to ask what you think about Corbyn and Lammy's suggestion that houses of the rich should be requisitioned to give to homeless Grenfell victims?

[nutter19]

I am not sure what to think about it. On the one hand I agree that there are a lot of very big houses in the borough that are empty and could be used to house the homeless rather than left empty.

On the other hand, it seems a bit sinister to think they would just take private property off those they deem rich.

What do other people think?

It isn't unthinkable to have the state requisition property on a political whim, Puzzled. It happens a lot. Just ask the residents of Harmondsworth or the homes and businesses forcibly purchased to allow the Emirates Stadium to be built.

Birds ""I have a feeling you do pay council tax on vacant properties as long as they are habitable.""

You don't for a time period, then just a very reduced amount, if at all.

The legislation has changed, or at least as it is applied in my LA, and we had to pay full CT after a month of our house being empty. Had it still been empty after two years we would be paying double.

yourcar I think it's far more immoral for flats to lie empty all year round while people are lving on the streets.

But for the state to simply step in and requisition private property on some political whim is surely unthinkable to any rational mind

Again, outside of the London bubble 'the state' already forces sale or possession on homes left empty too long.

How long is too long, I don't know. They wrote to ex-H demanding to know what was happening with the property and threatening to force sale within six months of him buying it and not doing anything with it.

I wonder if any of the owners of these properties (the ones bought solely as an investment and left vacant deliberately) has offered use of said property(ies) to those affected by the fire? Does anyone know?

The whinging, embittered Tories can't even keep their traps shut in the aftermath of a national tragedy, can they? Even when people have died they have to keep sticking the boot in.

It's bloody obvious what he meant. He wasnt talking about sending the heavies round to boot out Tarquin and Cordelia out of their nine million pound penthouses so the paupers can move in ffs as you well know. There is something seriously wrong with the fact that there are so many empty properties in that part of London, owned by people who never have any intention of living there.

Land banking of expensive apartments in areas with housing shortages does have to be looked at. Higher property taxes on second or third homes is complete reasonable, however, I wonder how those with just one home, mortgaged to the hilt, would feel if the value of their house fell or stagnated?

However, this rich/poor divide is being played up a bit. I don't think for a second that a rich K&C resident would get anymore joy from the council if they complained about their view being ruined by an existing ugly tower block, that I would.

And spinassienne, I agree that the immorality of owning flats in this way far surpasses the requisitioning of them for the victims' use.

But for the state to simply step in and requisition private property on some political whim is surely unthinkable to any rational mind

What's unthinkable to me is to political point score so soon after a tragedy and use this for leverage when we don't even have a final death toll yet.

Power to make interim Empty Dwelling Management Orders:

(1)[a local housing authority [may] make an interim EDMO in respect of a dwelling to which section 133 applies if ...

(a)that the dwelling has been wholly unoccupied for at least 6 months or such longer period as may be prescribed,
(b)that there is no reasonable prospect that the dwelling will become occupied in the near future,
(c)that, if an interim order is made, there is a reasonable prospect that the dwelling will become occupied...

(3)In deciding whether to authorise a local housing authority to make an interim EDMO in respect of a dwelling, the tribunal must take into account—
(a)the interests of the community, and
(b)the effect that the order will have on the rights of the relevant proprietor and may have on the rights of third parties.

(4)On authorising a local housing authority to make an interim EDMO in respect of a dwelling, the tribunal may, if it thinks fit, make an order requiring the authority (if they make the EDMO) to pay to any third party specified in the order an amount of compensation in respect of any interference in consequence of the order with the rights of the third party.

here is something seriously wrong with the fact that there are so many empty properties in that part of London, owned by people who never have any intention of living there.

Yes there is, but it's not the way to solve the current crisis and it's wrong to use that as political capital.

Yes, homes that stand empty all year long and have been bought solely for investment without any intention of renting them or using them even as a second residence should be requisitioned and fair rent paid to their owners, so that the people have a safe place to live until new permanent homes are built or found for them. I know there are hoards of these in the area. A relative used to live in a nearby block and looked out over entire blocks that were empty but privately owned.

Homes are for living in, not for profit.

Stoking up the Rich/poor divide will only bring trouble, but it seems JC is either too shortsighted or too stubborn to see that.

This thread is crazy! The cladding was not put on for the benefit of the rich! It was to keep warmth in and the wet out and to make it look nice for everyone. It also looks like it came up to building regs and 99% of builders don't go beyond building regs. Change the building regs by all means but lets not blame the bloke that owns the company that made the panels or the company that put them on providing they were put on to building regs. Blame the twats that have known for ages that these panels are dangerous due to fires in similar circumstances irrespective of whether those twats are rich or poor.
Rich bashing is insane. If it wasn't for rich people or people trying to get rich, no one would have any employment and we would all be sitting on the beaches trying to catch fish to eat. Sheesh!

@BabychamSocialist I think I love you. That's an excellent bit of fact checking.

I want to go and be Jezza's lodger.

Agree with Artisan that councils have programmes to bring empty properties back into occupation. Usually it's co-operative but there are all sorts of compulsory purchase powers.
This is not exactly radical.

The whinging, embittered Tories can't even keep their traps shut in the aftermath of a national tragedy, can they? Even when people have died they have to keep sticking the boot in.
Eh? It was Corbyn's quote, not the Tories.

It's bloody obvious what he meant.
Too right. Trying to stir up class hatred.
He should keep his trap shut in the aftermath of a national tradgedy.

I don't think for a second that a rich K&C resident would get anymore joy from the council if they complained about their view being ruined by an existing ugly tower block, that I would

Except they're far more likely to be mates with a councillor on the housing committee poor Mrs Walid on floor sixteen.

Really it should be moot, because if any of these fabled 'rich' who owned all these empty properties had a shred of decency, surely they would be falling over themselves to let people temporarily stay there until they get back on their feet?

Oh and as for the 'if JC cares so much why doesn't he put someone up in his spare room' brigade - so because he actually seems to give a fuck about the plight of these people, he can carry the responsibility of taking them into his own home, but how dare he suggest that people with million/billion pound portfolios and loads of empty properties do similar.

It's.laughable.

Well how would it work in practice. Say a group of tenants are temporarily rehoused in a requisitioned property, with the owner of the property being paid market rent by who? The LA I guess?

Who would pay for utilities? Damage/repairs?
Would it be difficult to get the tenants back out again in the event the owner wanted to occupy/sell?

Genuine questions. Not trying to be goady or anything.

It isn't unthinkable to have the state requisition property on a political whim, Puzzled. It happens a lot

I didn't say it didn't happen - only that in my view it's unthinkable, especially in the kind of circumstances you describe

As I've said, if widespread empty properties are considered unacceptable then you change the rules to prevent it happening. What you don't do is start to regard private property as a state asset, to be grabbed by those in thrall to the politics of envy

Why can't they used empty University accommodation, Halls of residences etc in the short term? Hasn't the term finished?

than poor Mrs Walid

Bet JC charges a fair rent as well!

The Tories are trying to point score against Corbyn - who showed TM up for the cold hearted uncaring inhumane PM she is - who was hugging and comforting people yesterday? Who was listening to the voices of people who were scared, angry and traumatised?

TM was inspecting the building

Stoking up the Rich/poor divide will only bring trouble, but it seems JC is either too shortsighted or too stubborn to see that.

It's not being stoked up. It was already there, happening. I hope it bloody does bring trouble too, trouble to all the people making money off the back of treating the poor like chumps.

I like rich people. I have loads of rich friends. I AM QUITE RICH. But it doesn't take much to look out for people in society who have less, it's not a zero sum game.

And if all the people with barely anything had a little bit of something, do you know what they'd do? They'd be a little bit happier and more secure, and they might go off and try and get rich and make everyone a bit happier and more secure with a better economy. They'd go and spend their extra bit of cash in the local baker's or splash out on a few cans and all that lovely tax money would come back into the coffers.

If councils spent a bit more money on better safer homes, then the building trade would get a bit richer and they might have more employees.

Having no poor people doesn't stall the economy, it helps it.