Job fears at Land Registry office

Dorset Echo: WORRIED ABOUT PRIVATISATION: Weymouth Land Registry WORRIED ABOUT PRIVATISATION: Weymouth Land Registry

STAFF at Weymouth Land Registry are fearing for their jobs after plans were announced to move the service towards privatisation.

Andy Woodgate, chairman of the local branch of the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS), said the 200 staff who work at the Granby Industrial Estate site have had their lives ‘put on hold’.

A consultation process has begun to discuss options on how the 150-year-old service should be run, including turning it into a government company (GovCo).

Mr Woodgate said: “There is always a risk of office closures and job cuts in a situation like this.

“The staff will not be certain of their long-term future while there is this huge question mark over whether they will remain as civil servants.”

He added that the Land Registry is also subject to discussions over possible restructuring of the service.

“There are two parts to this. The ownership of the organisation and the proposals put forward for becoming a GovCo or moving towards privatisation are clearly unsettling and a cause for concern about how the organisation operates as a public body.

“In addition the future structure of the organisation is in question at the moment and an announcement on that has been delayed while this consultation takes place.”

He added: “Staff are unsettled and jittery about their long-term future in Weymouth.”

One worker who did not want to be named, said: “The atmosphere is terrible. People are genuinely worried about the future. It is a close-knit community at the Land Registry and it is an important part of the Weymouth economy.

“We all know times are tough but this could have devastating consequences.”

The proposals were unveiled by Business Minister Michael Fallon to create a new company, still subject to government oversight, which would be responsible for delivering the services.

The Land Registry is responsible for keeping and maintaining details of the ownership of land and property in England and Wales.

Mr Fallon said: “Land Registry continues to be a cornerstone of property ownership and undertakes a range of functions and responsibilities, which are critical to the property market.

“Giving Land Registry more flexibility to operate in the modern world will enable them to become a leader in digitising land and property services and support economic growth in the wider economy.

“We welcome views from all interested stakeholders to help us shape the future of land registration services.”

Chief Land Registrar and Chief Executive of Land Registry Ed Lester said the proposals have been designed to make the service more efficient and take it into the digital age.

He added: “Our business strategy is ambitious but achievable as we aim to improve land registration services and play a wider role in the property market.“The strategy was created around customer needs, the changing face of the property market and our ambition to become a leader in digital land registration services.

“By focusing on our customer needs, we will continue to improve our service delivery and make the process of dealing in land and property more efficient.”

The consultation will run for eight weeks and closes on March 20.

Comments (21)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:50am Sat 25 Jan 14

PHonnor says...

Losing 200 skilled jobs would be a hammer blow to the local economy, why is privatization the only way to bring the service into the digital age? We have all read recently about new houses being built but with the lack of jobs in the area then what's the point, who's going to be able to buy them?
Losing 200 skilled jobs would be a hammer blow to the local economy, why is privatization the only way to bring the service into the digital age? We have all read recently about new houses being built but with the lack of jobs in the area then what's the point, who's going to be able to buy them? PHonnor

10:05am Sat 25 Jan 14

rjimmer says...

They've had a good run. There were hundreds of applicants for every job that they advertised.
They've had a good run. There were hundreds of applicants for every job that they advertised. rjimmer

11:25am Sat 25 Jan 14

Rocksalt says...

PHonnor wrote:
Losing 200 skilled jobs would be a hammer blow to the local economy, why is privatization the only way to bring the service into the digital age? We have all read recently about new houses being built but with the lack of jobs in the area then what's the point, who's going to be able to buy them?
One suspects that the civil service's woeful record in terms of designing and /or commissioning IT services might play I part. For the record, I don't have a downer on the civil service: it is brilliant at many things, but IT delivery isn't one of them.

That said, I suspect that the government ( and a Labour one would be no different) will also have an eye on staff costs. National pay scales mean that salary costs are high compared to their private sector equivalents.
[quote][p][bold]PHonnor[/bold] wrote: Losing 200 skilled jobs would be a hammer blow to the local economy, why is privatization the only way to bring the service into the digital age? We have all read recently about new houses being built but with the lack of jobs in the area then what's the point, who's going to be able to buy them?[/p][/quote]One suspects that the civil service's woeful record in terms of designing and /or commissioning IT services might play I part. For the record, I don't have a downer on the civil service: it is brilliant at many things, but IT delivery isn't one of them. That said, I suspect that the government ( and a Labour one would be no different) will also have an eye on staff costs. National pay scales mean that salary costs are high compared to their private sector equivalents. Rocksalt

12:44pm Sat 25 Jan 14

Weyhassled says...

rjimmer says...

They've had a good run. There were hundreds of applicants for every job that they advertised.

which jobs were those then, the Land Registry hasn't taken on any new staff for many years?
rjimmer says... They've had a good run. There were hundreds of applicants for every job that they advertised. which jobs were those then, the Land Registry hasn't taken on any new staff for many years? Weyhassled

12:48pm Sat 25 Jan 14

Weyhassled says...

Rocksalt says...

PHonnor wrote:
Losing 200 skilled jobs would be a hammer blow to the local economy, why is privatization the only way to bring the service into the digital age? We have all read recently about new houses being built but with the lack of jobs in the area then what's the point, who's going to be able to buy them?
One suspects that the civil service's woeful record in terms of designing and /or commissioning IT services might play I part. For the record, I don't have a downer on the civil service: it is brilliant at many things, but IT delivery isn't one of them.

That said, I suspect that the government ( and a Labour one would be no different) will also have an eye on staff costs. National pay scales mean that salary costs are high compared to their private sector equivalents.

You might like to know that the Land Registry is a self funding Agency which added approx £28 million to the coffers of the treasury last year. But hey next time you are trying to sort out your re-mortgage or house move and need LR staff to resolve an issue in respect of your property don't worry a private company may have access to all the important information about your most treasured possession!!!
Rocksalt says... PHonnor wrote: Losing 200 skilled jobs would be a hammer blow to the local economy, why is privatization the only way to bring the service into the digital age? We have all read recently about new houses being built but with the lack of jobs in the area then what's the point, who's going to be able to buy them? One suspects that the civil service's woeful record in terms of designing and /or commissioning IT services might play I part. For the record, I don't have a downer on the civil service: it is brilliant at many things, but IT delivery isn't one of them. That said, I suspect that the government ( and a Labour one would be no different) will also have an eye on staff costs. National pay scales mean that salary costs are high compared to their private sector equivalents. You might like to know that the Land Registry is a self funding Agency which added approx £28 million to the coffers of the treasury last year. But hey next time you are trying to sort out your re-mortgage or house move and need LR staff to resolve an issue in respect of your property don't worry a private company may have access to all the important information about your most treasured possession!!! Weyhassled

2:54pm Sat 25 Jan 14

eylesdf says...

The Land Registry online system is good. Anyone can use it, and for small fees you can search for registered properties all over the country and request plans and registration details. That side of their IT systems are 'up to scratch'. I helped a friend last year research information about some unregistered land he owned, and we then proceeded to register it. All for fairly small fees. Possibly they should increase those fees, which is what a private company would do anyway. With information being available on-line and through telephone advice there is less need for all of the regional offices. A sign of the times.
The Land Registry online system is good. Anyone can use it, and for small fees you can search for registered properties all over the country and request plans and registration details. That side of their IT systems are 'up to scratch'. I helped a friend last year research information about some unregistered land he owned, and we then proceeded to register it. All for fairly small fees. Possibly they should increase those fees, which is what a private company would do anyway. With information being available on-line and through telephone advice there is less need for all of the regional offices. A sign of the times. eylesdf

4:00pm Sat 25 Jan 14

Be_Happy says...

I know 2 people who work there, both nice people, but also creaming a good wage for little work, and they both admit it! For years they have joked with us about how hard us in the private sector work compared with them. They both have also told me about workers there that milk the lax sick pay system.
Whilst I am concerned about my friends there, I also say its about time that something was done about the land registry.
I know 2 people who work there, both nice people, but also creaming a good wage for little work, and they both admit it! For years they have joked with us about how hard us in the private sector work compared with them. They both have also told me about workers there that milk the lax sick pay system. Whilst I am concerned about my friends there, I also say its about time that something was done about the land registry. Be_Happy

4:26pm Sat 25 Jan 14

Rocksalt says...

Weyhassled wrote:
Rocksalt says...

PHonnor wrote:
Losing 200 skilled jobs would be a hammer blow to the local economy, why is privatization the only way to bring the service into the digital age? We have all read recently about new houses being built but with the lack of jobs in the area then what's the point, who's going to be able to buy them?
One suspects that the civil service's woeful record in terms of designing and /or commissioning IT services might play I part. For the record, I don't have a downer on the civil service: it is brilliant at many things, but IT delivery isn't one of them.

That said, I suspect that the government ( and a Labour one would be no different) will also have an eye on staff costs. National pay scales mean that salary costs are high compared to their private sector equivalents.

You might like to know that the Land Registry is a self funding Agency which added approx £28 million to the coffers of the treasury last year. But hey next time you are trying to sort out your re-mortgage or house move and need LR staff to resolve an issue in respect of your property don't worry a private company may have access to all the important information about your most treasured possession!!!
I don't see the relevance of your remarks in the context of my own
I made two points. Firstly that the government has a poor record in terms of IT projects. Secondly, that government's of any political hue will doubtless look to exploit any potential for staff savings.

Whether or not the Land Registry is self-funding is irrelevant and arguably meaningless. All of the civil courts, probate and tribunals are theoretically self-financing. In practice this means they simply keep putting up their fees to cover the costs. Is the Land Registry any different ?

In any event, I I suspect that any self-financing covers ongoing running costs, not the investment now being considered.

Out of curiosity, what personal information would a privately run registry have access to that solicitors, banks, building societies don't already see? Last time I looked these were private companies with a few exceptions.
[quote][p][bold]Weyhassled[/bold] wrote: Rocksalt says... PHonnor wrote: Losing 200 skilled jobs would be a hammer blow to the local economy, why is privatization the only way to bring the service into the digital age? We have all read recently about new houses being built but with the lack of jobs in the area then what's the point, who's going to be able to buy them? One suspects that the civil service's woeful record in terms of designing and /or commissioning IT services might play I part. For the record, I don't have a downer on the civil service: it is brilliant at many things, but IT delivery isn't one of them. That said, I suspect that the government ( and a Labour one would be no different) will also have an eye on staff costs. National pay scales mean that salary costs are high compared to their private sector equivalents. You might like to know that the Land Registry is a self funding Agency which added approx £28 million to the coffers of the treasury last year. But hey next time you are trying to sort out your re-mortgage or house move and need LR staff to resolve an issue in respect of your property don't worry a private company may have access to all the important information about your most treasured possession!!![/p][/quote]I don't see the relevance of your remarks in the context of my own I made two points. Firstly that the government has a poor record in terms of IT projects. Secondly, that government's of any political hue will doubtless look to exploit any potential for staff savings. Whether or not the Land Registry is self-funding is irrelevant and arguably meaningless. All of the civil courts, probate and tribunals are theoretically self-financing. In practice this means they simply keep putting up their fees to cover the costs. Is the Land Registry any different ? In any event, I I suspect that any self-financing covers ongoing running costs, not the investment now being considered. Out of curiosity, what personal information would a privately run registry have access to that solicitors, banks, building societies don't already see? Last time I looked these were private companies with a few exceptions. Rocksalt

4:30pm Sat 25 Jan 14

Tinker2 says...

Be_Happy wrote:
I know 2 people who work there, both nice people, but also creaming a good wage for little work, and they both admit it! For years they have joked with us about how hard us in the private sector work compared with them. They both have also told me about workers there that milk the lax sick pay system. Whilst I am concerned about my friends there, I also say its about time that something was done about the land registry.
There is certainly a whole raft of differences between business as conducted by the civil service and the private sector. Observers (and ecomomists) know that the civil service are not known for their work ethic, afficiency and performance. Doubtless the land registry would benefit from a reduction of the labour force at the same time as improving IT based working, to improve cost effective practice. Currently, however, the Land Registry perform a very valuable service and in addition to paying a dividend of £28m to the Treasury, they produce a modest surplus of funds. You could say that, even in their current format, they are paying their way, so I wonder if the move to privatise is just about the governent raising one off funds in sale proceeds?
[quote][p][bold]Be_Happy[/bold] wrote: I know 2 people who work there, both nice people, but also creaming a good wage for little work, and they both admit it! For years they have joked with us about how hard us in the private sector work compared with them. They both have also told me about workers there that milk the lax sick pay system. Whilst I am concerned about my friends there, I also say its about time that something was done about the land registry.[/p][/quote]There is certainly a whole raft of differences between business as conducted by the civil service and the private sector. Observers (and ecomomists) know that the civil service are not known for their work ethic, afficiency and performance. Doubtless the land registry would benefit from a reduction of the labour force at the same time as improving IT based working, to improve cost effective practice. Currently, however, the Land Registry perform a very valuable service and in addition to paying a dividend of £28m to the Treasury, they produce a modest surplus of funds. You could say that, even in their current format, they are paying their way, so I wonder if the move to privatise is just about the governent raising one off funds in sale proceeds? Tinker2

5:25pm Sat 25 Jan 14

mazandkaz says...

Be_Happy wrote:
I know 2 people who work there, both nice people, but also creaming a good wage for little work, and they both admit it! For years they have joked with us about how hard us in the private sector work compared with them. They both have also told me about workers there that milk the lax sick pay system.
Whilst I am concerned about my friends there, I also say its about time that something was done about the land registry.
As an ex employee of the land registry I would like to explain to "Be Happy" that the people he knows who work there cannot be representative of land registry staff. In my experience they all work very hard to achieve targets, cope with constant change and at the moment they are in the unenviable position of possibly losing their jobs. Morale there is at an all time low. I sympathise with the staff at the moment - they are between a rock and a hard place.
[quote][p][bold]Be_Happy[/bold] wrote: I know 2 people who work there, both nice people, but also creaming a good wage for little work, and they both admit it! For years they have joked with us about how hard us in the private sector work compared with them. They both have also told me about workers there that milk the lax sick pay system. Whilst I am concerned about my friends there, I also say its about time that something was done about the land registry.[/p][/quote]As an ex employee of the land registry I would like to explain to "Be Happy" that the people he knows who work there cannot be representative of land registry staff. In my experience they all work very hard to achieve targets, cope with constant change and at the moment they are in the unenviable position of possibly losing their jobs. Morale there is at an all time low. I sympathise with the staff at the moment - they are between a rock and a hard place. mazandkaz

7:41pm Sat 25 Jan 14

Weyhassled says...

Be_Happy wrote:
I know 2 people who work there, both nice people, but also creaming a good wage for little work, and they both admit it! For years they have joked with us about how hard us in the private sector work compared with them. They both have also told me about workers there that milk the lax sick pay system.
Whilst I am concerned about my friends there, I also say its about time that something was done about the land registry.
This so called lax system now means four separate days off sick in 12 months and you can be on a written warning, any more and you could be out the door, yeah really soft isn't it!
[quote][p][bold]Be_Happy[/bold] wrote: I know 2 people who work there, both nice people, but also creaming a good wage for little work, and they both admit it! For years they have joked with us about how hard us in the private sector work compared with them. They both have also told me about workers there that milk the lax sick pay system. Whilst I am concerned about my friends there, I also say its about time that something was done about the land registry.[/p][/quote]This so called lax system now means four separate days off sick in 12 months and you can be on a written warning, any more and you could be out the door, yeah really soft isn't it! Weyhassled

7:50pm Sat 25 Jan 14

Weyhassled says...

Rocksalt wrote:
Weyhassled wrote:
Rocksalt says...

PHonnor wrote:
Losing 200 skilled jobs would be a hammer blow to the local economy, why is privatization the only way to bring the service into the digital age? We have all read recently about new houses being built but with the lack of jobs in the area then what's the point, who's going to be able to buy them?
One suspects that the civil service's woeful record in terms of designing and /or commissioning IT services might play I part. For the record, I don't have a downer on the civil service: it is brilliant at many things, but IT delivery isn't one of them.

That said, I suspect that the government ( and a Labour one would be no different) will also have an eye on staff costs. National pay scales mean that salary costs are high compared to their private sector equivalents.

You might like to know that the Land Registry is a self funding Agency which added approx £28 million to the coffers of the treasury last year. But hey next time you are trying to sort out your re-mortgage or house move and need LR staff to resolve an issue in respect of your property don't worry a private company may have access to all the important information about your most treasured possession!!!
I don't see the relevance of your remarks in the context of my own
I made two points. Firstly that the government has a poor record in terms of IT projects. Secondly, that government's of any political hue will doubtless look to exploit any potential for staff savings.

Whether or not the Land Registry is self-funding is irrelevant and arguably meaningless. All of the civil courts, probate and tribunals are theoretically self-financing. In practice this means they simply keep putting up their fees to cover the costs. Is the Land Registry any different ?

In any event, I I suspect that any self-financing covers ongoing running costs, not the investment now being considered.

Out of curiosity, what personal information would a privately run registry have access to that solicitors, banks, building societies don't already see? Last time I looked these were private companies with a few exceptions.
Ok I take your point, but the point I would make is Civil servants sign the official secrets act and we have access to a lot more data that conveyancers, building societies etc, also we have a very important role to play in preventing fraud. In regard to our IT that is not a significant issue.

Perhaps you would like to look at at latest annual report on the land registry website www.landregistry.gov
.uk and see how efficient we were last year, so much so that fees are going to be reduced. I'm not sure what the implications are if a private company gets involved in regard to fees but we have seen what has happened in respect of energy suppliers etc so I'm not overly enthused about the idea!
[quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Weyhassled[/bold] wrote: Rocksalt says... PHonnor wrote: Losing 200 skilled jobs would be a hammer blow to the local economy, why is privatization the only way to bring the service into the digital age? We have all read recently about new houses being built but with the lack of jobs in the area then what's the point, who's going to be able to buy them? One suspects that the civil service's woeful record in terms of designing and /or commissioning IT services might play I part. For the record, I don't have a downer on the civil service: it is brilliant at many things, but IT delivery isn't one of them. That said, I suspect that the government ( and a Labour one would be no different) will also have an eye on staff costs. National pay scales mean that salary costs are high compared to their private sector equivalents. You might like to know that the Land Registry is a self funding Agency which added approx £28 million to the coffers of the treasury last year. But hey next time you are trying to sort out your re-mortgage or house move and need LR staff to resolve an issue in respect of your property don't worry a private company may have access to all the important information about your most treasured possession!!![/p][/quote]I don't see the relevance of your remarks in the context of my own I made two points. Firstly that the government has a poor record in terms of IT projects. Secondly, that government's of any political hue will doubtless look to exploit any potential for staff savings. Whether or not the Land Registry is self-funding is irrelevant and arguably meaningless. All of the civil courts, probate and tribunals are theoretically self-financing. In practice this means they simply keep putting up their fees to cover the costs. Is the Land Registry any different ? In any event, I I suspect that any self-financing covers ongoing running costs, not the investment now being considered. Out of curiosity, what personal information would a privately run registry have access to that solicitors, banks, building societies don't already see? Last time I looked these were private companies with a few exceptions.[/p][/quote]Ok I take your point, but the point I would make is Civil servants sign the official secrets act and we have access to a lot more data that conveyancers, building societies etc, also we have a very important role to play in preventing fraud. In regard to our IT that is not a significant issue. Perhaps you would like to look at at latest annual report on the land registry website www.landregistry.gov .uk and see how efficient we were last year, so much so that fees are going to be reduced. I'm not sure what the implications are if a private company gets involved in regard to fees but we have seen what has happened in respect of energy suppliers etc so I'm not overly enthused about the idea! Weyhassled

10:41pm Sat 25 Jan 14

Bert Fry says...

Very simple thought but if you have a business that not only provides a valuable service but also makes a profit, why on earth would you want to get rid of if and let someone else take that profit?
Very simple thought but if you have a business that not only provides a valuable service but also makes a profit, why on earth would you want to get rid of if and let someone else take that profit? Bert Fry

12:08am Sun 26 Jan 14

EtaoinShrdlu says...

I wonder how many gallons of tea they swill each day? But it is inevitable the work will be outsourced for a tenth of the cost. And in 10 years nearly everyone in UK will be on a benefit and all the work will be done in China, India, Albania. It's happening now.
I wonder how many gallons of tea they swill each day? But it is inevitable the work will be outsourced for a tenth of the cost. And in 10 years nearly everyone in UK will be on a benefit and all the work will be done in China, India, Albania. It's happening now. EtaoinShrdlu

9:54pm Sun 26 Jan 14

rjimmer says...

Weyhassled wrote:
rjimmer says...

They've had a good run. There were hundreds of applicants for every job that they advertised.

which jobs were those then, the Land Registry hasn't taken on any new staff for many years?
'WERE' being the clue!
[quote][p][bold]Weyhassled[/bold] wrote: rjimmer says... They've had a good run. There were hundreds of applicants for every job that they advertised. which jobs were those then, the Land Registry hasn't taken on any new staff for many years?[/p][/quote]'WERE' being the clue! rjimmer

9:03am Mon 27 Jan 14

smilealoft44 says...

Bert Fry wrote:
Very simple thought but if you have a business that not only provides a valuable service but also makes a profit, why on earth would you want to get rid of if and let someone else take that profit?
Its time normal people took an interest in whats going on in this country very soon there will be nothing for you or others just low paid jobs and no hope for the years to come.
[quote][p][bold]Bert Fry[/bold] wrote: Very simple thought but if you have a business that not only provides a valuable service but also makes a profit, why on earth would you want to get rid of if and let someone else take that profit?[/p][/quote]Its time normal people took an interest in whats going on in this country very soon there will be nothing for you or others just low paid jobs and no hope for the years to come. smilealoft44

2:24pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Lanedor says...

Civil Servants and Local Government employees always get it easy compared with how private industry works - bring them all into the real world - it won't be before time.
Civil Servants and Local Government employees always get it easy compared with how private industry works - bring them all into the real world - it won't be before time. Lanedor

9:12pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Consul216 says...

How surprising to see the usual raft of bigoted and uniformed comments from people I presume work in the private sector.

Anyone with half a brain who has bothered to look at Land Registry's annual accounts will see they posted a healthy profit and paid a substantial dividend to the Treasury. And before people start saying they pay Land Registry staff's wages, they would again be showing their complete ignorance since they are a Trading Fund and finance themselves so make no call upon taxpayers money. So they take nothing from the taxpayer put pay a substantial amount into the public coffers; I'd say that's excellent value!

The Land Registry has high customer satisfaction ratings (if you can be bothered reading their annual report) and are respected by solicitors and conveyances alike.

The even-handed comments from people I presume are Land Registry staff shows that their customers confidence in them is well-founded and that the registration of land could not be in safer hands. If anything the Land Registry is a flagship government agency and could teach other departments and the private sector a thing or two.

Is it no time that we recognized the vital work public sector workers do on our behalf. They have been vilified for too long by some private sector workers who consider themselves so worthy. Keep the Land Registry in the public sector I say. And before you post a comment disparaging them at least have the decency to know something of what they do otherwise your wisecrack remarks merely show you up as a fool.
How surprising to see the usual raft of bigoted and uniformed comments from people I presume work in the private sector. Anyone with half a brain who has bothered to look at Land Registry's annual accounts will see they posted a healthy profit and paid a substantial dividend to the Treasury. And before people start saying they pay Land Registry staff's wages, they would again be showing their complete ignorance since they are a Trading Fund and finance themselves so make no call upon taxpayers money. So they take nothing from the taxpayer put pay a substantial amount into the public coffers; I'd say that's excellent value! The Land Registry has high customer satisfaction ratings (if you can be bothered reading their annual report) and are respected by solicitors and conveyances alike. The even-handed comments from people I presume are Land Registry staff shows that their customers confidence in them is well-founded and that the registration of land could not be in safer hands. If anything the Land Registry is a flagship government agency and could teach other departments and the private sector a thing or two. Is it no time that we recognized the vital work public sector workers do on our behalf. They have been vilified for too long by some private sector workers who consider themselves so worthy. Keep the Land Registry in the public sector I say. And before you post a comment disparaging them at least have the decency to know something of what they do otherwise your wisecrack remarks merely show you up as a fool. Consul216

10:07pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Consul216 says...

Be_Happy wrote:
I know 2 people who work there, both nice people, but also creaming a good wage for little work, and they both admit it! For years they have joked with us about how hard us in the private sector work compared with them. They both have also told me about workers there that milk the lax sick pay system.
Whilst I am concerned about my friends there, I also say its about time that something was done about the land registry.
On the basis of your two friends you see fit to condemn an entire agency. That says much more about you than your comment says of the Land Registry. Are you really so ignorant that you think your friends anecdotal behaviour typifies all the staff?
[quote][p][bold]Be_Happy[/bold] wrote: I know 2 people who work there, both nice people, but also creaming a good wage for little work, and they both admit it! For years they have joked with us about how hard us in the private sector work compared with them. They both have also told me about workers there that milk the lax sick pay system. Whilst I am concerned about my friends there, I also say its about time that something was done about the land registry.[/p][/quote]On the basis of your two friends you see fit to condemn an entire agency. That says much more about you than your comment says of the Land Registry. Are you really so ignorant that you think your friends anecdotal behaviour typifies all the staff? Consul216

10:10pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Consul216 says...

Be_Happy wrote:
I know 2 people who work there, both nice people, but also creaming a good wage for little work, and they both admit it! For years they have joked with us about how hard us in the private sector work compared with them. They both have also told me about workers there that milk the lax sick pay system.
Whilst I am concerned about my friends there, I also say its about time that something was done about the land registry.
And I suppose your friends behaviour warrants condemning the entire agency????
[quote][p][bold]Be_Happy[/bold] wrote: I know 2 people who work there, both nice people, but also creaming a good wage for little work, and they both admit it! For years they have joked with us about how hard us in the private sector work compared with them. They both have also told me about workers there that milk the lax sick pay system. Whilst I am concerned about my friends there, I also say its about time that something was done about the land registry.[/p][/quote]And I suppose your friends behaviour warrants condemning the entire agency???? Consul216

10:23pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Consul216 says...

Rocksalt wrote:
Weyhassled wrote:
Rocksalt says...

PHonnor wrote:
Losing 200 skilled jobs would be a hammer blow to the local economy, why is privatization the only way to bring the service into the digital age? We have all read recently about new houses being built but with the lack of jobs in the area then what's the point, who's going to be able to buy them?
One suspects that the civil service's woeful record in terms of designing and /or commissioning IT services might play I part. For the record, I don't have a downer on the civil service: it is brilliant at many things, but IT delivery isn't one of them.

That said, I suspect that the government ( and a Labour one would be no different) will also have an eye on staff costs. National pay scales mean that salary costs are high compared to their private sector equivalents.

You might like to know that the Land Registry is a self funding Agency which added approx £28 million to the coffers of the treasury last year. But hey next time you are trying to sort out your re-mortgage or house move and need LR staff to resolve an issue in respect of your property don't worry a private company may have access to all the important information about your most treasured possession!!!
I don't see the relevance of your remarks in the context of my own
I made two points. Firstly that the government has a poor record in terms of IT projects. Secondly, that government's of any political hue will doubtless look to exploit any potential for staff savings.

Whether or not the Land Registry is self-funding is irrelevant and arguably meaningless. All of the civil courts, probate and tribunals are theoretically self-financing. In practice this means they simply keep putting up their fees to cover the costs. Is the Land Registry any different ?

In any event, I I suspect that any self-financing covers ongoing running costs, not the investment now being considered.

Out of curiosity, what personal information would a privately run registry have access to that solicitors, banks, building societies don't already see? Last time I looked these were private companies with a few exceptions.
If you knew something about Land Registry you would be aware that as they make efficiency savings through precisely the IT investment you say is lacking they have reduced their fees. Perhaps in future you might attempt to know something about what you are commenting on before offering an opinion???
[quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Weyhassled[/bold] wrote: Rocksalt says... PHonnor wrote: Losing 200 skilled jobs would be a hammer blow to the local economy, why is privatization the only way to bring the service into the digital age? We have all read recently about new houses being built but with the lack of jobs in the area then what's the point, who's going to be able to buy them? One suspects that the civil service's woeful record in terms of designing and /or commissioning IT services might play I part. For the record, I don't have a downer on the civil service: it is brilliant at many things, but IT delivery isn't one of them. That said, I suspect that the government ( and a Labour one would be no different) will also have an eye on staff costs. National pay scales mean that salary costs are high compared to their private sector equivalents. You might like to know that the Land Registry is a self funding Agency which added approx £28 million to the coffers of the treasury last year. But hey next time you are trying to sort out your re-mortgage or house move and need LR staff to resolve an issue in respect of your property don't worry a private company may have access to all the important information about your most treasured possession!!![/p][/quote]I don't see the relevance of your remarks in the context of my own I made two points. Firstly that the government has a poor record in terms of IT projects. Secondly, that government's of any political hue will doubtless look to exploit any potential for staff savings. Whether or not the Land Registry is self-funding is irrelevant and arguably meaningless. All of the civil courts, probate and tribunals are theoretically self-financing. In practice this means they simply keep putting up their fees to cover the costs. Is the Land Registry any different ? In any event, I I suspect that any self-financing covers ongoing running costs, not the investment now being considered. Out of curiosity, what personal information would a privately run registry have access to that solicitors, banks, building societies don't already see? Last time I looked these were private companies with a few exceptions.[/p][/quote]If you knew something about Land Registry you would be aware that as they make efficiency savings through precisely the IT investment you say is lacking they have reduced their fees. Perhaps in future you might attempt to know something about what you are commenting on before offering an opinion??? Consul216

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree