…. EDDC created the problem by insisting that the developer provide the public open spaces which the council had no intention of maintaining. When it all starts to go wrong EDDC offer to take the responsibility over but only by penalising the residents who live on those estates.

To make it clear those public open spaces are available for use by anyone. So maintenance of those public open spaces should be maintained at public expense. The costs must be paid out of council tax revenue.

This mess has been created by EDDC who enjoy a massive Conservative majority. Any proposals are just nodded through without opposition.

I have always voted Conservative in the past but things have got out of hand. Things must change. The public has a chance to voice their opinion in the local elections on 2nd May.

I know I won’t be for any Conservative Councillor and no, it’s got nothing to to with Brexit….”

Wondering why new houses are so badly built? Here’s a clue

“Cornwall councillors are set to be asked to support a call on the government to give back responsibility for building control to local councils in a bid to improve the quality of homes being built by developers.

Under the current system, developers can choose their own approved regulator to undertake building control and checks.

But Threemilestone Liberal Democrat councillor Dulcie Tudor said she was leading a bid to have this returned to local councils amid fears the current system was open to abuse because “any company or person… can choose who regulates them”.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-devon-48036375

3 days to local elections – today’s pictures

Today our theme is developers, affordable housing and housing in general.

Did you know that EDDC has overperformed on the housing delivery test set by the government by 50%?

The government set East Devon a target of 1,762 homes to be built in 2018 whereas the number actually built was 2,632 – more than 900 extra, very, very few of which were “affordable” (see pictures below about that!).

Source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/779711/HDT_2018_measurement.xlsx

Persimmon is making £73,000 per HOUSE profit, Taylor Woodrow £68,000 per HOUSE. Help to Buy is adding £33,000 to the price of new houses for first time buyers.

EDDC has been developer-led for YEARS because Conservative housing policies were designed by them and most major housebuilders are donors to the Conservative Party.

How to stop this? Vote Independent. Break the chain.

all this talk of a lack of affordable housing is exaggerated, i know, i’ve got six!

Affordable Housing Estate Agents – ‘It’s affordable if you’re rich…’

Designated area of outstanding natural profitability.

“Well one step down from our ‘Luxury Executive Mansion’ is our ‘crap terrace with outside loo’.”

New Planning Body in beauty spot – ‘Nice spot for our HQ…’

“Land Registry statistics say house prices in East Devon increased by 18.4 per cent in the two-and-a-half-years since the Brexit referendum”

EAST DEVON’S DEVELOPERS REAP THEIR STRATOSPHERIC REWARDS – DOUBLE REGIONAL AND NATIONAL FIGURES

“The growth of house prices since the Brexit referendum has bucked the national and regional trend, statistics show.

In the two-and-a-half years before the UK voted to leave the EU, the average house price went up by 9.1 per cent from £251,778 to £303,162, Land Registry figures show.

In the same time period after the vote, prices went up by 18.4 per cent.

This is in contrast the regional and national picture.

House prices in the South West increased by 17.7 per cent in the two-and-a-half years before the referendum but only grew by 7.7 per cent in the same period after the vote.

This downward trend is matched nationally, where property prices prior to the referendum grew by 19.6 per cent and in the 30 months after, growth fell to 6.1 per cent. …”

https://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/post-brexit-house-price-growth-1-6004876

“Housebuilder Persimmon faces new investor revolt over ‘highly excessive’ pay”

“Housebuilder Persimmon is braced for a fresh revolt over its controversial bonuses after shareholder advisers urged investors to vote against the company’s ‘highly excessive’ pay.

Advisory group PIRC has instructed investors to oppose the pay report for a second year running at the annual meeting early next month.

Last year, the FTSE 100 company narrowly escaped defeat over its bonus scheme for top bosses, but still suffered a major rebellion.

The scheme included a bonus worth more than £100million for former boss Jeff Fairburn that was trimmed to around £75million after a public backlash. The bonus pot was boosted by the taxpayer-funded Help to Buy scheme.

Persimmon, led by new chairman Roger Devlin, has attempted to draw a line under the scandal by trimming the overall payouts, ousting Fairburn, ensuring that all staff are paid more than the living wage, and making steps towards improving the quality of its homes.

Two other advisory firms Glass Lewis and ISS have both backed changes made by Devlin.

A Persimmon spokesman said the company understood ‘the need for pay restraint and spent 2018 working to ensure Persimmon’s future remuneration is clearly aligned with best practice’.”

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-6943125/Housebuilder-Persimmon-faces-new-investor-revolt-controversial-bonuses.html

McCarthy and Stone poor results: closing operations in south-west – whither PegasusLife now?

“A slowdown in secondary housing transaction volumes eroded operating margins for McCarthy & Stone (MCS) during the first-half, as the retirement home providers used discounts and incentives – including part-exchange – to boost sales.

Management hopes to make more than £90m in cash savings between 2019 and 2021 by scaling back sales and marketing teams, standardising build designs and closing operations in the south-west of England.”

https://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/shares/2019/04/10/mccarthy-stone-hindered-by-property-slowdown/

AND

“Half-year profits at McCarthy & Stone tumbled by two-thirds as it ploughed more cash into a turnaround to cope with a slowdown in the housing market.

The retirement housebuilder handed consultants £4.5m for advice relating to its strategy shake-up, which included closing offices in Scotland and the south-west of England and making almost 200 of its 2,500 staff redundant at a cost of £3.5m.

Those and other one-off costs left McCarthy & Stone with pre-tax profits of £3.6m for the six months to February, down from £10.5m the previous year.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/04/10/redundancies-restructuring-hit-mccarthy-stone-profits/

Read this before buying a new home (particularly from Taylor Wimpey )

Owl says: surely developers building shoddy or dangerously constructed new homes should be banned from tendering for new schemes and banned from using government subsidies from Help to Buy schemes to sell homes already constructed forever?

“It took seven families two years, but a group of homeowners in Scotland has taken on a housing giant in order to have their “crumbling” new-build homes repaired. It’s part of a broader, UK-wide issue – this is their story.

Sheila Chalmers moved to Peebles with her husband 10 years ago. Her three-bed home was one of 250 built by developer Taylor Wimpey on a new site in the Scottish borders.

For eight years, life went on as normal. Then something strange started to happen. Overnight, families at the top end of the estate started to vanish. But there were no for sale signs and no-one new was moving in. “It became almost a ghost street,” she says. “Houses were empty. People were disappearing.”

Sheila later heard that the properties had been bought back by Taylor Wimpey after problems were discovered. The owners had signed non-disclosure agreements so they could not speak out.

Taylor Wimpey confirmed it did buy back a “small number of homes” to start with. It later sent a letter to all the remaining residents, saying that some houses did have a problem with the mortar holding together their bricks.

Sheila thought she did not have anything to worry about, but she went outside and checked anyway. Patches of mortar were clearly eroding, she says, and in other places it could be scraped out with a fingernail.
She paid for assessments by two different structural engineers, who both said the house needed extensive repair work, though Taylor Wimpey said its own inspections found that was not the case.

Mortar is made up of two key materials: cement and sand. The more cement in the mix, the stronger the mortar, though the more brittle it can be.
The family paid to have their laboratory tests on the mortar carried out by a specialist firm.

The results suggested that there was far more sand in the mix than you would expect for a home in that area, although Taylor Wimpey says the type of chemical test used was “not appropriate” and the results could not be relied upon.

Our investigation in 2018 found similar complaints about weak mortar across at least 13 estates in the UK all built by different companies.

Three doors down from Sheila, live Pete and Jill Hall with their 13-year-old son. Like Sheila, they first learned about the problem two years ago when Taylor Wimpey were buying back the individual houses. They paid for their own tests, which showed only one in eight samples taken from their home met industry guidelines, although again Taylor Wimpey says the test used was “not appropriate”.

“On the garage the tests came back showing it was just sand,” said Pete.
A video filmed by the family after a rainstorm clearly shows the mortar on the back wall falling out when a screwdriver was run gently along it.

Handmade signs

In the end, seven core households became involved – passing on details to a wider community group on the estate. The families worked together to build their case, paying for their own structural surveys and using Freedom of Information laws to demand internal documents from the local council.
They made handmade signs and protested outside the showroom of another Taylor Wimpey estate in the area.

In 2017, they presented their findings to Taylor Wimpey’s lawyers, saying that they would go public if their properties were not fixed, demolished or bought back. They were surprised at the response.

The families’ solicitors received a letter back saying they had decided not to report the group to the authorities under the Proceeds of Crime legislation. “It was accusing us of bribery, effectively,” said Pete. “It took me about 10 minutes to stop laughing. But it was intimidation, a threat.”

By then, Pete and Jill had hired their own engineers to examine the house. They recommended that the couple should stop using the garage because it was at risk of collapse, although Taylor Wimpey denies that there was a structural problem.

The couple bought a giant shipping container, covered it with warning stickers and left it on their front lawn.

That, they say, got Taylor Wimpey’s attention and – two years down the line – an agreement has now been reached for their home to be fixed. “It falls short of where we think a full repair should be, but they have said it’s that or nothing – so we have accepted it,” Jill says.

‘Someone has to stand up’

In December 2018, Taylor Wimpey sent out letters saying all 130 houses in the estate built with the weaker mortar would now be offered “remediation” work.

Properties are being dealt with one at a time. Construction crews are scraping out the old mortar and replacing it with a stronger material.

Taylor Wimpey said it “sincerely apologises” to the all the homeowners affected, is “fully committed to resolving matters” and has “a clear plan in place to remediate affected homes”. “This is a localised issue and falls short of the high-quality standards we uphold,” it said.

The firm has now apologised to Sheila and, even though its own inspections found a full repair is not needed, said work to replace the mortar in her home will start this summer. It will refund the £16,000 she has spent on legal costs and technical reports, most of which she had to borrow.
Repair work on Pete and Jill’s property, which may involve the demolition of the garage, is due to start in mid-July.

Both families say the fight has been time-consuming, stressful and put them off ever buying a new-build home again. “These developers, these companies, cannot be allowed to continue the destruction of people’s lives with building shoddy homes,” said Sheila. “Somebody has to stand up and show them that they cannot get away with it.”

What went wrong?

Maps drawn up by Taylor Wimpey show about half of the 250 homes were built with far weaker mortar than recommended under industry standards

A memo sent to all developers in the UK by the National House Building Council (NHBC) in 2013 warned about this problem

The local council in Peebles says the mortar used was not the type in the original building warrant and was changed later without its knowledge

Taylor Wimpey says the material was “of sufficient strength to meet structural requirements” as “supported by an independent review” by the local council, but accepts it may be “less durable under prevailing exposure conditions”

It says it has now offered to repoint “any home which was constructed with the same mortar, regardless of whether our inspection found this was necessary or not”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47816530

“Growing complaints about new-build houses”

” … Research from the organisation, which represents the interests of homeowners to the house building industry, suggest that only two-thirds of new homeowners are happy with the way their builder resolved any defects with their home.

And even the developers themselves acknowledge the problem.

The Home Builders Federation own satisfaction surveys show a rise in the number of customers reporting snags – from 93% in 2015 to 99% in 2018.
That data comes just weeks after the government said they were considering removing Persimmon from the Help To Buy scheme after increasing concerns over the quality of its building work.

‘Major failings’

And there is rising alarm from consumers and experts about the severity of these so-called snags.

Timothy Waitt has become a specialist on construction cases at Anthony Gold solicitors. “I’m not talking about dodgy kitchen units – I’m talking about major structural failings that affect health and safety.”

Mr Waitt is getting enquiries on a near-daily basis on these kinds problems and is fearful a skills shortage in construction means that is just the tip of the iceberg.

“I do not think we’re talking about deliberate decisions to miss out on key expensive structural elements,” he explains.

“This is about carelessness. I think that is arising is that people are making mistakes, potentially because they do not realise the significance of what they are doing, due to a lack of training, a lack of experience and a lack of supervision.” …

A Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government spokesperson says the government wants to see more good quality homes: “We know more needs to be done to protect consumers, and our New Homes Ombudsman will protect the rights of homebuyers and hold developers to account.”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47826166

“East Devon house prices are around £70k more than five years ago”

“The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that the average property in the area sold for £303,162 – significantly higher than the UK average of £228,147.

Across the South West, property prices have risen by 0.5 per cent in the last year, to £253,926. The region underperformed compared to the UK as a whole, which saw the average property value increase by 1.7 per cent.

The data comes from the House Price Index, which the ONS compiles using house sale information from the Land Registry, and the equivalent bodies in Scotland and Northern Ireland. …”

https://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/east-devon-house-prices-1-5970301

EDDC: Consultation on affordable housing (but not social housing)

Owl wonders if this is appropriate during the run-up to local elections in May – a time when only non-controversial and non-political issues should be brought up.

But, more importantly, surely there are two words missing from the document?
Shouldn’t it be “SOCIAL AND Affordable Housing Policy?

“The draft Affordable Housing SPD and accompanying documents are being published for consultation, available through the links below:

Draft Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document

Click to access affordable-housing-spd_approved-at-spc-26319.pdf

Draft Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document – Screening report for Strategic Environmental Assessment and Habitats Regulations

Click to access ah-spd_screening-assessments_sea-hra.pdf

Draft Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document – Equalities Impact Assessment

Click to access affordable-housing-spd_eqia.pdf

If you would like to comment on the draft Affordable Housing supplementary planning document and/or the accompanying documents (Environmental and Habitats screening reports, Equalities Impact Assessment), please email us at planningpolicy@eastdevon.gov.uk or post comments to Planning Policy, East Devon District Council, Blackdown House, Border Road, Heathpark Industrial Estate, Honiton, EX14 1EJ.

The consultation period runs from Thursday 28 March until Friday 10 May 2019 (at 5pm).

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/planning/planning-policy/housing-issues/affordable-housing/

“The Mass Sell-Off Of Public Land Is Driving The Housing Crisis”

“A major new investigation by the Bureau Local and HuffPost UK revealed austerity’s dirty little secret: massive funding cuts have been, in part, offset by a mass sell-off of public land. But what’s not being examined is who is buying that land, and what they are building on it. If used appropriately, surplus public land could be an important first step towards solving the housing crisis, but the present fire sale is, if anything, making it worse.

The Bureau’s research uncovered 12,000 public spaces sold into private ownership since 2014/15, ranging from grand metropolitan libraries to small patches of scrub land. Guy Shrubsole and Anna Powell Smith, in mapping landownership in England, discovered that £100million worth of the land sold-off by councils between 2017 and 2018 went to offshore companies. Earlier this year, Brett Christophers revealed that 10% of the UK’s land has transferred from public to private hands since 1979. In 2016, our own work at NEF revealed an alarming spread of sales from central government departments in recent years. The government itself claims to have sold 25% of the ‘core’ property holdings government departments since 2010.

Why are we offloading land at all? Ostensibly it’s to meet the government’s target: 160,000 new homes on previously public land by 2020. But the murky reality is that local authorities, like other public bodies, are selling land to fill the vast funding gaps driven by austerity. And it’s because of this fact that selling public land won’t generate the affordable homes that we desperately need to solve the housing crisis.

Local government funding has been cut in half between 2010/11 and 2017/18, so when government policy dictates selling surplus land, it’s no wonder that councils are using their land assets to plug the holes in their budgets. Birmingham City Council has used £53million from asset sales to balance its books, more than any other local authority in England, with as much as £26million of that revenue used to fund redundancies (also a result of austerity) at the council.

As NEF have shown, a key driver of the housing crisis is the price of land. When the incentive in selling public land is to raise cash to keep vital services afloat, councils inevitably sell to the highest bidder, as quickly as possible. While local authorities are technically allowed to sell at slightly less than the highest value (although many don’t out of financial necessity), central government departments are actually prohibited from selling land at lower than the ‘best consideration reasonably obtainable’. Developers cannot both build affordable housing and make a profit, because the price of land is prohibitively high. Expensive land leads to expensive houses. In this upside-down system, the price paid for land ultimately dictates what gets built when it should be the other way round.

This theory is laid bare in the planning documents that sit behind the sites. In our research on the central government sell off, we’ve come across countless examples of developers securing planning permission with promises of affordable housing, only to wriggle out of their commitments a few months later by claiming they can’t afford to.

Take Runwell Hospital in Wickford. Chelmsford City Council’s affordable housing plan requires that 35% of homes on new developments are affordable. Yet the site’s initial planning permission required only 20% affordable housing provision. Even so, the developer later submitted an application to reduce this further to just 10% on the grounds of affordability – just 61 of 575 homes.

Our research in 2017 revealed that:

Only one is five of the new homes to be built on sold-off public land is likely to be classed as ‘affordable’ (which, at 80% of market rates, is still largely unaffordable to those who need it most).

As little as 6% of new homes are likely to be social housing, and in some cases developments comprise solely of luxury properties.

New homes on formerly public land are dramatically behind schedule. At the current rate, the government’s target of building 160,000 homes will take until 2032 to achieve, 12 years later than promised.

Releasing land into the private market is not delivering the quantity or quality of affordable homes we need. As more land is sold, there is less opportunity to reverse these trends.

The sell-off of public land for hole-plugging cash receipts is not only economically short-sighted and unsustainable, it’s also driving the housing crisis. There is a clear tension between disposing of land to plug funding gaps and developing high-quality, genuinely and permanently affordable housing and other infrastructure. This year we are continuing to get to grips with the effect of the public land sale on the housing crisis. First up is a close look at NHS sites sold in the last year, then in the coming months we will be bringing together central government and local authority land sales to get a truly national picture of the sell-off. Only then can we build a picture of an alternative to the fire sale of public land, that results in the supply of genuinely affordable homes.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/housing-crisis-public-land_uk_5c811055e4b0a135b5199d5d

East Devon’s shoddy new housing: EDDC acts too late and too little

“Concerns about poor standards of house-building by big developers in East Devon have been raised by councillors in a strongly-worded letter to the Government.

East Devon District Council has written asking housing minister Kit Malthouse to fulfil the Government’s pledge, announced in February 2018, to introduce a simpler system for making complaints against shoddy builders.

The proposal to write the letter was unanimously supported by councillors during a meeting on Wednesday, February 27, when the problems facing many East Devon residents were discussed.

In February 2018 the Government said it would introduce ‘as a priority’ a new property ombudsman to streamline complaints against shoddy builders.

But the Liberal Democrat councillor for Axminster Town, Douglas Hull, told the full council meeting the situation with new house-building in the district seemed to be getting worse, with many people buying new homes which turned out to be of a second-rate standard.

He proposed that ‘we call on the Government to fulfil its pledge to provide this much-needed remedy for homeowners, as a matter of the highest priority’.

The motion was seconded by fellow Liberal Democrat Eleanor Rylance, representing Broadclyst. She said tenants of new-build properties were suffering from sub-standard housing, and were worried about complaining to their landlords for fear of losing their tenancy. She added that, even when complaints were made, issues remained unresolved.

The letter to the housing minister, signed by the council’s chief executive Mark Williams, says: “I think there is now a general view that quality of construction come a very poor second to the pursuit of profit by volume housebuilders. We have know for some time about the failures, both locally and nationally, of the NHBC (National House Building Council) and the House Builders Federation to ensure that all new homes are consistently built to a standard that people buying them can have full confidence in.”

Mr Williams’s letter quotes the motion agreed by the council, and asks Mr Malthouse to ‘let me know what the Government’s intentions are in terms of introducing the promised ombudsman for hard-pressed new home owners’.

A spokesperson for East Devon District Council said there has not yet been a response to the letter.

https://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/housing-minister-urged-to-act-on-poor-house-builders-1-5953911

Persimmon retention deal – is it a good deal?

“I know that Persimmon has today, for example, announced the fact that they are going to be the first major housebuilder to bring in a retention idea, so some money will be retained by the buyer’s solicitors to deal with issues if there is anything that comes forward in the future. We’re putting enormous pressure on the housing industry to generally improve standards, particularly with regard to fire safety, and we’ll be reviewing building regulations later in the year to make sure that we get it right.”
Kit Malthouse, Housing Minister
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-devon-47573969

NO, NO, NO says Owl!! It’s a fixed percentage of the purchase price!

IT WILL SIMPLY BE BUILT IN TO THE PURCHASE PRICE!

Government committee talks about leasehold problems but no action yet

“The UK’s leasehold system has left a number of householders in unsellable and unmortgageable homes and changes are needed, a committee of MPs says.

Often leaseholders in new-build properties are treated as a source of profit, the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee (HCLG) says.

It says the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) should investigate mis-selling claims.

The CMA should also make suggestions regarding compensation, they say.

Leasehold house owners are often charged expensive ground rent as well as fees if they want to make changes to their homes. A leasehold house can also be difficult to sell.

Developers say that in all transactions, builders aim to provide prospective purchasers, their solicitors and their mortgage lenders with all relevant information.

But the HCLG committee said stories from leaseholders showed failings in the process.

Elements of the current system, which the committee highlighted as needing attention, include claims of onerous ground rents, high and unclear service charges and one-off bills, unfair permission charges, imbalanced dispute mechanisms, inadequate advisory services, and unreasonable costs to extend leases.

It wants to see a standardised key features document provided by a developer or estate agent at the start of the sales process.

‘Landlord and tenant’

The committee said: “It is clear that many of the leaseholders we heard from were not aware of the differences between freehold and leasehold at the point of purchase, in particular the additional costs and obligations that come with a leasehold property.”

Someone who owns a property outright, including the land it is built on, is a freeholder.

With a leasehold, the person owns a lease which gives them the right to use the property. But they still have to get their landlord’s permission for any work or changes to their homes.

When a leasehold flat or house is first sold, a lease is granted for a fixed period of time, typically between 99 and 125 years, but sometimes up to 999 years – although people may extend their lease or buy the freehold.

The HCLG report said people with leasehold properties are in a “landlord and tenant” relationship with their freeholder.

It said ground rents have in some cases increased to a level which leaves properties unsellable and un-mortgageable.

Government figures suggest there were 4.2 million leasehold properties in England in 2015-16.”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47618086

Want to know which tax haven companies own property in your town?

“IN September 2015 Private Eye created an easily searchable online map (see below) of properties in England and Wales owned by offshore companies. It reveals for the first time the extent of the British property interests of companies based in tax havens from Panama to Luxembourg, and from Liechtenstein to the South Pacific island of Niue. Most are held in this way for tax avoidance and often to conceal dubious wealth.
Using Land Registry data released under Freedom of Information laws, and then linking around 100,000 land title register entries to specific addresses, the Eye has mapped all leasehold and freehold interests acquired by offshore companies between 2005 and 2014.

Using this data the Eye published a series of exposes of the companies, arms dealers, oligarchs, money launderers and others who use offshore companies. Now Private Eye, using the same data, is also publishing a database of all properties acquired by offshore companies from 1999 to 2014, showing the address, the offshore corporate owners (some have more than one) and, where available, the price paid.

To download the 1999-2014 database,follow instructions on the website

Download the FREE Tax Haven Special Report follow instructions on the website.

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/tax-havens

No anti-corruption move on property ownership since promised in 2016

“More than £100bn of property in England and Wales is secretly owned, new analysis suggests. More than 87,000 properties are owned by anonymous companies registered in tax havens, research by the transparency group Global Witness reveals.

The analysis reveals that 40% of the properties are in London. Cadogan Square in Knightsbridge, where the average property costs £3m, hosts at least 134 secretly owned properties. Buckingham Palace Road is also home to a large number, with a combined estimated value of £350m.

The revelation comes as parliament’s joint select committee on the draft registration of overseas entities bill meets on Monday to hear evidence on the impact of property ownership by anonymous companies.

The government committed to introduce a register of UK property owners at its anti-corruption summit in 2016, but since then progress has been slow.

“It’s increasingly clear that UK property is one of the favourite tools of the criminal and corrupt for stashing and laundering stolen cash,” said Ava Lee, senior anti-corruption campaigner at Global Witness.

“This analysis reveals the alarming scale of the UK’s secret property scandal.”

The combined value of the properties was at least £56bn, according to historical Land Registry data at the time of their acquisition. Once inflation is factored in this would exceed £100bn.

Some 10,000 of the properties are in Westminster, while almost 6,000 are in Kensington and Chelsea. Camden is home to more than 2,300 of the anonymously owned properties while almost 2,000 are in Tower Hamlets.

Global Witness says its investigations have shown how criminals and corrupt politicians use the UK property market to hide or clean dirty cash, and to secure safe havens for themselves and their families.

In 2015 it revealed how the mystery owner of a £147m London property empire owned via a network of offshore companies could be linked to a former Kazakh secret police chief accused of murder, torture and money-laundering.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/17/100-billion-of-uk-propert-secretly-owned-anonymous-firms-tax-havens

“Right to Buy homes re-sold since 2000 made £6.4bn in profit” (many sold within 6 weeks)

Proof that the destruction of social housing is a Conservative policy.

“A former council tenant bought their home under Right to Buy for £8,000 and sold it on for £285,000 nine days later – a £277,000 profit, the BBC found.

The Solihull buyer was among 140 in Great Britain who bought and resold within one month, making a £3m collective profit.

Opponents of the scheme said too many people had profited from a policy that had “much bigger social ambitions”.

Supporters said Right to Buy helped people secure their financial future.
The Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH) said it was “shocking to see the extent of the profit margin in black and white”.

It called for the scheme to be suspended in England. In January it was halted in Wales, as it was in Scotland in 2016.

Housing commentator Henry Pryor said: “Far too many… simply profited from a scheme that had much bigger social ambitions”. …”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47443183