It was so expensive that the policy was abandoned after only two years.In his report Mr Magill states: "I have calculated that the loss or deficiency suffered by local taxpayers as a result of the extended designated sales scheme is over pounds 31.6m."When he issued his initial finding in January 1994, the provisional loss was estimated at pounds 21.25m.Mr Magill calculated that from MArch 1988 to March last year,the council incurred losses of pounds 15.5m by selling designated homes at a discount.The sales were at less than full market value and Mr Magill notes that "purchasers who were not existing council tenants or who were tenants not entitles to exercise the right to buy received a discount of 30 per cent".Between 1988 and 1990, Westminster paid out pounds 2.4m in capital grants, effectively a grant to individuals to sweeten their decision to move out of their council home and to encourage them to go and buy non-council homes elsewhere.The report says: "This released a dwelling for sale under the designated sales scheme or for reletting."Keeping vacated properties empty was also a very costly exercise. .As chief executive, Mr Phillips was the link between the officials and her chairmen's group. On 13 May 1987, Dame Shirley was re-elected leader of the Tories and leader of the council Mr Weeks was re-elected deputy A month later, she held a "strategy weekend". Several papers were discussed, all of which were prepared under the supervision of Mr Phillips.Mr Magill writes: "These papers made plain the intention to target council policies, including an increased programme of designated sales, in marginal wards with a view to 'increasing our support' by specified numbers of voters in those wards.". "The loss to the council," according to the report, "represents the cost of keeping properties empty, often for long periods pending sale, with consequent loss of rent and rate income." The bulk of the cost was felt in the discounts given to buyers under the so-called designated sales scheme.Housing subsidy from central government was lost, rent after sales were lost, the cost of pounds 15,000 grants paid partly to persuade tenants in designated blocks to move out to enable their homes to be sold was also incurred.There was also the cost of professional staff employed to run the sales teams that sold off the property in key wards for less than their market value; all these aspects have been included in the accountancy of Mr Magill.The high cost of running the "homes-for-votes" scheme was known to Westminster council. Mr Magill, then the firm's head of risk management, mounted a ferocious challenge and succeeded in having it overturned in 1990.. The pounds 31m bill that will be fought over in the courts is the sum John Magill has calculated has been lost by Westminster City Council in the operating of its illegal designated sales policy.

Initially, the courts held that accountants acting for a company that was subsequently taken over owed a duty of care to the purchaser, throwing the time-honoured principle of caveat emptor (buyer beware) out of the window.The shock-waves felt by Touche Ross, which acted for the company taken over by Caparo, and the rest of the profession, were enormous. In 1987, a year into his appointment as Westminster's district auditor - he was originally asked to look into the council's selling of cemeteries at knockdown prices - he was made the firm's national director of accounting and auditing.Apart from Westminster, his other huge case - and one that does much to explain the high esteem in which he is held by his fellow accountants - was successfully fighting the landmark "Caparo" ruling all the way to the House of Lords. His whole working life, according to Local Government Chronicle magazine, which profiles him next week, has been devoted to Touche Ross, the giant accountancy firm. He had a spell in its Chicago office in the early 70s and was made a partner in 1975.He is highly respected within the firm, and the profession at large, having been at various stages, Touche Ross's head of standards and audit. His very refusal to betray any emotion, to remain entirely composed when confronted by the councillors and officials at the centre of his inquiry and their battery of lawyers, merely served to infuriate Dame Shirley and her allies even further.Aged 52, married with two children, he lives in Wimbledon, south-west London.

That, they say, was an untypically high-profile act and one, again unusually, that left him open to accusations of bias and disregard for the principles of natural justice.Those on the other side, the objectors to the policies of Dame Shirley Porter and her colleagues, are more flattering, paying tribute to his professional diligence and competence. It is perhaps just as well that John Magill chose to be an accountant because with his looks, love of detail and naturally cautious demeanour he could not really be anything else. July 1989: BBC's Panorama accuses council of seeking to manipulate electorate. July 1989: Formal objection lodged with district auditor by 13 Westminster residents.December 1989 and May 1990: Submissions from council in response.June 1990: Auditor begins to study papers.December 1990: Auditor conducts the first of 135 interviews.April 1991: Dame Shirley ends eight-year reign as leader.December 1992: Auditor reviews evidence and decides on need for further interviews.February 1993: Lady Porter resigns as councillor.April 1993: Search of council offices reveals new documents.January 1994: Auditor's provisional report published.October 1994: Public hearings begin into findings.February 1995: Hearings end.May 1996: Final report.. He is everything an archetypal accountant should be: bespectacled, soberly dressed, mild-mannered, solid, intensely discreet and private. In fact, say those who know Mr Magill, the most daring thing he has ever done was to call a press conference to explain his interim findings on Westminster.