Daily Express today

Is that the one the Mail revealed about a month ago, where a house left vacant can be seized by councils and rented out ?

If a property is left vacant for 6 months then the local council can 'reclaim' it i.e.. steal it from you. Utter madness.

The PM is exempt from this. He has several homes that are not lived in for 6 months at a time so as it would clearly effect him he is exempt from it. And we voted for this?

Only if there are no plans or intentions for them, and if discussions between owner and council come to nothing. And in the end ownership does not change hands - though it would then be difficult for the owner if they thought of a use and had to empty the property.

But he probably has plans and intentions for them. Not a great fan but I don't think he is getting that much special treatment. Perhaps he needs them in case his friends who lend him holiday homes get evicted and need somewhere to stay.

The provisions proposed are not nearly as horrid as the Daily Excess suggests.

Landlords/owners who willfully leave property empty for a long time can be called to book.

After a prolonged period of un-occupancy the Local Authority may get a

7 year lease to let the property. Holiday homes. property being renovated, held while probate is sorted etc. are exempt.

The very few owners who get caught (who will have themselves to blame by not seeking exemption by means of refurbishment etc) will not lose title but will have to accept the LA's rental from the 7 year lease. Since the property must have been empty and not paying anything then this isn't exactly a penalty.

Not quite as draconian as the Daily Excess suggested.

THe DE must have had a slow day and stuffed for news having not been able to invent a new Lady Di conspiracy theory that day which caused them to print this scary stuff.

EP

"edwin" wrote

"Called to book"? You make it sound like there's something wrong with leaving a property empty for a while!

"edwin" wrote

Being forced to go about refurbishing a property just so you are able to sell it within the next 7 years is hardy trivial.

"edwin" wrote

So what? They'd lose the ability to sell easily within the next 7 years, which maybe just as bad...

"edwin" wrote

Will the owner have any say in the calibre of tenant? Will the LA pay any higher insurance premiums? Will the LA do all the management (collecting rent, getting gas certificates etc etc)?

"edwin" wrote

Of course it is! If you had some money in a low-interest bank account, which you just hadn't got around to moving to a higher interest paying a/c, and you knew you needed the money within the next year or two, then would you be happy if someone came along and moved it into a slightly higher-paying interest a/c but locked it up for 7 years? What would you do when you come to need the money, say in another six months' time?

Key word is "HOME".

Nobody's home is under threat, since a home is where one lives, at least for a goodly proportion of the time. (Yes, there are other definitions, too!)

The provisions are clear: the proposal is about properties that have been abandoned, hoping nobody notices, with either no plans whatsoever or so some half-formed, "I'll come back to it in 5-10 years".

It ain't about homes.

Anyone who saw the word "Homes" in a Daily Excess headline will now have come to their senses,

"That won't be right, if it's in the Daily Excess, it can't really be about real homes, like we know. can it?" .....

Of course not.

Keep on making up stuff about Lady Di, as well ... that's fiction, too

"edwin" wrote

Define "home"...?

"edwin" wrote

And what about properties other than "homes" - as I discussed in my earlier post?

"edwin" wrote

So, if the owner doesn't care whether anyone notices, the property will be exempt - will it?

"edwin" wrote

Why should an owner need to have concrete plans in order to continue enjoying an asset?

I think the shocking thing about all this is people are still reading the Daily Express.

What is the world coming to?

There are two points to this discussion please read both before commenting:

1. The only property under the threat, which is compulsory letting, are those that the owner has no use for and no plans for. The Daily Express, (and previously the Mail) is making a story out of nothing.
2. However, the government is taking away the right to just own a property and do nothing with it. Why shouldn't anyone have the right to own a property, board it up and leave it? Obviously they should make sure it is not a danger to others etc. There may be other things such a nusiance to others that should also be prohibited - but how far should the definition of nusiance be taken. Saying that by keeping a house empty you are making it harder for someone else to find rented accomodation seems quite a stretch of anti-social behaviour, outside of the USSR anyway.

"rob" wrote

I did. Now what's the answer to my question?

I was agreeing that while the tabloid story was a bit half baked, there was a real question regarding changes of civil liberties. This could be taken as New Labour showing some socialist principles, however I wonder how this looks when considering the history of the right to own property in England. Could be an interesting thesis for someone. I doubt there is a precedent though, unless by accident. NL are not that great on history.