According to the Audit of the City of Buenos Aires, during 2008 the Housing Institute of the City (IVC) had a portfolio of defaulter loans for $80,382,134 for the purchase of property. 92% of the total amount, approximately $73,951,563, corresponded to bad debts. He also noted that the agency had a "significant degree of defaulters" but had "not implemented a plan for the recovery of fees."
The report, approved this year on 2008 data, says the Institute "has a record that identifies the employees of the Government of the City" that have agreed to house plans through the body. Note that there is a program through which it can be deducted from the monthly salaries of outstanding assessments. Only after 2009, and through a "voluntary" registration, did the IVC generate a record of these cases.
However, on budgetary matters, the audit found that only 22.8% of the funds of the Institute "were intended for lending for housing." For the AGCBA, "the amounts applied to the operative loans have a high implicit cost product of the mega structure of the agency."
The IVC cannot objectively prioritize emergency degree candidate
The audit notes that there is a "possibility" that the Institute grants "discretionary grant loans" because there is "a procedure that objectively determines the degree of the family’s needs”.
100% of the approved loans that were examined by the AGCBA did not have the evidence that the recipient really "did not own any property," or has received any benefit of this type. In fact, "there was no documentation proving the situation of need, emergency housing or income", even though these are the minimum requirements that the rules of the loan program require.
Even in regard to the City Housing program, the report revealed that all the loans granted and not granted, lacked the documentation saying that the beneficiary of the grant "is not a property owner."
Finally, the City Watchdog added that there is "a significant lack of compliance with the requirements for beneficiaries"; there is "a high default rate, which is given not only for the plight of the sector that benefits, but also by the lack of sufficient proof of household income and poor credit management system", although the report adds that this situation "is being modified."