government to snatch empty houses

[mr,m]

Originally Posted by Scarlett

Nice, I love the misleading term of 'snatch' implying that the government will just take it off you.

Read the article and you'll see its either via a compulsary purchase order or they will rent it and pay you the rest after expenses (no more than a rental agency would do)

I suggest you read the article too. Where does it mention compulsary purchase orders?
There is no mention either of the council acting as some sort of letting agent. By the time the council have gone through whatever made up laws are required to do this the owners will probably face a huge legal bill. You can bet your HOUSE on it that the owner will have to pay any associated fees in relation to the seizure.

[Jon T]

Originally Posted by mr,m

There is no mention either of the council acting as some sort of letting agent.

Empty Home Dwelling Orders allow local authorities to take over the management, but not the ownership, of a property.

But if an owner has no legally-approved excuse for keeping a home empty, councils can demand it be put on the market. Otherwise they can take control and let it out to council tenants.

I know exactly the areas that Nidge is talking about in his post. I also kind of agree with the Government's stance on this. There are far too many empty properties about, often in a state of disrepair. Yet on the other hand, there's high demand for basic housing with a low purchase price/monthly rent.

There's a tremendous amount of people out there who have brought properties as an investement, and just that, they don't intend to maintain, repair or upgrade them. Their sole purpose is to hold it as an asset untill they can dispose of it in a financially advantagous situation.

[mr,m]

Demanding it's put on the market is not a compulsary purchase ordrer.
Taking over the management is not a letting agreement.
These are Nazi like proposals from a panic stricken government, yet another hare brained scheme that would cost millions.
Local authorities already have powers to deal with properties which have fallen into disprepair.
And why the big problem with speculators, a hell of a lot will have got their fingers well and truly burned with the present climate, why should'nt they wait for an advantagous situation to crop up?

[Osem]

So far as I can see the article relates to measures which already exist and have been in operation since 2006. If so, this is simply yet another cynical policy reannouncement NOT a change in the law.

since the orders were first introduced in 2006, they have been used just 20 times.

However Margaret Beckett, the Housing Minister, said she hoped that their use would increase as housing building has slowed in the recession.

I wonder if she's bothered to look into why only 20 orders have been made since 2006....

[olaole]

They wanted to urge councils to start implementing this fully as theyre desperately looking at ways to cover the fact theyre simply not building affordable housing. Some ofthis money theyre throwing at the banks should have gone into construction and help to preserve a fundamental industry.

But if it smacks of common sense you can expect this government to give it a wide berth....

[mr,m]

Originally Posted by olaole

They wanted to urge councils to start implementing this fully as theyre desperately looking at ways to cover the fact theyre simply not building affordable housing. Some ofthis money theyre throwing at the banks should have gone into construction and help to preserve a fundamental industry.

But if it smacks of common sense you can expect this government to give it a wide berth....

[Gary L]

Will these houses seized by the state be rented out to the people that were put at the bottom of the council housing waiting list? or are we still waiting for everyone who came to this country with top priority to have some more?

[Jon T]

I have a problem with investors/speculators because they buy whatever is on the low end of the housing market and very often just sit on them. This has the effect of causing a lack of housing at the low end of the market and forcing the prices up.

Therefore the people on lower incomes that would buy these houses are not able to because of inflated purchase prices caused by shortage of properties.

This in turn has a knock on effect, because it puts a high demand on low cost social housing.

Of course, the right to buy scheme did a lot to reduce the amount of housing stock council's have at thier disposal. Also, any time a plan is mentioned to build new social/council housing, a protest group seems to spring up infuriated by the decision that the council wold dare to build properties at place X.

---------- Post added at 13:50 ---------- Previous post was at 13:46 ----------

Originally Posted by olaole

They wanted to urge councils to start implementing this fully as theyre desperately looking at ways to cover the fact theyre simply not building affordable housing. Some ofthis money theyre throwing at the banks should have gone into construction and help to preserve a fundamental industry.

But if it smacks of common sense you can expect this government to give it a wide berth....

......and very often whenever a plan is talked about to build more social housing, it fails very early on, usually because the area happens to be greenbelt, area on scientific interest, home to a rare kind of toad, etc(most of the time I suspect this is due to the "not in my back yard" effect).

[rogerdraig]

if you have ever had to live next to an abandoned property the question you would be asking is why wasn't this done sooner

my friends dad had such a house next to him the council spent a fortune getting rid of rats rubbish and boarding it up on many occasions because the owner would not do anything it eventual caught fire which solved the problem to a certain extent as they cleared the land and it was easier to keep clear

they have been able to do this for a while but rarely do personally if it stops us getting the eyesores that appear because of it now i will be happy

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by rogermevans

if you have ever had to live next to an abandoned property the question you would be asking is why wasn't this done sooner

my friends dad had such a house next to him the council spent a fortune getting rid of rats rubbish and boarding it up on many occasions because the owner would not do anything it eventual caught fire which solved the problem to a certain extent as they cleared the land and it was easier to keep clear

they have been able to do this for a while but rarely do personally if it stops us getting the eyesores that appear because of it now i will be happy

You have to say to yourself if I buy this property I've got to make sure I live in it or they'll take it off me and move somebody in.
How can anyone think this is a good idea? they won't think it's a good idea when the family that moves in are the ones from Hell.

I've got another car parked on my drive that I don't always use. it's worth a few grand but maybe they want that as well to give to somebody that needs it more than I do?

If this goes through and they take up all the houses, they'll be knocking on our doors next with a family that's moving in with us for a few weeks of hot baths and warm beds.

and we'll let it happen because that is what us British people have turned into under this government.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Gary L

You have to say to yourself if I buy this property I've got to make sure I live in it or they'll take it off me and move somebody in.
How can anyone think this is a good idea? they won't think it's a good idea when the family that moves in are the ones from Hell.

I've got another car parked on my drive that I don't always use. it's worth a few grand but maybe they want that as well to give to somebody that needs it more than I do?

If this goes through and they take up all the houses, they'll be knocking on our doors next with a family that's moving in with us for a few weeks of hot baths and warm beds.

and we'll let it happen because that is what us British people have turned into under this government.

I really don't think you need to worry too much - it's been law since 2006 in which time only 20 orders have been granted! Given that this 'government' will be booted out at the next election, I can't see the tally reaching triple figures.

[sollp]

Originally Posted by Nidge

There was a guy round our way who bought a 100's of ex National Coal Board houses for the sum of £1,500 each, he put low income families in them and charged top end rents, he wasn't the sort of landlord who didn't like to do any repairs. The areas where he bought the houses were in run down areas of Mansfield like Pleasley, Warsop Vale, Meaden Vale and also in some villages in Derbyshire.

Over time he let the houses fall into a state of disrepair, most of them ended up being boarded up and left for years.

A few years ago the Coalfield regeneration plan came into force, the local council implimented a compulsary purchase order for all of his houses so they could press a head with knocking the houses down and rebuilding them with new ones. He got £15,000 for every house even those that had been empty for over 10 years.

Well he played his cards right then.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Scarlett

Read the article and you'll see its either via a compulsary purchase order or they will rent it and pay you the rest after expenses (no more than a rental agency would do)

When I moved to my town 7-8 years ago we rented to start off with. There was (and still IS!) a house on the end of the terrace that is boarded up the owner apparently lives in a caravan park a hours drive away. In all the time I've been here, I've seen him come in and replace the fence to the back garden and re-plaster one of the eves of the roof. Thats it in 8 years. The windows are still boarded up and the house is empty when it could be usefully employed. It's just a shame that the local councils don't use these pwers more often.

That house belongs to someone, what they decide to do with it is up to them!

[rogerdraig]

tell that to any of these

http://sccplugins.sheffield.gov.uk/p...Mon=01/12/2008

http://www.welovelarkhall.com/2008/1...ard-house.html

http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/home...l/article.html

why should these people risk thier lives for this

http://www.shieldsgazette.com/jarrow...use.3801113.jp

http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/ne...use.5004548.jp

http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co....l/article.html

not all are as bad as those i know but many are and it mostly those that they are talking about

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by rogermevans

tell that to any of these

http://sccplugins.sheffield.gov.uk/p...Mon=01/12/2008

http://www.welovelarkhall.com/2008/1...ard-house.html

http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/home...l/article.html

The thing is, did the councils in question try to locate the owners and get them to do something about those properties? If they did and the owners were unwilling to clean things up then fair enough. If not then there is no point in the councils bleating about the problem.

why should these people risk thier lives for this

http://www.shieldsgazette.com/jarrow...use.3801113.jp

http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/ne...use.5004548.jp

http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co....l/article.html

not all are as bad as those i know but many are and it mostly those that they are talking about

Now we are on to a different argument entirely.....
(However, thats like saying the victim of mugging is to blame because he had a nice iplayer that the mugger wanted....
In other words, don't blame the owners, blame the scrotes who get their kicks from arson.....)