A divided society-what can be done?

Lead by example......

Well if we are taking about taking over unused properties it's only fair that they set a good example . After all they are the people us minions are supposed to respect and look up to.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/02/revelations-about-empty-homes-in-grenfell-area-simply-unacceptable

Gilly, did you have to bring up the properties of the Windsors?

Andrew has a thirty bedroomed house in the grounds of Windsor castle and with that house goes eight properties for staff .

Queenie spend less than three months a year in Sandringham, and about three months a year in Balmoral. This leaves her with .Buck house and
Windsor castle for six months of the year .

I think the royals have a few palaces, castles, apartments they don't use. Maybe we should start with them.

What are the sizes of these luxurious empty houses?

All this - let's take properties off the wealthy sounds envious.

People who leave properties empty are not leaving people homeless.

Why not? Some of the families will be working some not. All probably receiving housing benefit which is currently going into the hands of B&B owners or private landlords. Compulsorily purchase empty properties, they belong to the council, are used to house families, housing benefit goes back to the council. Alternatively CP and sell on, use cash to adapt or build council housing and rest follows!

But if those families are not paying for their B&B accommodation trisher as you imply, they are not in a position to buy a property. If you put them into a privately rented flat and paid the owner, you're still left with people profiting from their situation.
I can't think of any area in the UK where there has been no rental property available for years, so there must be other issues to consider in your example too.
A lot of the empty homes in London are very expensive. If you rent them out at below market rent, the owners are taxed as if they received market rent. There's no way a local authority could justify paying to house some families in luxury properties.

Some people do, trisher, even those who profess to be socialist.

No trisher I don't. Nor do I think that legislation by enforcement is the answer.

What should we do Primrose65 shrug our shoulders and turn back to our centrally heated homes. It isn't the people on the street we are talking about, it is families living in B&B accommodation for years because no properties are available (And if you want to talk money think of the costs involved in that and who is making a huge profit)

Don't you understand Chewbacca these empty properties are bought as investments and are never meant to be occupied they make their money from the increases in property values and nothing else. In London this is resulting in certain areas becoming unoccupied. The knock on effect this has is devastating to our society. Small business cease to function, key workers are priced out of the area and services become untenable. I simply want to live in a society where everyone lives in affordable housing and cities function as they should, that is vibrant and supportive environments with a strong local economy. Do you really think people who leave houses empty have the right to wreck society and leave people homeless?

There's such a difference between homelessness and the frustration of not being able to save for a deposit when renting.
Looking at the Shelter website, there are so many personal or structural causes of homelessness, I don't think simply putting people from the street into empty homes would solve anything.

This is one reason I cannot support Corbyn , he wants state control .

People do hoard food.

Of course durham, you're absolutely right. So would it not be a better idea if the owners of those properties be contacted by housing organisations, with an offer to bring them up to a habitable standard and they agree to manage the tenancies and share the rental income with the property owner?

"Treating housing as an asset is not benign. Hoarding homes pushes prices up, and encourages market supply to boost what is most profitable – luxury flats that can be left empty and flogged when the market is booming, not family homes that can be bought on a modest income. And when land values soar as a result of a keen market interest in buying up property, unscrupulous local authorities eye up the land social housing is built on, and consider whether turfing out council tenants to make a quick buck on the ground homes stand on is worth a punt.

The public seems to be accepting the idea that a right to shelter should trump a right to profiteering: the histrionic claims that requisitioning empty homes will lead to families being turfed out of their properties reveals there is no proper argument to be made for letting homes lie empty while people sleep on the streets.

No one will be kicked out of a home they live in, but consistently allowing people to hoard an asset that is in short supply has no ethical argument behind it. If people hoarded food the way they hoard homes, hungry people would riot. The outcry over the revelations of these empty homes and support for Corbyn’s proposal to boost powers for councils to requisition empty properties, shows the public is in agreement. "

It was simply used as a broad analogy devon, as I'm sure you're well aware. And I reiterate my earlier point, there are a myriad of reasons why people choose to rent, not all of them are because they cannot afford to buy. I also reiterate that, whilst finding accommodation for the homeless is vitally important, draconian measures being used against landlords would be counter productive. In my opinion.

Everyone knows that properties left empty deteriorate quickly.
Some of the properties that are buy to leave have been empty for over ten years. They must have agents who look after the upkeep. Why not have people living in them?

Chewbacca, I can hardly believe you feel that is an appropriate analogy - or ist it a joke? How can car ownership possibly be comparable with the need for a person to have a roof over their head?

Primrose65 my gripe is actually the policy of allowing buy-to-let mortgages; previously it was only possible to get one mortgage.

One of the reasons young people cannot raise a deposit is because they have to rent for so long and are unable to save!

Well trisher, I hope you don't get to rule the world anytime soon. I agree that having houses lying empty, whilst there are so many homeless people looking for a roof over their heads, is unacceptable and needs a solution, but I find your suggestions draconian. If I bought a car, but chose to leave it unused in a garage, would you say that that too should be compulsorily purchased so that those without a vehicle of their own could use it? Instead of issuing state backed draconian dogma, with penalties for failing to tow the line, wouldn't it be better to encourage them to do so? No one reacts well to being forced to do anything, no matter how well intentioned the aims are. Carrot and stick.......

devongirl My understanding is that people who are 'trapped in renting' are unable to get a mortgage or save for a deposit. It's not as though there's some sort of conspiracy to only sell a property to landlords.

I agree Annie. I don't like the idea of a perfectly good home being left empty, but that is your choice. It's your money and your property.

Of course there will always be people who want/need to rent. My point is that the introduction of buy-to-let mortgages led to a massive proliferation in rental properties to the detriment of the lower end of the property market which caused an increase on people who are trapped in renting because they have no choice, while at the same time they are paying for the buy-to-letter's addional property. Am I mad to think that is basically unethical? I've been in the position to buy a buy-to-let flat myself but have consciously chosen not to go down that route for that very reason...