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

Should people be allowed second homes?

222 replies

Soubriquet · 09/05/2021 08:59

I’m not talking about those who have second homes to rent out, I mean ones who leave the house empty 90% of the year and visit maybe once or twice as a holiday home.

Surely it’s bad for the area to have so many empty houses that can’t be used as they are holiday homes especially if they live abroad and only visit once every few years. If ever

I’m also concerned that there is so much homelessness in this country that could easily solved by reducing the second home movement and allowing people to rent cheaply

So. What do you think?

OP posts:
HotToddyColdSauvignon · 09/05/2021 09:00

Oh well let’s all live in an identical government decreed equal square footage box Hmm

Original poster
Soubriquet · 09/05/2021 09:01

Yes. That’s exactly what I meant Hmm

OP posts:
HotToddyColdSauvignon · 09/05/2021 09:03

Well not allowing people to have second homes is definitely going to decrease homelessness isn’t Hmm

Ffs. Go find something else to soapbox preach about

JackANackAnoreeee · 09/05/2021 09:05

It is a selfish thing to do to be honest, it drives up house prices and has a massively negative impact on the area with the empty home.

MichelleScarn · 09/05/2021 09:05

'The Second Home Movement' what do you mean as this sounds like a dastardly plot. So do you mean government CPOs of these properties and then rent them out cheaply below market rent? How would this be fair to other renters?

DareIask · 09/05/2021 09:06

Should people be allowed to have a spare bedroom will be next. 🙄

Original poster
Soubriquet · 09/05/2021 09:06

Ok not actually on a soapbox I’m pondering. Difference

I’m just curious as to why houses in London for example, are left to rot and decay and stay empty whilst the owners live abroad and actually have no intention of doing anything with the house.

It could be rented out cheaply but no it’s seen as a status symbol instead

OP posts:
idontlikealdi · 09/05/2021 09:07

The second home movement?!

Stopping people buying second homes won't suddenly enable homeless people to be able to afford them.

Original poster
Soubriquet · 09/05/2021 09:08

There was someone on here the other day posting about their town in Cornwall. Those who are born locally are struggling to find a house because so many are actually owned. In reality, they are empty 95% of the year as they are just used as holiday homes

It means the people who want to stay in the area can’t, because no houses are available for them to buy.

OP posts:
Firefliess · 09/05/2021 09:08

If we were prepared to build enough houses so that there wasn't a shortage (including in attractive rural areas) then I don't think it would be a problem people having second homes. But there aren't enough houses, meaning prices are high and some people are badly overcrowded and others homeless I struggle to see it as morally acceptable. Having a second home and then taking any part at all in opposing new housing developments in either of the places where your homes are I think it offensive.

Bigbluebuttons · 09/05/2021 09:09

It’s unenforceable.

Corrag · 09/05/2021 09:10

@Soubriquet

There was someone on here the other day posting about their town in Cornwall. Those who are born locally are struggling to find a house because so many are actually owned. In reality, they are empty 95% of the year as they are just used as holiday homes

It means the people who want to stay in the area can’t, because no houses are available for them to buy.

Yes that was a lengthy thread so did you really need to start another one which is ostensibly about the same subject?
Original poster
Soubriquet · 09/05/2021 09:12

Because it isn’t just about Cornwall

now this is out of most people’s budgets but it’s an example of what I mean by houses being left to rot

Yes the average person can’t buy one of these houses but what’s the point in them being there if no one lives there and it’s just festering?

OP posts:
AnUnoriginalUsername · 09/05/2021 09:13

Homelessness would not be fixed by giving homeless people a house. Which has been proven time and time again. Homelessness is a far bigger problem than simply not having a house.

But yes, people should be allowed to own more than one of something if they can afford it. Someone else not being able to afford it is irrelevant in my opinion. Like I can afford to go on two holidays a year, should I give one of those to someone who can't afford any holidays? If you can afford a 6 bedroom house should you have to give it to a family with ten kids and move into a 1 bed flat because it's all you need?

ClarkeGriffin · 09/05/2021 09:14

I get what you mean op, but the second home owners aren't going to like it.

It is selfish. Why do you NEED two homes? You don't. You could easily just rent a holiday home that is actually used all year round by tourists, or stay in a hotel. Probably bloody cheaper to be honest rather than owning a second home you visit once a year and spend the rest of the time paying someone to keep an eye on it.

The second home owners as well do drive up prices in touristy areas, which rarely are a place to have a career and make a lot of money. It's usually small businesses aimed at tourists, so the people who live there all year round and work there then don't earn enough to buy a house because the prices got driven up. If they had stayed low like they should have, then they could maybe afford to buy their own home. Now they can't.

There's no wonder people in these areas hate people with second homes. The attitude already on this thread is just pure entitlement and not caring about anyone else. It's a bit sad, but not unexpected.

maddening · 09/05/2021 09:14

Those in the tourist areas don't even like the ones who buy a second home to rent out.

Lockheart · 09/05/2021 09:16

It's not just a problem endemic to beauty spots such as Cornwall, although the issue is extrapolated there due to the fact that there is less housing generally.
There are also so many houses in London left empty because they're bought just as investments or only used a couple of weeks a year by overseas owners.

Before we carry on covering our fields and woods with tarmac we should maximise the usage of our current housing. If you're not going to use a property regularly and you're not letting it out to tenants then it should be taxed extremely heavily.

HotToddyColdSauvignon · 09/05/2021 09:18

Why?

(I don’t own a second property as it happens) but if I did, why should someone tax me more heavily because I choose what to do with my property?

Do you want to come round and charge me extra because I bulk bought a load of pasta last week and I’m not using it?

Christ, we may as well go live in Russia in the 1930’s and get allotted our daily allowances

SymphonyofShadows · 09/05/2021 09:20

I wonder how many are actually left empty for most of the time these days, with Air BnB and a large choice of holiday let companies? I don’t have a second home but surely you’d have to be quite well off to turn down the prospect of a second income stream, if your place is in a popular tourist area.

Toilenstripes · 09/05/2021 09:20

I think it might be best to have a cap on how many homes in a certain area are second homes. But in some cases the second home might have been in the family for several generations and they’re an established part of the community.

bootlebumtrinketti · 09/05/2021 09:20

No they shouldn't. Selfish and greedy.

HugeAckmansWife · 09/05/2021 09:21

I don't think it's entitled to use your own money to purchase something you can afford. I teach in a private school and a lot of the kids have 2nd homes in a national park about 2 hours away. They go there probably about 50% of the weekends, and their parents are apparently up and down all the time (flexi boarding school). Its a home, with their own things. They don't have to check in and out, pack bags etc. I can see why it's preferable. I agree it seems a bit pointless if you literally leave it empty for 48 weeks a year but I do wonder how prevalent that really is. If I owned one I'd let friends and family use it. But pointless or not, it's just a reality in a capitalist society.

justaweeone · 09/05/2021 09:21

Simply put, yes they should.

JocastaNu · 09/05/2021 09:22

Allowed? Yes, free country and all that.

However, they should be taxed massively. Double Council Tax and an additional tax as a proportion of its value each year.

Lockheart · 09/05/2021 09:23

@HotToddyColdSauvignon

Why?

(I don’t own a second property as it happens) but if I did, why should someone tax me more heavily because I choose what to do with my property?

Do you want to come round and charge me extra because I bulk bought a load of pasta last week and I’m not using it?

Christ, we may as well go live in Russia in the 1930’s and get allotted our daily allowances

The ownership of second homes is directly detrimental to local communities is why. Surely this should be obvious.

You owning more pasta is not directly detrimental to others because pasta is cheap and freely available in most shops.

You owning a second home in a village where housing is already scarce and where prices have been inflated out of the reach of locals through demand for holiday homes is rather different, and if you can't see that then you're a wee bit dense.

If you're going to cause damage to communities, you should have to pay for the privilege.