Transfer notes

The first National Audit Office report attracted headlines for suggesting that it would be cheaper for stock to be refurbished by councils. The report says more attention should be paid to "post-transfer events". Perhaps the new landlords are securing windfall gains? Are they refinancing too easily?

We can leave the Public Accounts Committee and those with an anti-transfer axe to grind to make what they will of the "council is cheaper" argument.

Instead, let's focus on the likelihood of closer scrutiny of use of assets post-transfer and the temptation to impose further restrictions on the transferees.

There is a danger of forgetting that the new landlord is a registered social landlord, legally incapable of distributing profits. I know how difficult it is to impose or accept restrictions on gains and to anticipate benefits not reflected in the price paid. By all means, let's refine these techniques but let's resist a new layer of restrictions. After transfer, the "on your own" risk lies with the new landlord and I am sure there will be no appetite to share future losses as well as profits.

Experience suggests that councils will not rise uncritically to the NAO's bait. I think we should leave the report in the hands of the politicians, not the professionals.