Town hall threat to seize empty homes: campaign to force owners to sell or rent out

[Beorn]

Town hall threat to seize empty homes: campaign to force owners to sell or rent out

Anyone who leaves their house empty for six months or more should face the threat of losing it, ministers said yesterday.
They told town halls to pressure home owners to sell up or rent out homes where no one is living.
Those who fail to get a house occupied before the deadline risk having it seized by their local authority and used to house council tenants.
The campaign to force home owners to dispose of empty houses was launched by housing minister Margaret Beckett, who said the slowdown in construction of homes means empty ones must be used.

It is most likely to affect recently bereaved families who could face seeing the home of a dead relative taken if they delay too long in deciding what to do with it.
During the recession many families are likely to hang on to empty property because they cannot sell or let it, or because they are hoping for higher prices.
Councils have been told to send threatening letters warning home owners of their powers to 'take over the running of the property and bring it back into use by force'.

Owners who fail to respond will then be sent questionnaires designed to establish whether the town hall has the legal right to seize their property.
Powers for councils to seize empty homes were pushed through by former Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott in 2004 and put into effect nearly three years ago.
But local authorities have been deeply reluctant to use Empty Dwelling Management Orders (EDMO) - so far only 20 properties have been taken from their owners' control.

Mrs Beckett said unoccupied buildings blight neighbourhoods and added: 'Councils must do all they can to bring empty homes in their area back into use. With house building slowing in the current economic climate, that is more important than ever.'
Guidelines published by the Department of Communities and Local Government called for 'increasing pressure on owners to bring their empty properties back into use'.

Town hall chiefs were told: 'Even the threat of an EDMO can have a significant impact on encouraging owners to work with councils to bring homes back into use.'
But attempts to use the orders - initially known as Compulsory Leasing before Labour changed the name - were condemned by Tories.

Tory housing spokesman Grant Shapps said: 'It is the height of Labour hypocrisy to instruct town halls to use draconian powers to seize the homes of the recently deceased, while plush ministerial grace-and-favour homes lie empty in Whitehall.'
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith and Foreign Secretary David Miliband are among Cabinet ministers who have left ministerial homes unoccupied.
Property experts said that threats to take control of empty homes would have an impact on bereaved families.

Henry Stuart of City law firm Withers said: 'In a recession a greater number of people will leave property vacant for good reasons.'
EDMO rules say a home cannot be seized if the owner is in a care home, or away caring for someone. Nor can it be taken if the owner is a serviceman or woman away on duty, or if it is used as a holiday home.
But if an owner has no legally-approved excuse for keeping a home empty, councils can demand it be put on the market.
Otherwise they can take control and let it out to council tenants.
The seizure must be approved by a Residential Property Tribunal and the rent is passed to the owner after the council has taken a share to cover its own costs.

There are currently nearly 300,000 privately- owned homes that have been empty for six months or more.
But there are also 80,000 empty local council and housing association dwellings.

Source (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1160819/Town-hall-threat-seize-homes-Campaign-force-owners-sell-rent.html)


I wonder how many homes there would be left vacant if they weren't continually sold off from the council hands to residents - which was a great initiative in the 80s and 90s, but is seriously detrimental to the housing question of today.
I also can't help wondering how many houses would be available for native families if they weren't systematically allocated to every Pole, Paki, Indian, Somalian and God damn every other foreigner who puts in the request forms for housing?

If figures are correct and there is over 80'000 empty council and housing association homes, then why is it the waiting list for native families is so high?

What makes the situation even more farcical is the current government proposals backed by all the major political parties to rip up the green belt status of our surrounding countrysides and build over a million new houses, comparison to having a new city the size of Birmingham built, to compensate for the lack of housing and the growing population of Britain.

Who will occupy these new houses?

[Skandi]

I like this idea, it would be fairly easy with a little common sense to avoid bereaved families, I do think that the practice of holiday homes should be strongly discouraged, we're a small island with a high population, we can't afford to have people monopolising the available housing, apart from anything else it pushes up the prices artificially by restricting supply

[Beorn]

... it pushes up the prices artificially by restricting supply

Not to mention that it also alienates, and ultimately breaks up, long established communities.

[Skandi]

yes stopping local youths from staying in their areas.


PS this is one of my little bug bears btw

[Æmeric]

I'm opposed to the seizing of private property. As long as the homeowners maintain their property & do not allow it to become derelict & a nuisance to others, they should be left alone. Better to have a well kept vacant house then a dump rented out to Negroes or other undesirables.

[Æmeric]

yes stopping local youths from staying in their areas.

This is another issue, fairly acute in England. The supply of housing stock is limited by planning commissions. While the stated purpose is to prevent sprawl in actuality they drive up real estate prices by limiting how much new housing is available. Many persons already owning their homes support these policies because it increased the value of their homes. There are some areas of the US that practice this sort of urban planning, such as Portland, Oregon but again it just seems to drive the cost of available housing by artificially restricitng supply. The only way to prevent sprawl is to, 1; not subsidize developement (roads & utility infrastructure) which would encourage more housing on less land & 2; control immigration, which is currently driving population growth & the demand for additional housing units in Britain & North America.

[Skandi]

This is another issue, fairly acute in England. The supply of housing stock is limited by planning commissions. While the stated purpose is to prevent sprawl in actuality they drive up real estate prices by limiting how much new housing is available. Many persons already owning their homes support these policies because it increased the value of their homes. There are some areas of the US that practice this sort of urban planning, such as Portland, Oregon but again it just seems to drive the cost of available housing by artificially restricitng supply. The only way to prevent sprawl is to, 1; not subsidize developement (roads & utility infrastructure) which would encourage more housing on less land & 2; control immigration, which is currently driving population growth & the depand for additional housing units in Britain & North America.

Remember we have little space for new builds and almost all are on green land, some villages have nearly 50% of their homes used as second homes. Some schemes have been set up where only locals can buy houses and new second home ownership is banned.
The demand for housing is also being pushed up by family units becoming smaller, most of the homes that I would like to see this being used on are not within immigrants areas or price ranges

[Osweo]

I like this idea, it would be fairly easy with a little common sense to avoid bereaved families, I do think that the practice of holiday homes should be strongly discouraged, we're a small island with a high population, we can't afford to have people monopolising the available housing, apart from anything else it pushes up the prices artificially by restricting supply
This?!? In the hands of the present ruling elite?!? :eek: Over my dead body!

Forcing people to sell up NOW, would mean that Paki landlords buy up EVEN MORE of our city centre housing. Just when most people have been caught out by the banks, and haven't the capital, these shady types with their elaborate clan/mosque mutual-assistance schemes are doing VERY well. Have you ever been to a property auction and smelt the typical curry stench? Have you ANY idea how big a proportion they make of landlords these days? This is ALREADY a major problem, and you'd let the swines in charge make it even worse!?!

It's at times like this I wish we had some sort of Constitution like in America, to protect us from this sort of tyranny. God Almighty, at least the Bolsheviks were honest about it when they beat you up and stole your cow!

I would advocate some sort of measure preventing owners turning good buildings into ruins (which I see around me all too often), however, but nobody is more to blame for this sort of thing than local authorities. There are ROWS UPON ROWS of decent terraced housing around here, all boarded up, waiting for demolition. Why? "People don't want to live there!" Well, bloody make em! Beggars are now in such a habit of choosing that it's gone ridiculous.

[Æmeric]

Remember we have little space for new builds and almost all are on green land, some villages have nearly 50% of their homes used as second homes. Some schemes have been set up where only locals can buy houses and new second home ownership is banned.
The demand for housing is also being pushed up by family units becoming smaller, most of the homes that I would like to see this being used on are not within immigrants areas or price ranges
New York & San Francisco also have limited land & none available for new housing, except for brownfield. But the reason for the ridiculous housing prices in those cities is the draconion rent control laws & zoning restrictions which restricts new construction & discourages people with capital from investing in rental housing for the working classes.

The second/vacation homes that you mentioned: Many of those are probably more investment then vacation home. If not for the governement restrciting supply there could be less demand for those.

For the record I own 2 houses, one of which was a rental until my tenant moved out last November. It is currently not be offered for rent because of the real estate market (it is located in Metro Phoenix) & I am seriously considering just using it as a vacation home for the time being. I would be very pissed if the local city council tried to force me to rent it out against my will.

[Treffie]

Apparently there are almost 900,000 empty properties across the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/homes/property/buying_rescueahouse1.shtml

[Skandi]

Indeed there probably are many empty properties, but many of them will not be where they are needed, Again I'll make the point that the houses I would apply it to do not fall into the rental or immigrant market, rentals in rural areas are normally by local landowners to locals, there are not the job markets available to support others. Terraces are being knocked down not because people don't want to live in them, but because councils get grants from the EU to re build with semis I know that because I had to fight to stop my house from being demolished it was one of a row of 24 that were all occupied with 16 being owner occupied, but Darwin county council wanted to make more money.

Somewhere else I used to see this problem;

Devon’s low wage economy compounds the problem. The average lowest quartile in the park area is just £13,500 according to evidence from the Devon strategic housing group.

The situation has led to a crisis not just for firefighters but for all the low earning households who make up the local rural life and economy. Some 11,000 of the county’s stock are second or holiday homes, and 17,000 have been bought under Right to Buy.
more (http://www.housingcorp.gov.uk/cfg/server/show/ConWebDoc.11091)
The link to restrictions I mentioned earlier;
Moor looks at "locals-only" home policy (http://www.bbc.co.uk/devon/news/022002/25/dartmoor_homes.shtml)

But there's hope some of the greedy sods are being forced out:


A WAVE of second-home owners hit by the economic downturn are selling up, providing an unexpected boost for the Westcountry's property market.

Estate agents in picturesque or rural parts of Devon and Cornwall say many second-home owners are choosing to sell up rather than pay the rising monthly bills for two properties at once.

This is releasing homes for new buyers moving into the area and for local people struggling to find a permanent home in the region.

http://www.thisisdevon.co.uk/news/Second-homes-exodus/article-248256-detail/article.html

A scheme such as the one suggested should be operated in the above manner for local people.

[Fortis in Arduis]

Socialist bastards!

Thrymheim, the comment about holiday homes was understandable but unfair.

Having a second home should not be a crime.

What would work is Land Value Taxation, which would break up the largest estates owned by the MORTAGE COMPANIES and PENSION FUNDS...

Do not expect Labour or the Tories to do anything about them.

[Treffie]

Having a second home should not be a crime.


Yes, but in reality it is, incomers buy properties in tourist destinations, house prices shoot up, locals can't afford to buy in their own area so they have to move out. As a consequence the place becomes deserted except in summer time, village then dies.

[Æmeric]

Devon’s low wage economy compounds the problem. The average lowest quartile in the park area is just £13,500 according to evidence from the Devon strategic housing group.

The situation has led to a crisis not just for firefighters but for all the low earning households who make up the local rural life and economy. Some 11,000 of the county’s stock are second or holiday homes, and 17,000 have been bought under Right to Buy.Part of the probelm is that those area popular for vacation homes generally do not have much to offer in terms of employment other then service sector jobs catering to the toruist industry - jobs that are generally not high paying. If you didn't have people buying second homes in areas like Devon, there might be more housing available but it woull also likely be of lower quality & the people poorer. Just drive through some rural areas of Ohio or Kentucky, lots of cheao housing but also plenty of poverty. Areas that are popular with tourist & second homes buyers are generally more prosperous.

The problem comes down to zoning/planning. What is needed is not fewer vacation homes or luxury homes but more housing stock for working people.


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38285000/jpg/_38285375_housing.jpg

More housing like this.


http://www.michaelmeacher.info/weblog/council_houses.jpeg

Or this. I doubt this is the kind of housing being snapped up by the wealthy as second homes.


http://www.northdevonholidaycottage.co.uk/images/house.JPG

Something like this would be nice but probably not practical for a family on a workingclass salary. But that is life, the law of supply & demand.





What would work is Land Value Taxation, which would break up the largest estates owned by the MORTAGE COMPANIES and PENSION FUNDS...

Im not sure what that is. Is it based on the actual market value of land or does it take into account the income produced by the land. If the former, many farmers could be ruined by this kind of taxation. Imagin owning a 200 acre farm that might have amarket value of £10,000 per acre but generates an income of just £100 per acre.

[Fortis in Arduis]

Land Value Taxation

Im not sure what that is. Is it based on the actual market value of land or does it take into account the income produced by the land. If the former, many farmers could be ruined by this kind of taxation. Imagin owning a 200 acre farm that might have amarket value of £10,000 per acre but generates an income of just £100 per acre.

Market value, but worry not.

Land in the cities is worth mucho more than country estates and the largest estates would be taxed more severely.

Country landowners are not threatened by LVT, unless their estates are humungous, in which case they should selling up to encourage smaller farmers anyway.

Owners of large urban estates, typically pension funds and mortgage companies, are and it would force them to sell, democratising land-ownership.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_tax

It is a nationalist principle similar to the one to encourage the dissolution of large corporations.

[SwordoftheVistula]

What would work is Land Value Taxation, which would break up the largest estates owned by the MORTAGE COMPANIES and PENSION FUNDS...

We have that here, it's the main source of revenue for local city/county governments. It does give an extra push on landowners to sell or rent the property they own, but it does generate other problems, such as forcing disabled/pensioners out of their homes if they are unable to pay the property (land value) tax.


Im not sure what that is. Is it based on the actual market value of land or does it take into account the income produced by the land. If the former, many farmers could be ruined by this kind of taxation. Imagin owning a 200 acre farm that might have amarket value of £10,000 per acre but generates an income of just £100 per acre.

Yes, if based on market value, this creates a problem. If someone builds a development a few miles away, all of a sudden the land value shoots up, and this can force farmers to sell off their land to developers since the extra taxes are too burdensome. Again, this does fix the initial problem discussed in this thread, but it creates other problems by changing the character of the area and enhancing urban sprawl even in places where the individual farmer would prefer to resist the urge to sell out and keep farming.

I don't see what is so bad about 'second homes' anyways. Many people are forced to live in urban/cosmopolitan areas for work, and like the opportunity to periodically escape out to the countryside for a different type of living.

[Beorn]

'Go away': Priced-out locals' graffiti protest on holiday homes (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1162164/Go-away-Priced-locals-graffiti-protest-holiday-homes.html)


Luxury homes in a seaside village have been vandalised in protest at the fact that locals cannot afford to live there.
Words such as 'no more 2nd homes', 'greed' and 'go away' were daubed on walls and driveways of new-built houses on sale for up to £485,000.
Worth Matravers in Dorset has been nicknamed the 'Ghost Village' by those who say 60 per cent of the 174 properties there are holiday homes that are hardly lived in.

[Psychonaut]

I'll echo Æmeric and Oswiu here; this is just flat out tyranny. Is there a precedent for this in the UK, or do you guys have some sort of protection against government seizures of private property?

[Osweo]

I'll echo Æmeric and Oswiu here; this is just flat out tyranny. Is there a precedent for this in the UK, or do you guys have some sort of protection against government seizures of private property?

Ha, we're not protected against ANYTHING! :D:eek::mad:

As far as I understand it, the only things that have even a slight curb on the omnipotence of Parliament are things like the European Human Rights stuff (even that they could vote out of if they wanted to), but that is more like something EXTRA our nation needs protecting FROM!

Magna Carta, 1216 or whenever it was, is probably the closest thing to a Constitution granting freedoms from this sort of tyranny, but public ignorance about it allows the Government to do as it pleases.

[Æmeric]

You (the English/British) have your own Bill of Rights. (http://www.constitution.org/eng/eng_bor.htm) Though it is not really "Constitutional" in the sense that a simple act of parliament can overturn all or parts of it. Unlike in the US whre changes to our Constitution requires a complicated amendment process. 2/3 approval by both houses of Congress & ratification by at least 3/4 of the states. Or a majority vote of the Supreme Court.:rolleyes:

[Osweo]

Or a majority vote of the Supreme Court.:rolleyes:

That is a horrendous provision. The others make some sense, but isn't the Supreme Court a handful, half a dozen, individuals? I think I saw a photo of them once on the News. Political appointments too, no? :eek:

Did the Founding Fathers put that in the system? Seems a poor oversight.

[Æmeric]

There are 9 justices. The founding fathers intended for there to be 3 divisions of government - executive, legislative & judicial. They are suppose to be equal, but the judicial branch has evolved to the point of being the one with the final say on everything!. As though the supremes were infalible. Abortion rights, interracial marriage, integration, school busing, anything controversial & societal changing is eventuality decided by the Supreme Court. The current hot issue is gay marriage, which will be decided by the Supreme Court. Incidently, laws against sodomy were held to be constitutional as recently as the 1986 in Bowers v. Hardwick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowers_v._Hardwick) & then declared unconstitutional in the Lawrence v. Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas) decision in 2003. :rolleyes: Everything comes down to just the opinions of 5 people.

Originally it was intended for the judicial branch to independent, to be able to render justice free of any political concerns. I doubt if they (the founding fathers) foresaw the kind of judicial tyranny that would arise from that independence along with the tenure that makes removing judges very difficult.

[stormlord]

Yes, but in reality it is, incomers buy properties in tourist destinations, house prices shoot up, locals can't afford to buy in their own area so they have to move out. As a consequence the place becomes deserted except in summer time, village then dies.


There are other solutions to this, like differential taxation etc (i.e much higher for people with second homes, living out of county etc) , but the common law comes down to us from our ancestors and it's pretty specific about private property. It's sad to see that the Americans are doing so much of a better job at not forgetting the principles behind it than we are. I really worry about how little English people seem to know about or respect their legal and political heritage. Let's leave arbitrary seizure of land and other such shining examples of respect for the individual to the continentals eh? :D

[Vargtand]

I am against this on so many levels... It is none of the bloody states business what someone does with their property, by doing this they are basically telling the people that indeed you are nothing but subjects to us and your ownership and your property belongs ultimately to us, I'd defend what I own with weapons..

[Beorn]

Whilst I agree and disagree with the proposals, one side is predominately focussed on the plight of whole communities forced to uproot from areas settled for centuries in order to purchase an accommodation within their financial reach.

Whilst I do not hold a grudge against the people who wish to own more than one home, I do hold a grudge at those that continually take and take from the areas and never contribute back.

The government stepping in and relocating potential housing away from second home owners and allocating them to the poor and financially insecure is the foundation of what a government is for: to protect the peoples interests.