Labour are coming for your Empty home...

[SS427 Camaro]

Our great leaders Labour have announced plans to allow councils to seize privately owned homes.
Mr. M. Pennycook the Housing Minister says, " Its not a silver bullet, but bringing more empty homes back into use, can help solve the housing crisis and use them to house families in need "
( The Illegal Invaders at Weathersfield for example, will need a proper roof over their heads one day, now wont they )

EDMOs ( Empty dwelling management orders ) can be applied after a property is empty for six months rather than two years.

Edited by SS427 Camaro on Thursday 1st October 13:05

[xx99xx]

Isn't this just buy to let/rental properties? Clearly a property wouldn't be empty if you (the owner) were living in it so I don't see a problem in bringing empty homes into use due to a landlord not being arsed to invest in it to make it habitable.

[Ridgemont]

xx99xx said:

Isn't this just buy to let/rental properties? Clearly a property wouldn't be empty if you (the owner) were living in it so I don't see a problem in bringing empty homes into use due to a landlord not being arsed to invest in it to make it habitable.

Well apart from small issues like property rights and the ability of the government to supersede those, and commandeer properties at will ‘because’.

It’s a breathtaking and extraordinary extension of state power.

“Hmm you don’t look like you are using that: I think we’ll have that….”

Honestly.

[The Gauge]

How will this affect vacant probate houses?

[Vanden Saab]

xx99xx said:

Isn't this just buy to let/rental properties? Clearly a property wouldn't be empty if you (the owner) were living in it so I don't see a problem in bringing empty homes into use due to a landlord not being arsed to invest in it to make it habitable.

It will be interesting to see how this interacts with the 12 month rule. If you evict to sell.

[texaxile]

The Gauge said:

How will this affect vacant probate houses?

This isn money has a good article, basically a home going through probate or where probate has been obtained within the last 6 months are exempt.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/...

[jtremlett]

xx99xx said:

Isn't this just buy to let/rental properties? Clearly a property wouldn't be empty if you (the owner) were living in it so I don't see a problem in bringing empty homes into use due to a landlord not being arsed to invest in it to make it habitable.

Is it just rental properties? I'm not sure that's the case but even if it is, I can't imagine there are too many rental properties intentionally empty for that long unless the landlord is renovating. The costs would make it a fast way to bankruptcy. Anyway, what happens if the landlord/owner dies? Probate might easily take longer than a few months.

Regardless, the principle that government can confiscate something I lawfully own on a whim because they decide I'm not making what they deem to be best use of it is quite extraordinary and should absolutely be resisted. Where would it lead?

[98elise]

xx99xx said:

Isn't this just buy to let/rental properties? Clearly a property wouldn't be empty if you (the owner) were living in it so I don't see a problem in bringing empty homes into use due to a landlord not being arsed to invest in it to make it habitable.

If a property isn't let then it's not a rental. A house being empty for 6m can be for many reasons. Empty Dwelling Management Orders apply to any property IIRC

Edited by 98elise on Wednesday 30th September 22:49

[Otispunkmeyer]

The Gauge said:

How will this affect vacant probate houses?

Or what about houses that aren't rented but might be just empty. We have 1 house, the one we live in. However we are going to be living in Japan for 3 years and the house may well sit empty for over 6 months, at least initially. We are not renting it out. Don't want that headache but are hoping we can have a friend or family member essentially house sit. We'll continue to insure it and pay council tax.

[hondajack85]

Ridgemont said:

xx99xx said:

Isn't this just buy to let/rental properties? Clearly a property wouldn't be empty if you (the owner) were living in it so I don't see a problem in bringing empty homes into use due to a landlord not being arsed to invest in it to make it habitable.

Well apart from small issues like property rights and the ability of the government to supersede those, and commandeer properties at will because .

It s a breathtaking and extraordinary extension of state power.

Hmm you don t look like you are using that: I think we ll have that .

Honestly.

Can you have it back when you come out of prison or whatever

[Terminator X]

xx99xx said:

Isn't this just buy to let/rental properties? Clearly a property wouldn't be empty if you (the owner) were living in it so I don't see a problem in bringing empty homes into use due to a landlord not being arsed to invest in it to make it habitable.

So if someone buys a house or houses and for many thousands of reasons it's left empty you think it's ok for the state to steal it?

How about I come take your car if you've not used it for a week.

TX.

[ATG]

For all the hand-wringers, the concept of compulsory purchase is hardly novel.

[InformationSuperHighway]

I think this is an astonishingly blatant overreach of government here.

If I own a property I should choose exactly what I do with it. I may have a variety of reasons for it to be empty (none of which should be the governments business to know). Yes morally should I be housing someone? Probably, but it should be my choice what to do with my property.

If the government wants more houses, it should build them (council houses anyone?) rather than seize them from people.

A better idea is a voluntary scheme to sell your house at market value (plus a bit?) no questions asked.

[hidetheelephants]

ATG said:

For all the hand-wringers, the concept of compulsory purchase is hardly novel.

And used so infrequently it may as well not exist; if councils won't use that why are they suddenly going to be gripped by zeal for this? Evidence is a resounding no, EDMO has been law for 2 decades and has been used a nugatory number of times.

[Colonel Cupcake]

ATG said:

For all the hand-wringers, the concept of compulsory purchase is hardly novel.

They wouldn't be purchasing it. Just managing it.

The owner would still be liable for any mortgage on the property, for example.

[menousername]

If it exists now but is hardly used then why the change

Think it is quite right to be concerned

[JagLover]

Six months is a ludicrously short period of time before the council can seize your home for social housing. When this was brought in it was to target properties left vacant long term and clearly six months is not long term.

They are also scrapping other requirements for an EDMO to be issued so past rates of use are no guarantee for the future.

[StevieBee]

InformationSuperHighway said:

I think this is an astonishingly blatant overreach of government here.

If I own a property I should choose exactly what I do with it. I may have a variety of reasons for it to be empty (none of which should be the governments business to know).

Up to a point, I agree. The point beyond which I don't are examples like these near us:





Both these homes have been in these states since we've lived in the area which is getting on for 25 years. The bungalow is owned by a builder who uses it as builders yard which he is not technically allowed to do. Our friend lives to the right of it. They need to move but cannot sell at anywhere near market value because of the blight of the house and the uncertainty around it.

If for no reason other than aesthetics, I'd support the government taking them over and turning them in to decent homes again.

[Colonel Cupcake]

StevieBee said:

InformationSuperHighway said:

I think this is an astonishingly blatant overreach of government here.

If I own a property I should choose exactly what I do with it. I may have a variety of reasons for it to be empty (none of which should be the governments business to know).

Up to a point, I agree. The point beyond which I don't are examples like these near us:





Both these homes have been in these states since we've lived in the area which is getting on for 25 years. The bungalow is owned by a builder who uses it as builders yard which he is not technically allowed to do. Our friend lives to the right of it. They need to move but cannot sell at anywhere near market value because of the blight of the house and the uncertainty around it.

If for no reason other than aesthetics, I'd support the government taking them over and turning them in to decent homes again.

I think you would be very vocal if the government did as you supported but dumped a family of chavs there.

[WyrleyD]

Otispunkmeyer said:

The Gauge said:

How will this affect vacant probate houses?

Or what about houses that aren't rented but might be just empty. We have 1 house, the one we live in. However we are going to be living in Japan for 3 years and the house may well sit empty for over 6 months, at least initially. We are not renting it out. Don't want that headache but are hoping we can have a friend or family member essentially house sit. We'll continue to insure it and pay council tax.

Slight derail of thread if that's OK. We went to NZ for 7 months pre-covid and had great problems with house insurance none of the main insurers would touch it and our insurer at the time told us they would be cancelling the insurance if we were not occupying for more than 3 months, had to scrabble around and find a specialist insurer that would take on the risk. If I were you I'd get some permanent house sitters whilst you are away.