TWENTY-six properties linked to the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA) have been sold without any evidence of open marketing, the State’s public spending watchdog has said.
The Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) examined the disposal of a sample of 144 properties with gross proceeds of about €1.3bn and found 118 had been openly marketed.

The C&AG’s report into NAMA’s progress, released last week, said the explanation for 15 of the 26 cases was reasonable and included contractual issues in place before NAMA took over the loans linked to the properties.

But in a separate case a property was sold in Ireland for €27m but no evidence was provided to show how the buyer was selected, the C&AG report said.

Extensive marketing had taken place over a six-week period and a winning bidder was selected from a shortlist.

But the sale failed to go through, and another party, which didn’t make it on to the shortlist, bought the property at the same price five months after the end of the marketing campaign.

“No evidence was provided to show how the purchaser was selected,” the C&AG report said.

“Nor was there any evidence of the asset being returned to the market after the failed initial competition.”

The report said NAMA stated the buyer had previously expressed an interest in acquiring NAMA-controlled assets.

The State’s toxic loans agency also told the C&AG that it would have to accept a lower price if it returned to the other bidders and that it achieved the best possible price for the taxpayer by selling it the way it did.

There was also no evidence of open marketing in another four cases, with a combined sale value of €500,000, and the C&AG said the files provided no explanation for this.

The report stated that NAMA was satisfied the properties were openly marketed because fees had been paid to selling agents. The sales of six other properties not openly marketed were to state bodies in Ireland and the UK.

However, the C&AG concluded almost all properties in the sample had been sold through an open competitive process, which provided “reasonable assurance” that the prices obtained were the best on offer.