To be conflicted by the crackdown on 2nd homes

[chairz]

I complete understand the problems they cause & do agree with a higher levy but thenI have used holiday cottages lots of times in the past & plan to in the future.

They are exactly the kind of holiday lets that people should be trying to use.

I agree, and the same goes for purpose built holiday lodges, which usually don't have permission for full-time residential use and therefore couldn't be local homes anyway.

Taxing landlords on rental payments instead of profits can't have helped. I know people who have turned to airbnb instead of long term lets because of this issue.

no, because the only way to win an argument on here is to be deliberately obtuse and feign no knowledge of common concepts and practices.

In my tiny little countryside home town, there are currently 13 houses for sale. None of them are under £350k (north west) despite 6 being tiny 2 bed cottages with no garden or parking. 8 of the 13 are currently holiday cottages and 2 are retirement flats. Local people cannot afford to buy in the area and due to dire public transport and high fuel costs local businesses are unable to get any staff. The town is dying. It's a tourist hot spot and soon there won't be anything there but holiday homes.

Don't have them if you can't afford them. You too skint or something?

I think really second home owners should be charged double on everything, council tax, stamp duty, electric, gas etc. If you can't afford it, have one home only, as you should.

And ensure they can only charge the mortgage rate of the house for rental purposes. No more.

Holiday lets don't provide jobs. A few hours cleaning once a week perhaps. The house is most likely empty 6 months of the year or more. If it contained permanent residents that used local facilities all year they contribute far more to the economy in terms of shopping, hair cuts, leisure centres, etc.

The situation in London is caused by the same thing as in tourist towns - housing owned and not lived in most of the time.

Agree with this. Second homes that are not let out and that are lived in for less than 7 months of the year should be banned. And holiday lets that are let to members of the public should be subject to planning consent that takes into account the number of holiday lets in the area, the availability of residential property, and whether the type of property is suitable as a permanent residence. There should be a tax on the property that covers the cost of the council regulating the industry. There's nothing wrong with the existence of holiday lets but they should be regulated to ensure they remain beneficial to the community.

The Welsh had the right idea in the 1970'/80's ''Come home to a Real Home Fire'' Where they burned down 239 empty second homes.

I'm not sure arson and mob rule are necessarily the best way to resolve the issue. Plus, they couldn't really have made themselves look any worse hypocrites and liars, blowing a massive hole in their original argument, could they?

But isnt thats the exact problem, they are used as holiday homes and then local people cannot buy a home to live in as their permenant resdence.

No holiday homes = fewer tourists = lower income and more locals leaving the area to find work.

We want the flexibility of our own space on holiday - separate bedrooms, a living room, a proper kitchen. The "home from home" experience. I do not want to stay in a hotel every holiday, or a travel inn, and definitely not a tent or caravan. I want a HOUSE or apartment which is just as nice as what I have at home. And I'm not alone in that wish.

I think that's the rub of it, and it isn't in any way unreasonable. People are suggesting all kinds of ways that they might prefer tourists to find accommodation, but folk pay a huge amount of money for their holidays, greatly look forward to them, and they don't want to feel like they're going apologetically cap in hand to their destination asking where they might be stored away at night so as not to be any more bother than necessary.

The houses will be lived in by locals who are there all year and spend money in the shops and restaurants as well. I live in a non tourist area and we have plenty of shops and restaurants

The ideal would be if people could only buy homes if they were going to live in them.

They've just brought in that rule where I live, in April I think.

Not UK.

We also need a huge crackdown on people buying London properties for 'investment purposes'. The ideal would be if people could only buy homes if they were going to live in them

We need this in other cities too. Trying to buy a house a ftb is impossible. Investors just come in with cash and no one with a mortgage can get anything.

Houses are for homes not investment purposes.

Totally understand, as I say they're not for everyone, it's probably not something we will get away with when we have teenagers to be fair. Will 100% be making the most of it while we can.

People are suggesting all kinds of ways that they might prefer tourists to find accommodation, but folk pay a huge amount of money for their holidays, greatly look forward to them, and they don't want to feel like they're going apologetically cap in hand to their destination asking where they might be stored away at night so as not to be any more bother than necessary.

From an accessibility point of view, a holiday home can be more than a nice to have. We have to book two rooms at an hotel, often you can’t get joining rooms and our daughter needs to be with one of us at all times. Usually it’s cheaper (and easier) to book a holiday home.

@FemmeNatal in what way do you find this surprising?

I think targeting only second home owners is focusing too much on the symptom of the problem and not the cause.

Areas with this problem because they are now practically a sole economy of tourism need to get their local authorities and councils to focus on

• Creating a significant amount of social housing stock available for local families
• Investing in ways to bring companies and a diverse selection of businesses to their area. If the pandemic taught us anything it's that many companies and industries do not need to be based in big cities, or can keep a smaller hub office there and encourage their employees to be based in satellite offices in smaller towns where the quality of life/less commuting helps create a happier workforce.

Not surprising, just disappointing.

If that’s what you want you’ll just need to get on campaigning for a socialist party and getting them into government.

I think you’d do better concentrating on your own career, but you have to decide the best route to get what you want.

We rent out the flat in London, not the family home in Newcastle, but there’s no shortage of affordable homes in the North East, nor an issue with empty homes in Newcastle.

That isnt accurate

Holiday homes= no demand for schools, shops or GP or buses
They close and then no-one wants to live in a village without a school where 75% of the home are not lived in and there is no community.

The Ocado vans and the cleaning teams from the town 40 miles away show that they do not create local jobs (and you cant afford a £350K 2 bed cottage in rural Yorkshire on a cleaners wage)

Between that and the rate of damage it just wasn’t worth us renting our place out any more.

We plan to live in it one day, which is why we aren’t selling and are using it one week per month.

If it wasn’t for the huge stamp duty on higher-end houses we may well have let it go and re-bought in five years.

Why though? There’s a shortage of houses, right?

The second home owners on this thread are hilarious!

So far, all of those who find themselves sans a second home are jealous, awful, badly parented and just don't earn enough.

I have to say that I was badly parented and don't earn enough. Oh and jealous. But not awful

I try to remind people of this all the time. Im a Londoner but moved out of my home city as I couldnt afford to live there post middle age. Loads of Liverpudlians, Mancunians, Brummies, Welsh, Scots, Irish moved to London as did tons of country bumpkins pushing up prices and lowering availability but when I chose to move out of London Im called a DFL and looked down on for removing locals abilities to own a house

No one ever says that about London

The real issue of course is that for decades we have not enabled social affordable housing to be built.