Topic: | Re:Re:Ealing Councillor's Loan | |
Posted by: | Alan Fairclough | |
Date/Time: | 26/03/15 10:57:00 |
From what I've been told the Bell's did not buy the property they acquired back in 2007 but were gifted it by elderly relatives. They may have also taken on a mortgage debt at the time. Ignoring for now the uncomfortable fact that a well connected local politician has at some time in the past managed to secure tenancy of a large family house on a subsidised rent which are as rare as hen's teeth in the borough it is possible to feel a degree of sympathy for Mr Bell's current predicament. It might seem like a dream come true to be given a house but it is a mixed blessing for a Labour Councillor. If he gave up his social housing tenancy to live in the property he would have lost the revenue he gained from renting it out. In addition if the person who gifted it to him died within seven years of making the gift then he probably would have been hit with a substantial inheritance tax bill. Also, he seems to have taken on financial responsibility for the care costs of an elderly relative - presumably this is because although the property has been gifted, the local authority still treat it as an asset of the original owner when it comes to calculating care costs. These may be continuing to accumulate. Obviously to be completely above reproach he should have handed back the keys to the housing association property and moved into the home that was gifted to him. However, it is possible to have some sympathy with his decision not to - as well as losing the rent and risking a big inheritance tax bill he has a job which he can't assume he will keep for the long term. I'm sure some ambitious rival in the local Labour party is watching this scandal carefully with a view to making a move to take over as Council Leader (and get the salary that goes with the job).In this scenario Julian Bell could effectively lose hundreds of thousands of pounds and end up with substantially higher housing costs and a mortgage he doesn't have the income to pay. Most people in his position would have done the same thing as he did and kept the social housing. |