HC Deb 05 February 1991 vol 185 cc104-8W
Mr. Favell

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the results of the most recent survey of right-to-buy performance in London; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Yeo

The most recent survey of London's right-to-buy performance was carried out in September last year. The tables show that boroughs had failed to issue 4,356 notices (RTB2 and section 125) within the statutory time limits. This compares with a figure of 13,280 for September 1989.

In addition to this exercise for the whole of London, the Department has been receiving monthly reports from 12 boroughs which have been regularly monitored because their performance has, in the past, been exceptionally poor. Delays in notices in these boroughs have fallen by more than 75 per cent. since March 1989, but two boroughs, Lambeth and Hackney, now account for nearly two thirds of the 3,712 cases outstanding. Indeed, these two boroughs account for well over one half of all cases outstanding in London.

During the course of the September survey my Department also collected information on the working of the tenants' sanction measures introduced in March 1989, which allow tenants to have rent counted as advance payment towards the purchase of their home if sale is delayed. The reports of the use of sanctions show that 15 boroughs received no notices of delay, but that the sanctions are being used extensively in boroughs where the number of outstanding cases is high. In September 1990, 202 notices were served, including 104 in Lambeth. There were 626 outstanding notices at the end of that month, 393 of which were in Hackney.

I am pleased to see that fewer tenants are now experiencing unjustified delays when they apply to buy their homes. Because of the significant improvements in most monitored boroughs I have decided that monthly monitoring should provisionally cease for Brent, Camden, Haringey, Hounslow, Islington, Lewisham, Newham, Richmond, Southwark and Tower Hamlets. Monitoring will continue for Lambeth and Hackney and I shall also continue to look closely at the effect of tenants' sanctions on the performance of these boroughs.

Right to buy monitoring
Table A—RTB2 and section 125 defaults (total)
March 1989 September 1989 March 1990 September 1990
Monitored boroughs
Brent 1,929 1,263 464 172
Camden 2,616 674 352 192
Hackney 2,370 2,043 1,064 708
Haringey 254 128 133 40
Hounslow 933 909 419 92
Islington 501 293 244 167
Lambeth 2,067 2,984 3,124 1,739
Lewisham 1,293 526 173 106
Newham 1,425 720 3249 146
Richmond n/a 35 35 49
Southwark 2,069 1,462 564 295
Tower Hamlets 0 0 84 6
TOTAL 15,457 11,037 6,905 3,712
Non-monitored boroughs
City 5 1
Barking 11 7
Barnet 13 9
Bexley2 20 6
Bromley 10 4
Croydon 0 1
Ealing1 391 31
Enfield 52 49
Greenwich 187 163
Hammersmith and Fulham1 474 91
Harrow 0 31
Havering 0 0
Hillingdon1 359 98
Kensington and Chelsea 83 12
Kingston 19 11
Merton n/a 0
Redbridge2 n/a n/a
Sutton 141 19
Waltham Forest1 429 86
Wandsworth 4 0
Westminster 45 25
TOTAL 2,243 644
GRAND TOTAL 13,280 4,356
Notes:
(i) RTB2s are notices confirming or denying the tenants' Right to Buy. Section 125s are notices providing the price at which the property can be purchased.
(ii) "Default" means that the local authority has failed in its statutory duty to provide the relevant notice within the statutory period allowed.
(iii) Data for monitored boroughs has been collected on monthly basis since March 1989. For the purposes of this table, only data for March and September months has been shown. Data for non-monitored boroughs is collected each September.
1 Ealing, Hammersmith, Hillingdon, Waltham Forest were temporarily monitored from February 1990 to April 1990.
2 Bexley and Redbridge sell properties under the General Consent rather than the Right to Buy legislation.
3 Estimate.

The scope of monitoring will be reviewed in September when the Department will again collect statistics for all London boroughs. I shall be looking carefully to see whether recent improvements in performance are being sustained, and I will if necessary consider re-introducing monthly monitoring for boroughs whose performance slips.

In the meantime, I urge Lambeth and Hackney to take the measures that are urgently needed to improve their deplorable performance on right to buy, to safeguard the rights of their tenants and to avoid the costs that they will increasingly incur under tenant sanction provisions.

Table B—RTB6 notices received and outstanding for September 1990
IN O/S
Monitored Borough
Brent 1 0
Camden 8 39
Hackney 20 202
Haringey 3 7
Hounslow 0 25
Islington 15 22
Lambeth 65 n/a
Lewisham 13 87
Newham 3 3
Richmond 1 0
Southwark 14 10
Tower Hamlets 2 0
Totals 145 395
Non-Monitored Boroughs
City 0 0
Barking 0 0
Barnet 0 0
Bexley 0 0
Bromley 0 0
Croydon 0 0
Enfield 0 0
Ealing 2 0
Greenwich 9 0
Hammersmith and Fulham 3 0
Harrow 0 0
Havering 0 0
Hillingdon 0 0
Kensington and Chelsea 0 0
Kingston 2 0
Merton 0 0
Redbridge n/a n/a
Sutton 3 0
Waltham Forest 0 0
Wandsworth 0 0
Westminster 0 0
Total 19 0
Grand Total 169 395

Notes:

(i) This table shows the number of RTB6 notices received (IN) during the month and of those outstanding (O/S) at the end of each month.

Table C—RTB8 notices received and outstanding for September 1990
IN O/S
Monitored boroughs
Brent 0 0
Camden 1 5
Hackney 9 191
Haringey 1 0
Hounslow 0 7
Islington 1 3
Lambeth 39 n.a.
Lewisham 0 20
Newham 1 2
Richmond 0 0
Southwark 5 3
Tower Hamlets 0 0
Totals 57 231
Non-monitored boroughs
City 0 0
Barking 0 0
Barnet 0 0
Bexley 0 0
Bromley 0 0
Croydon 0 0
Enfield 0 0

IN O/S
Ealing 2 2
Greenwich 1 1
Hammersmith and Fulham 0 0
Harrow 0 0
Havering 0 0
Hillingdon 0 0
Kensington and Chelsea 0 0
Kingston 0 0
Merton 0 0
Redbridge n.a. n.a.
Sutton 0 0
Waltham Forest 0 0
Wandsworth 0 0
Westminster 0 0
Total 3 3
Grand total 62 236

n.a. Not available.

Note:

(i) This table shows the number of RTB8 notices received (IN) during the month and of those outstanding (0/S) at the end of each month.