300% on second homes

I think I disagree with most of you. 300% is not enough for a home that's empty for most of the year. It needs to be enough to pay for the things the residents are not paying for because they're not there. It needs to contribute to a proper bus network, for people who need a bank but live in a village where the banks have closed down due to lack of usage or lack of staff, to visit the nearest swimming pool and library, to visit friends who live further away than they can walk. Etc.
In other words, people who don't live there should pay for all the services they're "blocking" by keeping an empty home.
They should also pay additional amounts to cover the cost of inflation to house prices, to enable young people to buy.
In truth, people should not be allowed to buy somewhere to keep empty for most of the year until everyone in the country has somewhere to live.

Pearl79 you are absolutely right!

It's not always simple as poor DutchDoll explained, and I hope things work out for her.
While living in London I inherited a 2nd home in Devon in the early 1980s which we used at weekends and fir holidays. The price has increased by 1500%. That would sadly put it way out of the reach of a young person needing to buy or rent a house anyway. Also, after 40+ years, it seems a bit unfair to be unexpectedly clobbered with such a rise in charges, although I am prepared to pay it if it helps to keep local services alive all year.

Casdon

I don’t follow that logic, because if you own a holiday home and rent it out you can afford to pay the increased council tax Maybee70.

If you have a holiday home that you rent out, you are likely to be registered as a business and don't pay council tax. But those who don't rent their homes out (I have one - I'm there at least once a month as my daughters and their families live near by) do already pay 110% council tax. For this, we get no use of local services. If the council had to provide services for all the people who own homes in the area, they simply couldn't. So we do wonder what happens to our local taxes. The area should in theory be very rich with libraries, bin collections etc but it
really isn't. I've never seen my place as a purely 'holiday' home. It's been a proper home for us but we couldn't live there full time because of work commitments.

pearl79

I think I disagree with most of you. 300% is not enough for a home that's empty for most of the year. It needs to be enough to pay for the things the residents are not paying for because they're not there. It needs to contribute to a proper bus network, for people who need a bank but live in a village where the banks have closed down due to lack of usage or lack of staff, to visit the nearest swimming pool and library, to visit friends who live further away than they can walk. Etc.
In other words, people who don't live there should pay for all the services they're "blocking" by keeping an empty home.
They should also pay additional amounts to cover the cost of inflation to house prices, to enable young people to buy.
In truth, people should not be allowed to buy somewhere to keep empty for most of the year until everyone in the country has somewhere to live.

That would only make sense if the services you are concerned about are provided by the council. They are mostly not. And please don't think that second home owners don't pay council tax. If they don't rent their homes out (and many don't) then they are already paying more than full council tax which should be enough to keep those services you mentioned going. You might want to ask the councils what they are doing with this money.

I don't know how possible this would be to implement but govt should be ensuring that no more than 20 per cent of houses in any area should be 2nd homes or holiday lets.
There are obviously so many reasons why people have 2nd homes - family homes they don't want to let go of, a cottage in an area they grew up in and hope sometime in the distant future will be their retirement home etc. But the bottom line is that rural communities need to be sustained and enabled to thrive and evolve. Other people's wants can't be allowed to overule that.

Well, this has been an on going problem formally years. My Great uncle was a founder member of The Welsh National Party. A lot of 'holiday homes' mysteriously caught fire for reasons already mentioned. Let's face it, you can only live in one house at a time - why have more?

Josieann

It's not always simple as poor DutchDoll explained, and I hope things work out for her.
While living in London I inherited a 2nd home in Devon in the early 1980s which we used at weekends and fir holidays. The price has increased by 1500%. That would sadly put it way out of the reach of a young person needing to buy or rent a house anyway. Also, after 40+ years, it seems a bit unfair to be unexpectedly clobbered with such a rise in charges, although I am prepared to pay it if it helps to keep local services alive all year.

You don’t have to sell your house for 1500% of the value, though. You could sell it for half of the going rate and still make a tidy profit.

I don't think people who own second homes necessarily give a lot of thought to the profit their properties make in real terms. The value is in the family time they spend in them and quality of life.

Josieann

I don't think people who own second homes necessarily give a lot of thought to the profit their properties make in real terms. The value is in the family time they spend in them and quality of life.

But how much time they spend in them has to be a consideration. If a family are leaving a house locked and uninhabited for most of the year then they are playing a part in the destruction of community life on that village or town.

Josieann

I don't think people who own second homes necessarily give a lot of thought to the profit their properties make in real terms. The value is in the family time they spend in them and quality of life.

If that is the case, that they’re not concerned about the value, then they could sell at a lower price.

Paperbackwriter

pearl79

I think I disagree with most of you. 300% is not enough for a home that's empty for most of the year. It needs to be enough to pay for the things the residents are not paying for because they're not there. It needs to contribute to a proper bus network, for people who need a bank but live in a village where the banks have closed down due to lack of usage or lack of staff, to visit the nearest swimming pool and library, to visit friends who live further away than they can walk. Etc.
In other words, people who don't live there should pay for all the services they're "blocking" by keeping an empty home.
They should also pay additional amounts to cover the cost of inflation to house prices, to enable young people to buy.
In truth, people should not be allowed to buy somewhere to keep empty for most of the year until everyone in the country has somewhere to live.

That would only make sense if the services you are concerned about are provided by the council. They are mostly not. And please don't think that second home owners don't pay council tax. If they don't rent their homes out (and many don't) then they are already paying more than full council tax which should be enough to keep those services you mentioned going. You might want to ask the councils what they are doing with this money.

I can tell you what councils do with their money. They pay it to the Treasury, which gives some of it back, according to a funding formula. The amount councils receive has been cut to the bone, so that it just about covers the services it has to provide by law.

If they can afford second homes, they can afford the council tax that goes with them. Selfishness and uncaring preventing local people from buying one home let alone strangers coming from out of the area to buy a second home.

M0nica

I am in total agreement with this where owning second homes is distorting the housing market and pricing houses out of local peoples reach.

I would like to see the same thing done for rented property where Buy to Let and Corporate investors have also lead to house prices rising beyond the reach of local buyers.

I agree with this too. The buy2let investors are not helping because ordinary people can't pay high rents AND save for a deposit. My suggestion is that when ex-council houses come on the market the LA's should buy them back so gradually there would be more social housing again. There are just too many people here, I am obviously not against genuine people fleeing war, but the economic migrants who come in their thousands and expect housing.

Tenants with a rental agreement pay their own council tax, so another way of surcharging landlords would need to be found.

growstuff

Tenants with a rental agreement pay their own council tax, so another way of surcharging landlords would need to be found.

True. And with holiday lets it will just be put on top of the price ...... which judging by the lack of availability in Cornwall this year, holidaymakers will be prepared to pay.

"I think it's fair enough. Second home owners are ruining the fabric of rural life and pushing up the price of houses for first time buyers"

Can I remind people that it is the SELLERS who set the price, and choose to whom the property is sold.

If someone is priced out of buying in the area they grew up in, they should look first to their families, neighbours, colleagues and residents and question why they are willing to sell to "incomers" rather than encouraging their own community members to sustain the area.
I suspect the answer will be the same in most cases - sellers want the biggest amount of money they can get and sentimentality about protecting the rural life goes out the window.

The Council's also have the power to restrict who buys new builds and existing stock, and can place covenants on new builds as to who can buy them - see:
*"Section 157 Restriction"

The only restrictions on a Local Home are who the property can be sold to and the percentage of open market value that the house can be sold for. Also, a Local Home cannot be sold to anyone who wants to use the property as a second or holiday home, the buyer must use the property as their main home

The legislation is there and can be used to protect whatever aspect of community life the council deems necessary.

If anyone cannot afford to buy/rent, before demonising those in a position to buy a second/holiday home, I suggest they ask questions a bit closer to home.

This is a free market society, and no-one has the right to live in the area they were brought up in if they can't afford the prices (apart from Royalty and the aristocracy and some social housing tenants, obviously!).

It is the market that decides the price, and that is demand led. The way to curb this is by bringing in measures to reduce that demand.

We are being encouraged not to fly and to holiday in the U.K. by multiple sources to both save the planet and regenerate the U.K. economy post Covid.

Surely this punitive tax if passed on to the end user, will discourage folks from visiting/staying in U.K. beauty spots/tourist areas and push them into flying abroad…

I agree up to a point. But surely it’s important to travel as much as possible when young? I want my grandchildren to see as much of the world as possible. And I still want to have a holiday in Australia one day. And my arthritis was so much better in the days when I could go somewhere warm for a couple of weeks in the year. What is upsetting me at the moment is the amount of pollution caused by all these bloomin’ wars.

GrannyGravy13

We are being encouraged not to fly and to holiday in the U.K. by multiple sources to both save the planet and regenerate the U.K. economy post Covid.

Surely this punitive tax if passed on to the end user, will discourage folks from visiting/staying in U.K. beauty spots/tourist areas and push them into flying abroad…

I think we're being asked to reduce our airmiles. Somebody flying abroad once a year on holiday or to visit family abroad is not the same as someone going skiing in January, having a weekend break in Madrid at Easter, going to Spain for a week on May then for a family holiday to Greece in August followed by a week in Lanzarotte at midterm and a shopping trip to New York in November.
I have some friends who, every time I meet them are just back from somewhere or just about to head somewhere abroad. They are really the people being asked to change their behaviour.

There are only two second homes in my little North Norfolk village and when we bought our house the neighbours were so glad we were actually going to live here. However when we eventually decide to move it will be sold to whoever offers the most and is able to proceed straight away. As, I suspect, with most sellers.

Which is exactly why govt policies are required. We're all human and need some restrictions on how the market operates.

Beswitched

Which is exactly why govt policies are required. We're all human and need some restrictions on how the market operates.

Exactly. It's no good asking people to speak to their neighbours about how much they got for their house. For one thing, it's very rude, for another, you can find out online, and finally, there is no point - of course the neighbour will have taken the best offer.

This is a free market society, and no-one has the right to live in the area they were brought up in if they can't afford the prices

It's true that no-one has the right to live in the area where they were brought up. Problems arise when no-one on a normal working salary can afford to live in an area....then there are no carers, no cleaners, no gardeners....no young people generally. The problem is wider than people thinking they have the right to a home where there family live.