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?

I live in an area where whole village communities are being decimated by second home ownership.

So, of course, I’m going to agree that second home ownership shouldn’t be allowed. It has far-reaching consequences, and this shit does actually matter on a local level.

Of course, I recognise that we can’t actually police how people spend their money.

But, equally, I don’t think you can get all pissy when people point out the immorality of your actions.

In the USSR dachas (ie second homes in the countryside) were prevalent .

I agree with a PP - they should be allowed but taxed to fuckery. I’d also like a right of first refusal to buy for local residents before properties, esp new builds, are marketed overseas.

We’re not Hong Kong or Singapore. Very little of the UK is built on. With a bit of will and not very much effort we could solve the housing crisis in this country for good, but it’s not in the government’s interests to do so given how much of our wealth is ties to property and its value.

Re taxing second homes - many are in the name of overseas companies and it’s extremely difficult to make them pay tax.
However it’s against the law to allow listed properties to fall sown so I’m surprised councils don’t use their powers to reclaim abandoned properties.

This is something I feel quite strongly about. I live in Scotland, and my family are from one of the islands, so have a history of leaving to find work. It seems inordinately cruel that people who have maybe worked less hard or been less proactive, are favoured by the government when it comes to buying property there.

Particularly in the past, people would move to some not very salubrious parts of central Scotland to avoid grinding poverty and near starvation and maybe work in mining or gutting fish, and then end up marrying there.

Yet their direct descendants are penalised by the Scottish Government by being heavily taxed on second home ownership. And I'd like to see the Scandinavian acceptance of second home ownership recognised here because like there, in the more remote or mountainous parts of Scotland, there just aren't any jobs. And people who have stressful jobs quite like to have a bolthole to escape to at the weekends or for holidays, rather than a faceless hotel or overpriced b&B.

But its so difficult in this country. Building plots go for a small fortune, generally over 100k, and small cheap chalets or log cabins just don't exist.

So in Scotland now we have the ridiculous situation of it being easier and cheaper to buy a second home abroad than in your own country.

And parts of Northern Scotland are now far less populated than they were in the past. Communities are dying, and we need to encourage people to live in them and create jobs and businesses, even if they don't live there full time initially.

Because at the moment, it feels like the Scottish Government wants people to be good little citizens with fairly miserable lives, on the same footing as foreign tourists when it comes to holidaying in our own country. Whats the point in living in such a beautiful country if you spend the vast majority of your time stuck in the central belt conurbation and have to pay £1500 for a one week self catering holiday in your own country? And tbh, the roads north of Perth are so poor, you would be just as quick flying in from Brussels or Zurich or Copenhagen (as in the case of Povlsen) anyway.

I agree they shouldn’t be allowed.

It’s a shame, but it’s wreaking havoc in rural communities. It’s a lovely thing for the owners, but collectively it’s a terrible problem and ruins lives for people from coastal areas and pretty villages.

It was fine when the middle class was tiny and barely anyone had a second home- but it’s not ok now; there are far too many and it just doesn’t work.

@CirclesWithinCircles

This is something I feel quite strongly about. I live in Scotland, and my family are from one of the islands, so have a history of leaving to find work. It seems inordinately cruel that people who have maybe worked less hard or been less proactive, are favoured by the government when it comes to buying property there.

Particularly in the past, people would move to some not very salubrious parts of central Scotland to avoid grinding poverty and near starvation and maybe work in mining or gutting fish, and then end up marrying there.

Yet their direct descendants are penalised by the Scottish Government by being heavily taxed on second home ownership. And I'd like to see the Scandinavian acceptance of second home ownership recognised here because like there, in the more remote or mountainous parts of Scotland, there just aren't any jobs. And people who have stressful jobs quite like to have a bolthole to escape to at the weekends or for holidays, rather than a faceless hotel or overpriced b&B.

But its so difficult in this country. Building plots go for a small fortune, generally over 100k, and small cheap chalets or log cabins just don't exist.

So in Scotland now we have the ridiculous situation of it being easier and cheaper to buy a second home abroad than in your own country.

And parts of Northern Scotland are now far less populated than they were in the past. Communities are dying, and we need to encourage people to live in them and create jobs and businesses, even if they don't live there full time initially.

Because at the moment, it feels like the Scottish Government wants people to be good little citizens with fairly miserable lives, on the same footing as foreign tourists when it comes to holidaying in our own country. Whats the point in living in such a beautiful country if you spend the vast majority of your time stuck in the central belt conurbation and have to pay £1500 for a one week self catering holiday in your own country? And tbh, the roads north of Perth are so poor, you would be just as quick flying in from Brussels or Zurich or Copenhagen (as in the case of Povlsen) anyway.

This is such a breath of fresh air, and so very sensible.

To expand, why would you penalise someone who wants to live in a cheap studio apartment in a cheap area of a city for work who would rather invest their money in a proper house in the area of the country that their grandparents were from?

Or who bought a rundown mid terraced house to do up in said community that the locals, who would rather see their children in a new build, ignored and which was consequently left empty for 10 years to rot?

What about the second home owner who buys with an intention to retire there in a few years time?

Again, I will point out that many areas of Scotland were far more populous in past centuries than they are now, and have never recovered from the Highland Clearances and other factors. A lot of the problems they still face are caused by depopulation. People don't only move away for jobs, but they move away to find partners - difficult if you don't want to be in a relationship with the 3 people of your age left in the near vicinity.

If you compare the Shetland Islands with the Danish autonomous territory of the Faeroe Islands for example, the further north and less fertile and less rich in natural resources Faeroe Islands currently have a population of 53,000. The Shetland Islands have 23,000. They had nearly 32,000 in 1861. Not even the best example of depopulation, but clearly the British and Scottish governments are doing something that is deterring people to live there and in other places in the Highlands and Islands that Denmark is not.

Another idea would be to build loads of council houses, enough so that everyone renting privately can easily rent a council house instead. This would then bring down the price of property as all the buy to let landlords would sell up, and property would no longer be seen as an investment worth buying and leaving empty for years. 2nd home owners who genuinely use their properties a lot wouldn't therefore be affected although an increase in the unoccupied council tax should be a thing just to cover the lack of money spent in the local area.

Our holiday cottage is far too small for anyone to want to live in long term. We use it all the time.
If you've got money and you want a return on it then property is a good investment.
Those at the top invest in property so it's never going to change.
If you want to own a property in this country you have to do what it takes.
It's either worth it to people or not but forever moaning on MN is not going to change anything.

I would say quite a few of these empty homes across the country were perfectly good btl properties that would have remained btl properties but when landlords couldn’t put mortgage interest against tax they turned the property into a very short term let so they could claim the mortgage interest tax back.

@Zenithbear

Our holiday cottage is far too small for anyone to want to live in long term. We use it all the time. If you've got money and you want a return on it then property is a good investment. Those at the top invest in property so it's never going to change. If you want to own a property in this country you have to do what it takes. It's either worth it to people or not but forever moaning on MN is not going to change anything.

Your head is so far up your own arse that you have no idea about the real world.

happinessischocolate

So how would that work out

All the people living in btl properties would move into a load of newly built council properties (no idea where all these council properties would be built). Triggering a massive housing crash. So people wouldn’t be able to afford their homes, hand the keys back to the mortgage companies and then demand the council build more homes to house them in.
So councils would have shelled out millions, built on any spare bit of land and lost a huge amount of money building houses that had become worth less than they were built for. Mortgage companies would lose millions (don’t forget where people’s pensions are invested in)
And we would then be left with a load of worthless uninhabited houses.

Apart from that being a huge waste of money it is hardly a green idea to build houses for people who already have a house.

Hang their heads on traitors gate for all to see. Is it your business if a person has a 2nd home and leaves it for 90% of the year?

Just before the first lockdown, I was holidaying in the Highlands and stopped off in a town called Ardgay and the neighbouring community of Bonar Bridge, north of Inverness but actually on a rail route. I was really shocked to see so many empty properties. They were obviously empty, in that they had for sale signs (or not) but were decaying to various degrees.

Its a lovely small town in a beautiful setting and not that remote but the local hotel seemed to have closed down (it was hard to tell). I had actually stayed in it 10 years earlier with a group of friends and the change in that time was shocking.

I assume its something to do with Scottish Government policies requiring more stamp duty to be paid on second homes or requiring full council tax even if not occupied. I'm guessing. But something is putting people off buying such properties in such places, and there certainly aren't any locals stepping in to buy them. The place is dying, so many boarded up properties decaying quietly away, despite reasonable transport links for a Highland town.

But I guess they've put off second home owners so have achieved their goal.

A couple of people up thread have suggested that vendors refuse to sell to non locals. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way if you are an executor. We're just in the process of putting an attractive cottage convenient for London on the market. It's got weekend cottage/incomer written all over it, and its market value is way outside the price range of most locals. If we refused the best offer just because the buyer was from outside the county or happened to mention that they'd only be living there part time, and the other beneficiaries ever found out, particularly my SIL who is a money grubbing evil bitch (whole other thread!) - we would be in big trouble both with the rest of the family and with the law as it is the executor's duty to dispose of the deceased person's assets correctly and to the best advantage of the beneficiaries.

I can see why some communities ban second homes. Some villages in Cornwall were only half inhabited in the winter.

But as a more general thing, I think it is less of a problem. My ex has a small flat inLondon. He works in town sometimes, his siblings use it for hospital appointments, his children and nephews for weekends. So it is more cost effective than a hotel and everyone chips in.

But....it could still be a home for a homeless person. Which makes me uncomfortable. Higher taxes to invest in local services make sense.

I think council tax should be higher for homes empty more than 6 months of the year with the money being used in local area,

Whatever next? Don’t have more than 2 children because it makes it harder for others to get places in their chosen school? Don’t buy the last one of any item on a supermarket shelf because you might be depriving someone else?

And these decaying properties that everyone seems to see everywhere “left to rot”, how do you know that they are abandoned second homes? They could be first/only homes of people who have died with no family members to take over the place. Or their family members are overseas or the other end of the country and despite their best intentions they can’t maintain the property because they have to work and they live far away.

No, I don't think it should be allowed. If you are leaving homes empty for chunks of the year then you are participating in the erosion of a community and the cascade of social consequences that follow to impoverish the area on every level.

And people know this and they just don't give a flying fuck. So, I think it makes sense to make it illegal.

YABU.

I can see why some communities ban second homes. Some villages in Cornwall were only half inhabited in the winter

Having seen the pp pictures of what happens to a place when 2nd home ownership is deterred then I would be grateful that it had 50% of locals in the winter and presumably bustling in the summer.

CirclesWithinCircles I presume the hotel closed down because it needed seasonal staff and if people couldn’t rent anywhere and didn’t want to live in the village f/t then they couldn’t buy either so couldnt work at the hotel. It just goes to show that people who came to the village spent money in the village and kept their properties and people’s jobs in the hotel going. Now the very community it was supposed to save is slowly dying.

Sometimes I think people need to think a little more of the consequences of their decisions. I think people are so busy trying to get one over on a section of society they don’t step back and actually think of the harm their actions could cause or what alternatives or loopholes there are that people will take when backed into a corner. People don’t act a certain way just because you expect them to.

The homelessness issue is irrelevant in this situation. Homelessness is as others have said, caused by many other factors rather than lack of an actual house.

Surely the issue is more about second homes not housing people who actually live in that village/town and use the pub/shop/school/amenities all year round?

Hence leading to the death of the village or town?

How can you people supporting second home ownership not care about these dying communities? The shop/pub/schools etc closing down is an appalling state of affairs. Tales of empty rows of houses is not unusual .

Locals not being able to buy where they come from because of holiday makers seems immoral .

Just ban it, higher taxes will only go straight to the government who are not to be relied upon to spend it sensibly after all.

@Zenithbear

Our holiday cottage is far too small for anyone to want to live in long term.

Do you really believe this?

I know plenty of people who would be grateful to live in a small cottage as they currently live in vans/caravans/yurts.

The council have been housing people in camping pods around my area too.

If we were prepared to build enough houses so that there wasn't a shortage (including in attractive rural areas)

We categorically should not be building in rural areas.

We should enforce people moving out of council/ housing association houses once kids have left home and moved into one bed flats so families can have the houses. That way we aren't taking up more land building council houses.

We should promote families staying together so one house is needed per family not two.

We should redevelop a lot of areas where houses are standing empty.

Another idea would be to build loads of council houses, enough so that everyone renting privately can easily rent a council house instead

Council properties are generally longer term rentals, and council owned doesnt neccessarily mean better. Did you see the recent reports on the abysmal conditions some council tenants were living in, in Croydon? They were living in horrifically maintained (or not maintained!) Properties with
damp, mould, water leaks that hadnt been addressed etc. There are waiting lists for council properties, they cant cope with the demand that already exists (in terms of providing housing for those in temporary accomodation or adequately maintain the houses it already owns) let alone add the student population to its list of tenants and anyone else who wants a short term let!