Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Moral dilemma

14 replies

MipMipMip · 05/08/2017 13:10

So I have found my dream house. It's a quarter mile from the nearest neighbour, a mile from the nearest village.

The village is popular but I have seen a small three bedroom house with no garden, currently a holiday let, for sale at under £100k for over six months. I often see that locals are priced out of the village they grew up in but that doesn't appear to be the case here. There are many other lets in the village and usually some for sale.

Here's the dilemma. The house comes with holiday lets. I want to live far away from anyone, to make it my choice if I speak to anyone for a week. I'm basically anti social. I wouldn't mind family coming for a couple of weeks per year but I wouldn't want more than that. A holiday let more or less in the world is no big deal but there is a lack of housing in this country so if I brought this property and didn't use the houses would that be bad? Because I wouldn't consider the property if they had to be used.

Just to be clear, as I have been careless enough to not win the lottery again this is hypothetical. So you can be as rude as you like - it's a pipe dream not reality so I won't be offended! I think its an interesting question that's worth debate though.

And before anyone asks I'm not saying which property it is. I'll be winning next week and I don't want too have to gazump anyone! Grin

OP posts:
SnowBallsAreHere · 05/08/2017 13:14

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

HerRoyalNotness · 05/08/2017 13:19

It would be a shame not to use them. If you rented them long term to locals, you could have an agent look after them and not have to interact with the tenants.

Sounds like a bargain property! What's the catch?

Original poster
MipMipMip · 05/08/2017 13:22

sorry, the dream house isn't £100k - that was just to explain the area isn't short of housing. And I would love to live there but at present could only pay in Lego bricks so I suspect it won't happen. Sigh.

It's just as to whether it would he immoral to own houses that aren't used. I can't decide, given that this is not an area lacking in property but nationally we are.

OP posts:
Imbroglio · 05/08/2017 13:27

Personally yes I think it's immoral to own property that is unused when there is a housing shortage.

headinhands · 05/08/2017 13:36

When I lived on a council estate someone up our street brought their house and then quite quickly bought a house on the private estate and put the ex council house up for rent which sat empty for 6 months. That made me a bit sad.

SnowBallsAreHere · 05/08/2017 13:51

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
MipMipMip · 05/08/2017 15:49

Haha, would need to be in the arctic circle for all that Snow!

I suppose the next question is if holiday lets themselves are immoral, they are after all preventing someone living in them.

OP posts:
Imbroglio · 05/08/2017 15:55

Holiday lets bring people to the village who will probably spend money in the pub and the shops and local attractions, so not the same as being empty.

Birdsgottaf1y · 05/08/2017 16:04

""It's just as to whether it would he immoral to own houses that aren't used. I can't decide, given that this is not an area lacking in property but nationally we are.""

But you can't solve the National housing crisis by making unnecessary regional decisions, which the bedroom tax was.

I'm in Liverpool, we didn't have any issues with housing,until the bedroom tax. Noe we have three bed houses standing empty and being rented to anyone, as long as they are working (Social Housing), but in certain areas no-one working wants to live there.

If there is adequate accommodation in the area, then there isn't a moral dilemma. The only requisite should be that the properties are maintained, roof and damp wise.

VladmirsPoutine · 05/08/2017 16:10

I don't think this is a moral dilemma. I really don't think your decision would aid or abet the national housing crisis.

fabulousathome · 05/08/2017 16:58

It's fine to have unoccupied houses. You might want to use them for visitors or to help out a friend or for your DC who need somewhere to live when they are older.

You would be paying Council Tax on them (I assume) but not using any of the services such as education, rubbish collection and so on. You are helping this way. Where's the problem?

Original poster
MipMipMip · 05/08/2017 17:00

Thank you all. I'm finding it very interesting to hear the different views. As I say, sadly this is academic until I win come tuesday but it did get me wondering the rights and wrongs of the situation.

OP posts:
allertse · 05/08/2017 17:02

You may well not be allowed to let them out full time - a lot of holiday lets only have planning permission for them to be holiday lets.

In which case, no I don't think it would be immoral, unless the village is very dependent on the money from tourists that stay there.

If they could be used as houses for people to live in, I do think it's immoral - even if there isn't a shortage of housing in the area, those properties not being available will push the prices of the remaining properties up.

fabulousathome · 05/08/2017 17:21

People do far less moral things than this.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page