To think that owning a second home to use as a holiday home is extremely selfish?

[benadrylcucumberpatch]

It would be a different story if there was a surplus of vacant properties . As it stands holiday home owners turn communities into ghost towns, inflate prices in desirable areas (many of which are rural with low wages) and displace people who would live in the property full time.

Aibu to think this is selfish and reprehensible? Why are such people not villified for taking more than they need in such an extreme way?

Tell that to the Queen!

Well... I'm torn on this. I'm about to buy a house that will be my second home in that I won't live there full-time, but will be the only home I own because I'll be renting in my full-time location. The home I'm buying is affordable - the area I have to live and work in isn't (for me). The house I'm buying is in a beautiful, rural area which doesn't support many jobs. The house has been vacant for a couple of years, and though it's lovely, apparently no one wants it. It's cheap for the area so it's not that no one local can afford it. The idea is to spend holidays there until my DC leave school/home and then move there permanently, but that won't be for a few years yet as they're settled in school and the new house doesn't have any age-suitable schools nearby.

Is it selfish? It's hard to see who I'm depriving, and of what. What I have more of a problem with is what's happening in the area where I live on a day-to-day basis, where house prices have been driven up and up by people commuting further and further in and out of London, paying silly money for houses that seem cheap compared to the London suburbs they've come from, to the point where local people are priced out of buying. Simultaneously, the private rental market's gone up and up and up too. What I think is worse than owning a holiday home is owning an ordinary BTL and basically getting someone else to pay a mortgage that you earn enough to qualify for and they don't.

I think empty property in places where there is pressure on housing can be a problem, but what's also a problem is the distortion of housing markets as an outcome of uneven wealth and the uneven value placed on different types of work. I think the problem is much more complex than your OP makes it sound.

We bought a second property as a pension. We originally intended to rent it but it was such a hassle with people breaking things, noise inconveniencing neighbours , rent not being paid that we no longer rent it out but use it as a holiday home. I agree that it’s immoral. To offset my guilt, we encourage trusted family and friends to use it as a free holiday venue so at least we are maximising the occupancy and people are spending money in the area.

I think I most people do 'something' that could be considered by others to be selfish/inconsiderate (having lots of children, buying a holiday home, frequent flights, eating meat, not paying much tax, calling an ambulance cos they cut their finger etc etc). But they excuse their own 'thing'; justify it somehow; and lambast the others.

I don't agree op
There's nothing wrong with spending your money as you choose

My holiday home is in part of the country that relies heavily on tourism. It's let for around 45+ weeks a year. It's a pretty 3 bed character cottage that has a stunning location but was on the market for months before I bought it.

I employ local people to clean between guests in an area where jobs are not plentiful.

A local company does all the laundry

I employ a local man to maintain the garden and clean the windows.

A variety of local tradesman are employed to service the boiler and maintain the heating and plumbing services and to do the 101 odd jobs needed to keep a 250yr old house in A++ condition.

Furniture and fittings are bought from local retailers.

My guests support the local shops and restaurants. If I lived there I wouldn't be eating out every week in the lovely local teashops or visiting the local castles and other sites.

Yes I am on business rates. I use nothing provided by the local council but make quite a substantial contribution to the local economy.

Ohhhh you stole my comment!! Ha. Yes, who sold the property in the first place? Presumably a local sold the property to much reviled “ out of towner “ rather than a local. So why aren’t you bashing them for their immoral choice. In a Capitalist society you’re always going to have people with more money than others and the freedom to spend it where they wish.

NiceLegsShameAboutTheFace of course I use resources I don't need, as does everyone on this country but this thread is specifically about housing (see title)

Yeah, I can read [hmmm] To answer then:

Yes, you're being unreasonable.

No, people should not be vilified for owning a holiday home. Neither should you for your excesses.

I'm from the Lake District, and I can honestly see both sides.

My parents house will most likely become a holiday or short term rental house when they die. Why? Because it's honestly in the middle of nowhere. It's unsuitable for most young families in spite of being a generous 4 bed. It's picturesque, but incredibly old and high maintenance, with poor utilities and services, and a lot of responsibility for the house owners.

The house next door (one of three) took two years to sell after being a holiday cottage for twenty years.

Tourism and farming are THE industries of the area. There are smatterings of other jobs, but not really enough to go around all those who'd love to make a home there. The tourists need somewhere to stay.

I'm hoping we can retain it for short term lets, ideally, rather than weekly lets. It's an incredible spot.

As for locals being priced out, I'd just like to point out that it's not just in holiday areas. Many people who grew up in Greater London have been priced out for a long time. Or at least are quite unable to afford the sort of home their parents took for granted,

Much of that is down to the rise of buy to let, and of course the huge increase in overseas investors, who so often leave the properties empty so as to keep them pristine for if/when they decide to sell.

Where are these ghost towns? I'd like an example please, just so I understand what we are talking about?

Would we be just be legislating against 'holiday' homes or all 2nd properties?

Why is one person's good fortune, another person's misfortune? I suspect the housing market, job market and geographical pressures are more complex than simply 2nd home owners causing all the ills - but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

Should. be allowed but heavily taxed. There is a limited supply of properties and empty properties push up rents and purchase prices.

Tax a percentage of the principal each year for unoccupied properties and put the money towards new homes and urban renewals. This would heavily affect the luxury London developments owned by wealthy foreigners and provide significant tax revenue.

Given that a lot of holiday homes are in rural areas and jobs in rural areas tend to be low paid, would many of the young local people actually be able to afford to buy their own homes even if holiday home buyers didn't inflate the price? That's if the local young people can actually find jobs.

Buying a home involves having a deposit of some kind, usually several thousand pounds, it's not a case of just meeting the monthly payments. It's often the cost of the deposit that stops people buying their own homes.

I don't have a holiday home, but I think the whole, 'outsiders buying up houses and preventing locals being able to afford them' argument, isn't always a realistic one.

If people stay in hotels, guest houses and B&Bs they help the local economy. Holiday let types and second home owners arrive with everything they need and spend little when they get there.

I have never hired a holiday home.

Should be allowed but heavily taxed

To be fair they have already increased the stamp duty tax considerably for second homes.

MyOpinionIsValid
That is a fairly extensive list there! As an aside, could I just point out as I could not find a list of the 53 L.A. with the highest levels of empty homes, I would question 37 of them being in the North East as the ''North East'' actually just contains 2 places on the list; Newcastle and Sunderland.

''North East England is one of nine official regions of England at the first level of NUTS for statistical purposes. It covers Northumberland, County Durham, Tyne and Wear, and the area of the former county of Cleveland in North Yorkshire.''

OP I largely agree with you; I live in the Lake District in an area with around 80% holiday homes! Some of them are commercial holiday lets and some are second homes. Having a certain number can boost tourism but there needs to be a balance.

If there are very few permanent residents it's difficult to keep rural schools open and to have enough people to join the village hall committee, parish council etc.

For all those who say that their holiday let contributes to the local economy - where do you think the people who work in the shops and pubs live? What about your cleaner, the people who work for the holiday letting agency or the tradesmen who repair your house? All areas need a mix of open market housing, affordable rented housing and affordable housing to buy. Some of the housing in our area has occupancy restrictions so it can only be bought by locals and this is essential for rural communities to survive.

For those that think the only jobs is rural areas are tourism and farming - that's really not correct. All rural areas need the same professional and public services that urban areas need. My friends are teachers, teaching assistants, school administrators, social workers, accountants etc and the all need somewhere to live too!

Holiday let types and second home owners arrive with everything they need and spend little when they get there.

I really doubt that. We rent uk holiday homes approx 3 times per year and never take much with us. The only meal we eat in is breakfast, we always have lunch and evening meal out at attractions, cafes, pubs or restaurants, and always buy bits and pieces of grocery (milk, bread, etc) at the nearest local shop. Our car boot is full of clothes and stuff for the kids, there's no room for a week's worth of groceries.

Will never be in the position to be able to but I have no problem with people buying a second home provided that it has over 90% (ish)occupancy throughout the year so the local economy benefits from the additional tourism.

I thik that's entirely reasonable. There are parts of the country where tourism creates a lot of jobs (20% of jobs in Cornwall are in tourism, according to someone I met last time we were there) and generates a lot of income, and having places for them to stay is an integral part of that.

But that's a very different thing from someone having a house that they go to just for 2-6 weeks a year.

A couple of years ago, we got chatting to a couple who'd had to move away from the village we were in, and which they'd grown up in, because they couldn't afford to live there. They pointed out house after house along the pretty harbourside, some were holiday lets but a surprising number were used by the owners just for 4-6 weeks in the summer. One house was owned a wealthy woman who spent just 2 weeks a year there. That's a shocking waste. The landlord of the pub reckoned that more than 90% of his takings were from holidaymakers.

Of course, if council houses were still being built for local people who needed them, that wouldn't be such a problem.

I live in the Lake District in an area with around 80% holiday homes! Some of them are commercial holiday lets and some are second homes. Having a certain number can boost tourism but there needs to be a balance.

Personally, I think holiday letting businesses are absolutely fine. Often they are converted farm outbuildings etc which would never have been converted otherwise. I do have a big problem with the holiday homes that aren't let out, i.e. where someone just comes for the odd weekend or for a couple of weeks in Summer - those are doing absolutely nothing for the local economy.

I agree and IMO there should be regulation and a limit as to how many homes can be holiday homes
Villages around where I live have been ruined due to the high % of holiday homes

Often they are converted farm outbuildings etc which would never have been converted otherwise.

Not necessarily - in my village there is a development of nearly thirty modern terraced houses. Only two are lived in.

Where are these ghost towns? I'd like an example please, just so I understand what we are talking about?

Here's an example close to me: www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2009/01_january/19/cornish.shtml

Relevant bit: "Fifty of Helford's 80 properties are unoccupied for most of the year."

Of course, if council houses were still being built for local people who needed them, that wouldn't be such a problem.

Which is the crux of the matter. The country needs a hell of a lot more council and social housing. People blaming holiday homes are aiming at the wrong target. We'd still have a massive housing shortage if holiday homes were banned overnight.

We have a holiday home. When it stopped being a year round home we cleared out most of the kitchen equipment and only left enough for very basic food (cup of tea, cereal, toast, an omelette or a bacon sandwich sort of thing). We lend it out often to friends and family who are warned it is not equipped for cooking and they will have to eat out for most meals. It helps keep the place clean and ensures local pubs and restaurants (and there are a lot of them) are supported.