Should people be allowed second homes?

[Soubriquet]

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?

Where I live, second homes have killed some of the local village schools, shops and pubs, because when the properties are empty for most of the year, there is not enough people/trade to keep everything going.

One local property used to employ 4-5 people, pay tax etc, and now is lived in for a few weeks a year.

At least if a property is rented out privately, there could still be a family living in there, contributing to local costs, or even a holiday home rented out for a lot of the year keeps the shop and pub open (but not the school).

I do think that there should be specific areas/villages where it is banned and that you should have to occupy the premises all year round to be able to buy it. There are plenty of properties out there, and lots of building going on, where people could have bought beachside/city apartments for second homes, that would not have impacted on daily life in villages.

In some of our local villages, there are people who have moved there from away, they do live there all year, but are older retired people as the young couples can't afford the property. These same people then oppose all new affordable housing building, and try to stop young families moving into the area. It is so unfair and most people can't afford to live where they grew up.

Yes of course.
Someone with the means to buy a second home is entitled to spend their money as they wish.
Not buying is not going to rid homelessness or help anyone who cannot afford a home.
There should be 25% of all new housing supplied under an affordable housing scheme to give locals an opportunity to buy.

It is worse in Ireland large foreign investment companies are buying up complete new housing estates.
I'd prefer seeing a living resident have 5 additional houses over investment funds who pay little tax and knock young buyers completely out of the market.

In answer to the OP, regarding holiday homes standing empty 90% of the year- personally, I think it's wrong on every level.

I think there should be systems like they have in Jersey that outsiders aren't allowed to buy property until they have met residency criteria; I think holiday homes should be heavily taxed, a 'community that my holiday home is destroying tax', if you like.

There could even be a system of licenses for holiday cottages run as businesses, i.e. a restricted number of them, to prevent the hollowing out of seaside communities out of season.

I don't for a moment think these measures will tackle homelessness, but that is not what this is about (I'd also heavily tax BTL by amateur landlords, too).

I don't subscribe to the theory that you should be allowed to do whatever you want with your money. No, you shouldn't if that directly involves the destruction of someone else's community for your holiday leisure.

Whilst it's not the same in terms of creating ghost towns and having dimishing facilities, not being able to afford to buy a house where you grew up is a common problem all over the uk, not just holiday areas. I grew up in London suburbia. Out of all my friends i can think of only a couple who bought homes there most moved further away to be able to move. One friend grew up in central London - she definitely cant afford to buy there.

@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

Pasta and house ownership are rather different issues.....

But IF there was only so much pasta available, and you bought it all, because you could, thus depriving others of it, do you think that's okay? Might you feel differently if you were the one without pasta? Might you feel that a system of rationing was a better idea?

As for 'living in Russia', the irony is not lost on me; citing a country where increasingly, the Big Man with all the cash (and a hefty property portfolio in London) does get to call the shots over the little people.

In New Zealand and (I think) India foreigners aren’t allowed to own property.

About half the countries in the world don't allow foreign ownership in some form or other. I grew up in a part of Scotland that had so many issues with incomers that although there's not a legal ban in reality no-one wilĺ sell to an outsider. But you need a close community to agree to that.

But IF there was only so much pasta available, and you bought it all, because you could, thus depriving others of it, do you think that's okay? 🤔 Good point.

I don’t think it should be banned. It would be incredibly difficult to police for starters. Eg me and dh own our house jointly so if we were to buy a second home (we’re not!) then it would be a second home. But if we were to put current house in my name and new house in dh’s name then technically would it still be a second home?

What we should have though is a small financial penalty for unoccupied houses. Small enough that it isn’t worth doing dodgy things to get around paying it but large enough to be a bit worthwhile.

For example - any home that is occupied for less than 150 nights per year has to pay an extra 10 - 20% in council tax.

Yes, but taxed more.

Not that many people have a second home. This would not solve the issue that this country has.

The issue here is lack of affordable housing, and the poor standard of existing housing available. A homeless family isn't going to be able to afford the Jones's second home, for example, and even if they did, it would be nowhere near their employment as second homes are typically in the countryside or by the sea.

But if we were to put current house in my name and new house in dh’s name then technically would it still be a second home?

Yes I think it is. I believe you would still have to pay increased SD on it as a second home

We have a holiday home in Austria which is mostly rented out to tourists and we use it a couple of times a year. There, there is a quota system and local tax system which massively discourages properties being purchased as genuine second homes and not being rented out. It works really well... the resort is busy for about 8 months of the year, the businesses all have an April and October shutdown to do things like renovate, take holidays etc. Hospitality is well paid and well respected there, and there are a lot of successful businesses that have grown out of the tourist rental market... property renovation, servicing, transport etc. And even things you wouldn't expect....a local artist makes a good living doing what she loves, but it would be completely unviable without tourists.

We have now after owning and renting out for 15 years been invited to apply for 'all uses' so we don't have to rent it out anymore, but we will continue to do so. At the moment it is being rented for a very small amount to an Australian ski instructor who can't afford to go home with the quarantine there.

So... local quota and tax systems do work if well implemented, and can result in thriving communities, prospects for everybody, and a growing economy.

@AfterSchoolWorry

Of course not.

Russia is that way 👉🏻

I would respectfully suggest before claiming any moves to address a very clear problem in some parts of the country could be seen as totalitarian that you read up a little on life in places like the USSR, China, North Korea etc etc. We are very far from that and even if we did introduce some punitive measure in regard to second homes it wouldn't make us remotely like them. And with Russia being a kleptocracy currently if anything it is worse than here in terms of the rich having it all and denying the proletariat.

Aren't second homes, or dachas, relatively common in Russia?

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacha

Yes of course, don’t be jealous.

It would be an interesting exercise trying to impose this on the very wealthy - footballers, pop stars etc
What about houses abroad? Would that be allowed? (I assume not as you have mentioned the empty houses in London owned by Russians). Which of their residences do you think people like Richard Branson, Sunak Rishi and the Queen would choose to give up? :)

I think there needs to be a fundamental rethink about property generally. We are told there is a housing shortage, but I don't see huge camps of people who don't have homes (not being able to afford the house where you want is a different issue to being homeless).

Firstly we've just had the census (not in Scotland) so we now have an up to date and pretty accurate (assuming people answered the questions properly) picture of population numbers and age ranges. We also know that things like Brexit, covid and the invitation to Hong Kong residents to come to the UK are going to affect population numbers.

Once we know that, we have a better idea of how many houses we need (and hopefully also, how many homes are currently empty).

Then we can calculate how many houses we need and where we need them.

It might be that we don't need to build lots of new houses and it might also be that we don't need to restrict second home ownership.

On the other hand, it might be that we do have, and will have, a housing shortage and therefore we need carrots and sticks to encourage less second home ownership and also to encourage people to downsize if they are living in big houses they no longer need.

Second home ownership is part of a much bigger picture.

I grew up in a part of Scotland that had so many issues with incomers that although there's not a legal ban in reality no-one wilĺ sell to an outsider. But you need a close community to agree to that

There's a difference between having a home as a second home and moving to a new area from elsewhere. I see the value in trying to prevent your home becoming a holiday home, but it's a bit blinkered to stop "outsiders" moving in full-time.

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

People must be choosing to sell them to non local people. They also have to take some responsibility for lack of housing for local people.

We’ve got a second home, there all school holidays and every other weekend, when we aren’t there family/friends are.

We paid second home stamp duty tax for it, and local council tax etc.

You can’t tell people what they can and can’t buy with their own money.

it's killing communities, on the radio they were talking about he low covid vaccination by area and Belgravia came out really low due to the amount of investments homes. it's really depressing.

No second cars

No second children

No second holidays

No second jobs

Etc. Those things are also not “essential”

One of everything, yeah ?

You can't tell people what to buy but they should think of the impact before doing so, like that will happen

but it's a bit blinkered to stop "outsiders" moving in full-time.

There was a big problem in the past with some individuals wanting to buy a croft with a cow and a goat and some chickens at a very inflated costs so they could 'go off grid' but who didn't care for the land, stayed one winter and buggered off once they'd sold the property at a yet more inflated cost to the next person who wanted to do the same. In some schools there were so many outsiders the indigenous children were teased about their accents. Those are the people the agreement was intended to stop, generally people who had something to contribute to the community would be able to buy or build a house after a few years of living there. The community who decided to do that is more prosperous than the surrounding communities who didn't so it was clearly the right decision.

I had always liked the idea of a second home near the beach, but when we got to the point where we could afford it I decided it was an immoral thing to do.

I might have been able to justify it if we were spending every weekend there and contributing to the community, but even then I don't like the idea that I would have driven up the price of houses for locals.

Maybe the way forward is to educate people on the impact rather than to legislate against it?