Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To ask who the hell owns all the..

223 replies

OftenHangry · 04/12/2018 15:15

... empty properties?

There is over 200 000 empty properties in England only.
200 000!
There is a housing crisis yet lots of people leave houses to rot and instead new ones have to be built (and they are much dearer to buy).

There is a house near mine which I suspect is empty, so I checked google and this number came up. 200 000....

Gobsmacked. Why would someone just let a house sit empty?

OP posts:
Caprisunorange · 04/12/2018 19:00

Agreed. Government investment in housing has been in decline since the 70s.

LordProfFekkoThePenguinPhD · 04/12/2018 19:03

Around here it’s Very Very Rich folks from abroad. It’s true - London is like monopoly.

There’s a house near us that no one has lived in for about ten years when it was developed (it’s part of a huge development). However every so and often it is done up - and I mean a kitchen the size of my flat is ripped out and replaced (I know because I’m very nosey and if you don’t want people to look in at the ground floor kitchen with it’s hugw windows, you’d get blinds), as well as decorated and new paintings hung etc. It’s just a dolls house for someone.

Travisandthemonkey · 04/12/2018 19:03

@Badbadbunny
Yes sorry you’re right
I wasn’t thinking specifically this goverments. I meant all

SoupDragon · 04/12/2018 19:04

if you allow a handful of people to own vast tracts of land, while other human beings are forced to sleep rough.

But the two aren't connected.

Flashingbeacon · 04/12/2018 19:05

DH’s aunt and uncle bought 2 semidetached farm cottages (so both sides) that were totally broken down and hadn’t been lived in for 15+ years. Everyone said they were mad and wouldn’t be able to do it and the house would always be dangerous, the farmer would evict them once the house was mortgageable. They live there for 20 years. But it needed a lot of imagination.
I understand lots of these houses are not mortgageable and in need of money spent but like all things a short term expense would save so much. But no one would vote for that.

kmc1111 · 04/12/2018 19:24

I own an empty house.

I inherited it. It’s unliveable, and fixing it would cost more than it’s worth. Every potential buyer wants the land to build a small apartment block, but that’s being blocked. I was going to build a house, but I can’t get any decent plans approved. Neighbours freak out at the idea of the land being used for anything but a small house that moderately blends in with the other houses in the area (shitty 60’s pre fabs that’ll all be torn down in a decade when the current owners die) and the local authorities are the same.

So now I’m just waiting it out until the area changes and something worthwhile can be built there. I’d very much like to build or sell to builders, but it’s just not worth it atm.

Kitsandkids · 04/12/2018 19:27

Round my way landlords seem to split older, larger houses into flats but then struggle to let them so they often lie empty. If they kept them as houses for reasonable amounts of rent I think they’d all be full of families on long term leases.

Also, in my street there are currently several properties up for rent advertised as ‘for students.’ But there is an abundance of student housing in my town so they are up for rent for months. Our house was a student house before we rented it and we managed to get a pretty cheap rent for a 5 bedroom house because it had been empty for so long. If the other student houses were advertised as family homes I think they’d be filled too.

NoNewsisGood · 04/12/2018 19:32

I know of a place that's been empty for a few years, but he owner went to hospital, then to a nursing home. So, not probate for a couple of years but empty and started to have trouble as was just left from that one day as it was left. Eventually probate kicked in and it was eventually rented. From the outside then it would appear empty and was a waste as could have been a great family home. But, as others have said, empty, but not easy to fill up under the circumstances.

CraicMammy · 04/12/2018 19:34

Second home owners too

Pennina · 04/12/2018 19:37

It's mad isn't it. The house next door to us was empty for over five years! The owners left the property to go and live with their elderly relatives who were having a crisis then subsequent bereavement. They ended up staying with surviving relative for far longer than they thought they would looking after them etc. They didn't want to sell the house as they wanted to come back to it but unfortunately it was not in a good state of repair and not safe to rent out. Very complicated it went on for years and years.

OhHolyJesus · 04/12/2018 19:48

Haven't RTFT but for London many owners are Chinese or Russian - once worked with an interior designer who did a lot of residential properties in Chelsea etc. Owner would visit but not live there. They were there types who yachts and many houses across the world.

DDIJ · 04/12/2018 19:55

This reply has been withdrawn

Message from MNHQ: This post has been withdrawn

drspouse · 04/12/2018 22:23

@Judashascomeintosomemoney that's so sad.

theOtherPamAyres · 04/12/2018 22:40

The empty properties near me belong to elderly men and women who have gone into nursing homes and are not expected back.

dapplegrey · 05/12/2018 00:44

But there is a fundamental issue to be addressed, if you allow a handful of people to own vast tracts of land, while other human beings are forced to sleep rough.

How should this issue be addressed if not by confiscating land Soviet style?

DGRossetti · 05/12/2018 08:17

If I remember correctly there was something about it using freedom of information and maybe other sources - presumably to get around the land registry issue. Wish I could remember where I saw it now!

The problem, if I recall correctly, is that there are huge swathes of land that haven't (yet) made it onto the Land Registry which is a relatively modern idea having been established in 1925. However it was only in the 80s and 90s that various laws were bought in requiring land to be registered when sold. So if a piece of land has not been bought or sold or mortgaged since (say) 1980, then i won't exist in the Land Registry and there's no way of knowing who owns it. Well, not until they produce the deeds when needed to prove ownership (like if you try to build on it).

The problem is a lot of "old school" land isn't owned by a person - it's owned by a trust. So when Lord Snodgrass pops his clogs, his children inherit the trust not the land directly. No change of hands, no need to register.

Private Eye have been following this for years - they have used FOI to create a map of London, which shows an awful lot being put into trusts.

Beyond that, it's a mystery to me ... remember: we're pulling back a curtain on rather hidden (and liking it that way) part of society - how the other 1/100th live.

DGRossetti · 05/12/2018 08:18

But there is a fundamental issue to be addressed, if you allow a handful of people to own vast tracts of land, while other human beings are forced to sleep rough.

How should this issue be addressed if not by confiscating land Soviet style?

Aren't we supposed to elect people with answers to questions like this ? Maybe they could do their fucking job for a change ??

AmIRightOrAMeringue · 05/12/2018 08:23

I looked at some posh flats recently in London. There was about 25pc occupancy in a large block. They were sometimes bought by large corporations to house visiting employees but a lot were bought by the super rich who have homes all over the world, to use as their London base for a few months or weeks of the year.

It's like how locals are priced out in tourist areas from people buying second homes.

It doesn't feel right. Other countries make it more difficult for non residents or non citizens to buy, but we don't seem to have the same restrictions

thefishwhocouldwish · 05/12/2018 08:25

My house is empty. We put it on the market in January and accepted an offer in October. We haven't exchanged yet.

I emigrated in August and it's been empty since then. Not much I can do about that.

JustMarriedAndLovingIt · 05/12/2018 08:33

Did anyone see that guy in the paper who just moved into an empty house and claimed ownership. I believe because it’s been so long he’s been allowed to keep it!

A. WHOLE. HOUSE!!

My former neighbour is tearing her hair out as she rents out a semi and they can’t find the owner on the other side. It’s falling to pieces. Her solicitor has scoured the land registry and god knows where else to know avail but it’s knocked quite a bit of value off her house.

DGRossetti · 05/12/2018 08:40

It doesn't feel right. Other countries make it more difficult for non residents or non citizens to buy, but we don't seem to have the same restrictions

That's part of "being open for business" though. Plus the fact that compared to some countries, buying and selling land in the UK (or England) is a piece of piss. My DF couldn't believe how easy it was when he moved here.

If you don't like it, don't vote for political parties that not only allow it but encourage it.

BogstandardBelle · 05/12/2018 08:40

The problem is the housing / property market - with the emphasis on the word "market".

We need to decide: Is property (land and / or buildings) an investment, a possession that someone can use in the way they see fit to create a profit for the owner?

OR is property a social good, something that should be made available to all those who need it at a price that they can afford, as it benefits wider society? At the moment we have both systems operating in the UK and they do not - cannot - mesh together well. The private sector - which sees property as an investment - is under no legal obligation to provide homes for people who cannot afford to pay the market price. It's as simple as that. I am a landlord, DH and I own two small flats in a popular part of the city where he grew up. We rent those properties out and it makes us a few grand a year (after agent's fees, compliance costs, repairs etc are paid for) - but TBH we could leave them empty and we'd still make a long-term profit on the capital increase. There is no obligation on us, as owners, to make them available as homes.

From an environmental pov, I agree that existing sites / brownfield sites should be targeted before crapy new builds in the countryside. But this cannot be left to the market - they just won't do it as it costs a fortune to clean up industrial sites, rather than just build in a field.

Yet people in the UK keep voting the Tories in: nothing is going to change in terms of the housing market unless there is a change of government. And a willingness of people to pay more taxes to fund a huge social housing project.

easyandy101 · 05/12/2018 08:41

Bring back residential squatting imo

CSIblonde · 05/12/2018 08:42

In NE London they are building a massive new block of supported housing flats, right opposite two huge empty buildings, one was a 3storey furniture store, the other, offices. You see empty buildings everywhere here & I wonder is it just cheaper to start from scratch maybe?

DGRossetti · 05/12/2018 08:44

My former neighbour is tearing her hair out as she rents out a semi and they can’t find the owner on the other side. It’s falling to pieces. Her solicitor has scoured the land registry and god knows where else to know avail but it’s knocked quite a bit of value off her house.

The local authority does have the power to compulsorily purchase properties that are in a dangerous condition in order to make them safe. They might need a nudge, but they can do it.

Back in 2002 when we moved in, there was a house across the road that we thought was derelict - turned out it was part of someones estate, but they were fighting over the will (for 20 years or something ?!?!?!). Anyway, not long after we moved in the council served them with a "repair, sell, or else" notice. It was sold within weeks.