To think holiday homes could be used to house lots of refugees

[Letshaveablackcelebration]

Uk has a LOT of holiday homes and empty second homes. Surely they could be used to take a lot of Refugees aswell as spare rooms? It could support local economies all year round too rather than just in peak tourism seasons? The crisis is going to escalate rapidly in Ukraine- there are 44 million people in the country and so far it’s about 2 million who have fled and now countries like Moldova and the Poland are starting to struggle so we need to step up.

Aibu? It seems like an obvious solution. Obviously using the empty homes of oligarchs too is a preference.

I read an article about a woman who gave her French holiday home to a refugee family.

I still think it has to be voluntary. Asking a small section of society to solve the refugee crisis is unfair.

We can all feel a Lang of jealousy about people who own second homes and people who have businesses. But I don’t want to live in a country where those homes can be confiscated by the government. And why now? We have always had a homelessness crisis, yet second homes and holiday homes have been allowed.

[quote Letshaveablackcelebration]@SparklyLeprechaun but this is my point- these are empty homes! If the government was willing to pay then what is the problem? It’s an enormous crisis that’s set to get a lot worse[/quote]
The government aren't willing to pay though. 350pm won't pay a mortgage and utilities.

That’s part of the problem. As I understand it the £350 has to cover everything. I have an empty three bedroom house within walking distance to shops etc. But £350 won’t cover the bills on that house.

@User76745333

That’s part of the problem. As I understand it the £350 has to cover everything. I have an empty three bedroom house within walking distance to shops etc. But £350 won’t cover the bills on that house.

Surely it would cover the utility bills and council tax? Aren’t you having to pay council tax and standing charges now while it’s empty? And the £350 is tax free, that’s the equivalent of more than £400 of taxed income. I’m struggling to see how an empty house generating nothing could cost less than if you were getting £350 for people to live in it.

The problem is it isn’t our money and it might not with the way energy bills are going. If that £350 has to pay water, gas and electricity plus council tax then £350 might not cover it. It isn’t our house it’s an elderly relative’s who has gone into a care home and needs the income really to pay towards care home fees. We would be willing to offer it up if it was cost neutral but we can’t offer it if it might actually cost the relative money.

In the first five hours of launching, almost 44,000 UK residents had registered their interest in hosting Ukrainian refugees. That was up to around midnight last night. I imagine the number will continue to grow.

@User76745333

The problem is it isn’t our money and it might not with the way energy bills are going. If that £350 has to pay water, gas and electricity plus council tax then £350 might not cover it. It isn’t our house it’s an elderly relative’s who has gone into a care home and needs the income really to pay towards care home fees. We would be willing to offer it up if it was cost neutral but we can’t offer it if it might actually cost the relative money.

But there isn’t any income now and it’s costing your relative money now. 🤷‍♀️

For anyone interested:

homesforukraine.campaign.gov.uk/

@TheOnlyMrsMac

In the first five hours of launching, almost 44,000 UK residents had registered their interest in hosting Ukrainian refugees. That was up to around midnight last night. I imagine the number will continue to grow.

That is wonderful - and perhaps negated the debates going on on this thread - why force people if there are willing volunteers?

@Blossomtoes

But there isn’t any income now and it’s costing your relative money now.

An empty house will cost very little in gas, electric and metered water.

An empty house will cost less in council tax than if it's occupied by a family. Depending on council tax band, a house occupied by a family could cost £250 per month or so in council tax alone.

An empty house won't need as much "wear and tear" maintenance as a house occupied by a family.

An empty house doesn't need a TV licence, telephone line, broadband connection, etc.

I can very easily see how an empty house can "cost" £350 per month less than a house occupied by a family.

It's a nice idea but it involves sacrifice and far too many people will shake their heads and say how awful it is that people are being bombed and killed but will draw the line at being asked to give something up. Oh my goodness those poor poor children I wish I could hel.....oh, share my second home? Mmm, no I really don't think I can do that cos reasons. It's a shame they're dying though. Someone should really do something about that.

If you are unable to offer accommodation but are looking for other ways to help, Lumos is working with some of the most vulnerable children in Ukraine. None of your donations will be spent on administration: it will all go to help the children. JKR is matching donations up to £1 million.
www.wearelumos.org
www.wearelumos.org/get-involved/ukraine-appeal/

But there isn’t any income now and it’s costing your relative money now. 🤷‍♀️

But there would be income because the plan was to rent it out.

We are still considering it but it isn’t a goer if it will actually cost our relative money. If it’s cost neutral then we can do it.

@WouldIwasShookspeared

It's a nice idea but it involves sacrifice and far too many people will shake their heads and say how awful it is that people are being bombed and killed but will draw the line at being asked to give something up. Oh my goodness those poor poor children I wish I could hel.....oh, share my second home? Mmm, no I really don't think I can do that cos reasons. It's a shame they're dying though. Someone should really do something about that.

I really don’t think this is fair - and I don’t own a second home.

People aren’t being forced to donate a percentage of their salary, hand over a proportion of their grocery shop or give up second cars.

I only own one car - but I don’t think anyone who has two should be forced to give it to a refugee.

My heart goes out to these people- I have voluntarily donated both money and supplies. But as soon as we force a small proportion of society to house people we are In trouble/

There is a lot of bitterness on this thread about people owning second homes. I would love a beautiful place by a lake - but I can’t afford it. That’s life. I don’t think everyone who has a second home should have it confiscated though. I think we need to come up with practical solutions we’re the whole of society can help - not just vilified second homes owners

I disagree. I think it's accurate.
People, generally, are selfish and only care about others up to a point and that point is normally when it negatively affects them and especially when it negatively affects them for an extended period.

We see it time and time and time again.

I'm not excluding myself from that btw. I'm no saint. I just think there's no point fooling ourselves about what we are.
People generally won't sacrifice and those with the most will sacrifice the least. The queen won't be opening up her castles and manor houses. The property hoarders won't be opening their doors. The massively rich won't be sharing it out. The big businesses won't stop trying to minimise the tax they pay.

Human nature. We are shits.

As I said earlier - tax second homes properly - not as businesses. You can’t confiscate property…. Or maybe you can as some was requisitioned during the War.

I am half Welsh (I have the blue legs to prove it ) and frankly if I were a Ukrainian I’d pass on the Welsh holiday cottage. My family has some Welsh Nationalist nuts in it and, as repeated upthread, refuse to answer about who sold their houses, and what industry could provide jobs. Bring back the coal and slate mines, eh?

@WouldIwasShookspeared - as of 7am until the website crashed there were 89,000 “shits” willing to offer accommodation.

Of course there are greedy selfish people, and, worse, hypocrites busily offering everyone else’s homes but not their own. On social media (eg MN) you are going to get people posting unpopular opinions or spitting bile at those they deem “bad” - but I think this crisis has shown the good side of our citizens.

I did say generally.

89,000 out of a population of how many millions?

I stand by my belief that most human beings in general are fundamentally selfish and of those doing the 'unselfish' thing a proportion of them are doing it for selfish reasons. This includes feeling good or superior, getting a few hundred extra quid etc

Ime, people, generally, are not selfless caring giving loving creatures who put strangers above themselves in any meaningful or prolonged way.

I think it's great that you believe in the goodness of mankind.

Its just that I don't.

Well, you could argue that doing anything for anybody is selfishly motivated, even caring for your own family. Giving to charity or raising funds is generally because you have a vested interest in the cause, so selfish too.

Perhaps we should all operate as islands and never do a darn thing that puts us out. Then at least we would be true to our nature

Well yes. That is true.
There is a selfishness in every act when you think about it.

Why are you so angry about my view of the selfish nature of the human race?

You think I'm wrong. You are the one with the positive view of people. Shouldn't you just feel sad for me that I have such a low opinion of people when you know the true goodness of the human race?

We have a family member who has a holiday home. It is booked up now for most of the year. During peak times they charge £800-1000 a week, I doubt they would be willing to give up this income.

For me this is akin to telling people to give their job to a refugee. My holiday cottage is rented out all year and is my only income.

I think holidays homes could be used to house lot of people regardless of who they are or where they're from.
In some touristy areas locals simply can't even rent never mind by because so many of the houses are holiday lets.

As I said earlier - I think the idea is for refugees to be supported for the first 6 months - aka near their hosts at a minimum or living with them preferable.
What I would like to know a bit more about is how all of the refugees/hosts are going to be checked to make sure things are OK. please imagine these are mostly old women & men or women with children - all suffering from shock & Post Traumatic Stress at the minimum they need to be somewhere where there is support available & transport & other infrastructure.
Holidays homes are often either in isolated rural areas (lacking support & transport & infrastructure & no where near hosts home - so not much support from them either) or in seaside locations many of whom are areas of deprivation for the locals.
I worry (as do quite few charities by the way) that refugees could be taken advantage of especially if there isn't proper ongoing support by the state (& who is going to do this - social workers????) & what happens if the relationship between the host & refugee breaks down? I think there is a lot of naivety in what problems can occur in having a stranger in your home long term especially in these circumstances

Does anybody on here work for councils involved in doing this & how far are the plans going to carry out the support?

@DottyHarmer

As I said earlier - tax second homes properly - not as businesses.

They ARE taxed properly as a business IF they meet the published HMRC criteria of a holiday letting, i.e. furnished, available to let for x days per year, actually let for y days per year. By HMRC definition they ARE a business.