Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Money matters

Find financial and money-saving discussions including debt and pension chat on our Money forum. If you're looking for ways to make your money to go further, sign up to our Moneysaver emails here.

Original poster

Empty property - did you know....

69 replies

Pixiefish · 01/07/2006 22:59

I don't know if this applied to other parts of the UK but if you live in Wales the council can force you to make an empty property habitable or they can take it off you. Absolutely flabbergasted- have had a letter off the council today regarding an empty flat that we have- it's not causing a nuiscance to anyone and is behind another property that we own.

I really can't believe it> Surely its up to us if we want to keep a property empty. Apparently not- its new govt legislation. We've had the letter today- unless we rent the flat out or use it or sell it then the council haev the right to take possession and do what they want with it...

Am totally astounded.

OP posts:
serenity · 02/07/2006 00:53

thanks Rickman

But I suppose it's easier to see the point of things when you can see some benefit for yourself in it. We're stuck in a crappy too small Council flat, with no hope of moving because the transfer list is static because there are just more people in this area looking for affordable homes than there are actual properties. I drive past empty places all the time, and I can't bring myself to stand up for the rights of people to own empty houses when I can see how many more people would be helped if they could lived in and turned into actual homes

rickman · 02/07/2006 00:55

Message withdrawn

serenity · 02/07/2006 00:57

I'm on a roll! But it can only happen when everyone else is in bed so shhhhhh, don't tell anyone else!

rickman · 02/07/2006 01:14

Message withdrawn

Original poster
Pixiefish · 02/07/2006 07:52

As sympathetic as I am that you've been homeless I still can't see that a govt has the right to tell anyone what to do with their own properties.

We are doing what we can as and when we can afford it and I think it's disgusting that we could well be penalised by local govt by the chances of losing the property.
It stinks.
Maybe the likes of Tony Blair should give over any holiday homes that they use for one week a year. Where I live the area is rife with holiday homes that ARE habitable and are only used for a few weeks a year. There are loads of empty council houses- if there is such a crisis in this area (which there isn't btw) then the council should unboard some windows of their own properties.

OP posts:
Katymac · 02/07/2006 08:14

The next step is for the governement to write to all second home owners and say,

Sorry you can't have a second home - we need it to put homeless people in or people who have been brought up in that village and wo cannot afford a home near to their parents

or even for them to conact people with 5 bedrooms and say as you have 3 children and use one room yourselves - it makes sence for you to rent a room to a homeless person

How far should/can the government go?

I actually think that the act was intended to "remind" people about forgotten property and also for instances where there is an empty property (like in our local town) where planning permission (for lap dancing - I think) has been refused and they have said "we will let it rot unless you let us do what we want"

If you send a letter stating your intent - it will probably be forgotten and you may have to send a standard return every few years

Gobbledigook · 02/07/2006 09:08

I don't see how it's anyone elses business what you do with your own property - you are paying for it!

Council tax is paid on empty property in England - there is exemption for the first 6 months and then you start to pay again. We had to do this when trying to sell our old house and we'd already moved out. 2 lots of council tax for a year was far from amusing!

SoupDragon · 02/07/2006 11:38

I think it is completely reasonable that properties not be kept empty for no good reason. Yours is empty for a good reason. I fully support the council having the right to take genuinely empty properties and use them for housing.

There are so many properties in this country which could be put back to use yet they are allowed to stand empty, deteriorating, whilst new houses are built, crowded onto the space formerly occupied by 1 property and people are homeless due to a lack of afforable accomodation.

SoupDragon · 02/07/2006 11:40

"I don't see how it's anyone elses business what you do with your own property - you are paying for it! "

b8llocks. Sorry. Of course it matters. It doesn't matter in this case because the propert is being renovated. How about the houses that are full of cr*p, rat infested and devaluing the houses around it? If one of those was next door to you would you think it was no ones business but the owners what's done with it?

expatinscotland · 02/07/2006 11:45

cool. will they auction it off so some of us have a snowball's chance in hell of getting hold of a property?

edam · 02/07/2006 11:47

Just write back saying you are doing the property up and it is not in a fit state to be used at the moment. And I'd detail your past experience of council tenants, into the bargain, just because I'd be pissed off about it in your shoes.

From what I've seen about the new law, they can only use property that has been left empty for more than six months where the owners are not doing anything with it/it's not part of an estate that is being settled (ie a new inheritance). They have to go to a tribunal before possessing any property. Even if they did, they'd still have to pay you rent - they don't 'own' the property, just use it.

Agree it's irritating that you have to justify what you are doing with your own property, but I can see the argument for bringing empty, neglected property back into use. Six months doesn't seem long enough though, I'd have thought a year was more reasonable.

expatinscotland · 02/07/2006 11:48

There are so many properties in this country which could be put back to use yet they are allowed to stand empty, deteriorating,

Soupy, whilst strolling aorund the New Town w/my mum last week, we counted ELEVEN obviously empty, deteriorating basement flats. These things are worth a fortune, truly, if they'd been fixed up.

But my mum pointed out, she'd never buy a flat in a building that had an empty, deteriorating basement flat b/c the damp and rot that comes from its not being treated can affect the entire building, especially as many places in Edinburgh have no foundation.

edam · 02/07/2006 11:49

Mind you, I'd love to be in a position to worry about the new law. Would be v. nice to own a spare flat or house...

Pruni · 02/07/2006 11:51

Message withdrawn

Gobbledigook · 02/07/2006 11:55

Oh I totally agree with everything said since my last post. I was just really thinking of this situation where it's not just being ignored and neglected.

Original poster
Pixiefish · 02/07/2006 12:02

When we got married dh moved in here with me so that's how we have an empty property to worry about. The house is rented to a young couple for little over the mortgage as dh is kind spirited. We could have got more rent but dh decided to help this young couple out and they pay £280 pcm for the property which is very cheap for this area as it's a 3 bedroom house. The flat is too the rear and was wrecked by the last tenant and we just haven't had the money to do it up in one go. Additionally it needs a roof which will be about 4k so until we have this 4k there's no point doing any more to it. Although I spose we could rent it out as it is and whoever lived there would have to put up with sub standard housing OR we could kik the young couple and their new baby out and get a professional copuple in there who would probably pay over £500 per month rent which is the going rate for this type of property. Then the council would have to find housing for the young couple and their baby. The extra £220 per month could be used to renovate the flat at the back and get that rented out.

What we'll inevitably do is answer the council's letter telling them what we're doing and get on with it at our own pace as we were doing before.

I am just fuming and agree with katymac- where will it end... you can't rent 3 bedroom house because there's only 3 of you and the 3 bed houses should go to someone who will need 3 bedrooms. In that case, empty all the palaces and country homes and get the homeless in there.... Come the revolution and all that....

OP posts:
Tinker · 02/07/2006 12:02

Wot Soupy said.

Original poster
Pixiefish · 02/07/2006 12:10

I also agree with soupy if the property is causing a nuiscance to other people then the council should have some rights on environmental grounds or whatever. But this will apply to all properties empty after a certain length of time.

OP posts:
Tinker · 02/07/2006 12:13

It's only requiring that you make it "habitable". Definition? If you explain to the council what is going on, cannot imagine any real problems. It will be a seemingly draconian catch-all bit of legislation aimed at rogue landlords who don't care about property becoming crack houses/whatever. I'm guessing there will be a light-touch approach to genuine cases. Guessing.

Gobbledigook · 02/07/2006 12:17

What if, like we were, you were selling it but for personal reasons you moved out before it was sold? Ours was 'empty' for about 18 months after we moved out - it was well maintained and mortgage and council tax was paid. I have no influence over the housing market and, much as I'd have loved to, I couldn't force someone to buy it.

I'd be mighty pissed off if someone decided to take it off me!!

Gobbledigook · 02/07/2006 12:18

Ah, probably right Tinker

Original poster
Pixiefish · 02/07/2006 12:18

but the way i feel is that it shouldn't be anybody else's business.
the property doesn't affect anyone else and surely it should be up to us if we rent it or not.
it's not rat infested nor will it become a crack house (i take everybody's points on these issues- of course there should be intervention if the property is hazardous or causing other people problems)

OP posts:
Original poster
Pixiefish · 02/07/2006 12:20

the letter we received is very veiled but the threat is there and they're making a big deal about renting it out- they've even broken down the income etc.

OP posts:
Tinker · 02/07/2006 12:22

That's what I mean about being a catch-all bit of legislation. Has to appear to cover all in similar situation but, in reality, will be targeted at irresponsible property owners. I'm gussing all this, have not read up about it, but think it would take a very brave govt to say we will seize all property that is not habitable and has been empty for 6 months+.

edam · 02/07/2006 12:32

Problem with any government is they pass legislation they claim will be targetted at whoever is causing the problem, but draft it so widely it catches everyone. And once it becomes law, it is used beyond the purposes government originally claimed. I could find loads of examples, but what about allegedly anti-terrorist legislation being used to arrest a man for daring to heckle Jack Straw at a Labour party conference, FGS? Heckling is an important part of party politics and he didn't even say anything particularly rude. Or arresting someone for reading out a list of names of soldiers who died in Iraq? And councils are among the worst offenders when it comes to petty officialdom...

Swipe left for the next trending thread