The scandal of empty homes when others are homeless

Greed will always win.

We're finding that Air B&B are causing flats/houses which could be let long term to become actual homes are being used for very short and often anti social lets. It's certainly distorting the market round here.

Maybe the developers will be left with egg in their faces, given that the market for luxury homes in London seems to be dead.

www.theguardian.com/business/2018/oct/31/brutalist-market-flats-at-londons-centre-point-taken-off-market?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

on their faces.

I have often wondered why local councils were not able to requisition houses which were left empty for more than a set period of time - say 2 years - if nothing was being done to them to bring back into residential status.

Would you want your home requisitioned Welshwife if you and your DH had a contract to work abroad for two or three years?
Friends of ours did this (left their home empty) whilst on a five year contract in the US, they didn’t want to rent it out, and have strangers living there, their home their choice.

500 highrise developments ( flats) isn’t actually all that many Varian are you (or the article) saying that only council flats should be built?

Many houses in various areas across the U.K. are in a bad state and need renovation - I assume your friends were able to have the house looking ‘loved’ and were paying all bills as it was still furnished. In many areas empty houses get a reduction in their Council Tax.

In our area empty and unfurnished houses have no reduction on their Council Tax, and an Empty Property Premium of 50% above the full Council Tax is payable once the property has been empty and unfurnished for more than two years.
We don't have many properties lying around empty and unfurnished around here!

lemongrove, the reference I read was to 500+ new towers, with dozens or even hundreds of apartments in each. That's a lot.

Its a difficult one. I can't understand why people would buy a property and not live in it or let it out. I understand what Lemon said about her friends but I doubt that there are many such people. Perhaps councils should have discretion to compulsory purchase empty houses?

There has been a lot of talk about it being wrong to sell off social housing but we recently went back to the council estate DH came from and it looked so much better than when he lived there when it was all council. People have taken a pride in their homes and it is a far nicer place to live than it was before. Surely it is a good thing that places are mixed - ownership and rental?

Maybe if social housing rents were based upon income as is the case with a Dutch friend who has moved into a SH flat since retiring and her rent is based upon her income. If this were the system surely it would encourage higher earners to move out? Some years ago a very highly paid trade union leader was living in a council house. I realise there would be a huge outcry about people leaving their base, family and friends but perhaps SH should be for those who cannot afford to buy? We can't please everyone so maybe we should put the emphasis on those with no choice?

There have always been those who could not afford to buy and there always will be.

But I believe there are many more nowadays, Nonnie, who in happier times would have had reasonable expectations of buying their own houses. I'm thinking esp of newly qualified 'key workers' (why has that term disappeared?) - teachers, nurses, social workers on very modest salaries

Glasgow is full of property developments at the moment but they are all student accommodation. I wonder if the investors are given certain concessions (e.g. VAT reductions) Most certainly there's no benefit to the city as students do not pay council tax so contribute nothing to the facilities they use.
If they can build student accommodation why not build housing for the homeless who would contribute long term to the city instead of a transient population of students?

Perhaps councils should have discretion to compulsory purchase empty houses?
I think there are a lot more people who leave their homes to work abroad, as lemongrove says, nonnie.

Note that these are homes - not abandoned, empty properties owned by absent landlords. Many belong to people who are working overseas for the government, for various companies and they may well come back home occasionally to make sure everything is fine. They are paying their council tax too, without any benefit.

I have known people who have rented out their homes when they've been working overseas and have come back to find their homes in a dreadful state - one had large holes knocked in walls. Often tenants just do not care for a house as the owner would.

Why should their homes be subject to a compulsory purchase order by the Council? I think this was suggested many years ago but was abandoned.

varian perhaps the problem is not homes but the fact that so much seems London-centric.

Espee I have noticed that too. So much student accommodation but perhaps it is not suitable for more than one person?

Jalima perhaps you are right, I thought I had conveyed that I was musing rather than actually offering solutions. As I said "We can't please everyone so maybe we should put the emphasis on those with no choice?"

London and its environs has suffered from foreign nationals buying property and not actually living in them. I read a while back even the new middle class of China had started buying in less expensive areas such as Croydon, which further squeezes those who are trying to get on the property ladder.

I believe New Zealand has banned foreigners from buying property there in endeavour to sort out their housing problems.

There are many holiday homes in this area, empty most of the year, should the council have the discretion to place a compulsory purchase on them?

Many public housing estates have been demolished, while others threatened with demolition may be replaced by expensive rented housing and units for sale at eye-watering prices.
Some were just not fit for purpose - would you have wanted to live in one, varian?

However, I agree that these properties should be replaced by decent affordable and social housing.

What the council can do is take over abandoned houses that are a complete eyesore after a number of years.
Usually, the last occupant has died and had no relatives.

Some planning authorities have requirements that developments must include a proportion of affordable homes and/or social housing.
I’m not sure whether this includes London, and if not, why not.

Some councils have the right idea - instead of demolishing rows of old houses they sell them for a nominal sum (say £1) then lend the buyers the money to renovate them.

I think they've done this in Liverpool, Stoke-on-Trent and probably other areas too.

I think that’s a brilliant idea Jalima I believe there was a TV documentary about just such a scheme. They had to be owner occupiers too !

Do you think there should be restrictions on foreign buyers?

I think that because British homes, especially in London, have proved to be good investments, they are attractive to foreign buyers, including some whose wealth comes from dubious dealings (including corruption) in their own countries.

Some countries do have restrictions on the purchase of land or properties by foreigners. It is worrying that the lax tax regime in the UK has already attracted many shady millionaires and billionaires and the brexit brigade want to encourage that.

Maybe councils could have the power to compulsaraly purchase properties that have been empty since they were bought, never lived in or rented out.