From Monday the 23rd November to Friday 27th November is the National Week of Action on Empty Homes. The Empty Homes Agency (EHA) has reported that one in twenty properties has been unoccupied for over 6 months. That means that the number of empty properties has hit a record on one million. At the point of last year’s week of action the figure stood at about 760,000.
The Empty Homes Agency “is an independent campaigning charity, which exists to highlight the waste of empty property in England and works with others to devise and promote sustainable solutions to bring empty property back into use.”
It was set up in 1992 to try and match the plight of the homeless with the large amount of property standing empty. They do this through lobbying for policy changes, helping owners of empty homes to bring them back into use, running awareness campaigns and asking people to report empty properties.
There is of course the alternative. Simply Googling the words ‘uk house squatting’ returns over 100,000 responses and at the top is Wikipedia.
Squatters do have certain rights and the law around this issue has developed to try and keep property in productive use. A lot of property remains empty just as a capital investment. Empty properties quickly fall into disrepair, become eyesores and in the case of terraced properties can lead to problems for the neighbours. Some of these properties it seems are held by offshore companies for anonymous owners who, for tax reasons, do not wish to be identified.
The EHA want empty homes to be brought back into use by assisting the landlord or, where necessary, using legal means to force it.
Many owners of empty properties declare that it is their property so therefore their choice as to what happens to it. On the other side people are homeless so should be housed using these properties. Therein lies the moral dilemma (aside: Google dilemna and dilemma).
But once we have access to other people’s real estate property for the state to decide how it is used, where will it end? We have already seen the grab for money in dormant bank accounts. We are also demanding that speculators not be allowed to dictate fuel prices. At present there are tankers offshore waiting for the price of fuel to go up before they land the cargo. Should they be seized and the fuel sold at a ‘reasonable’ price? Should pharmaceutical companies be forced to hand over life saving drugs to help people in the third world who could not normally afford it?
Is ownership to be subordinated to the common good? Are we slowly and quietly becoming a deeply socialist country?
Deeper questions than I intended for this, but you get my drift.
Land, as is always stated, cannot be manufactured, it is finite. For me it should be used as well as it can be. The way around this for real estate property is to follow the route of Land Value Tax. It would then be financial suicide not to put land to good productive use by using it for agriculture, manufacturing, business or housing. There would then be no need for enforcing legislation and no room for squatters.
Having so many empty properties standing effectively outside the normal market also skews the prices. Bringing these properties back into use will help force the price reset that is needed for true stability to return to the housing market.
------ Other articles of interest ------
Economic Recovery and House Price Affordability
Property millionaires take a pounding
BlockbusterThe Tale of the Fisherman’s Cottage
Tags: economics, empty homes, empty homes agency, house price crash, house price news, housepricecrash, News, Politics, squatters, squatting
Why the empty properties, beyond stated reasons for it?
Not completely sure, But there are whole swathes of recently built flats (that don’t conform to council house standards) as well as some city centre plots and housing in areas with no jobs. The rise in the numbers may be because more are being uncovered every day, not that more homes are becoming empty.
I understand the argument from the social perspective and I understand the idea of LVT but I don’t agree with either.
All property is owned by someone. No land owner should be forced to give it up for the homeless but there might be a price at which they could be persuaded to let.
LVT is a draconian approach advocated by socialists and the jealous.
If we lack an adequate quantity and quality of social housing, bring more land into use and build more.
As I understand it Brian, a lot of these absent landlords cannot be traced, they have their capital tied up in the property but don’t wish to do anything with it.
Surely it is much greener and more efficient to force these buildings into use rather than build more that may be left empty?
We are all forced to part with our property in some form or another via taxes, what makes real estate so sacrosanct?
I do believe that empty property should be taxed by the local council just like those who draw on full services. There is no obvious reason to allow zero tax. Thus if owners do not pay there might then be scope through the courts for local councils go gain possession, eventually. However, any owner who keeps up the payments regardless of the property being empty should not face any risk of penalty.
I can’t argue against the green position but what you’re talking about is tantamount to theft. Just like the NHS forcing old people to sell houses to pay for care.
I’m always puzzled by the concept that all care should be paid for by thieving from other people via taxes. None of this was envisaged or funded for at the start of the welfare state, it’s just been added later by virulent socialists.
The welfare state contract said you pay via taxation and National Insurance and we’ll look after you from the cradle to the grave.
It should be changed. We can’t afford it and the demographics don’t work. Until then, old people are entitled to expect.
The limp wristed politicians however have been unwilling to tax at the level required to pay for the care supplied. When the voters wake up and realise what we can afford to do without borrowing, I predict care will be cut rather than taxes hiked. The Tories have always seemed more honest with this contract but Labour always end up borrowing from the future. They can’t face the reality that we don’t have the money and don’t want to pay the taxes.
My theory is that “Middle Britain” should get what “Middle Britain” is prepared to pay for: schools, hospitals, transport, social services, defence…. The rich always pay more, some would say it’s less than they can afford and less than their fair share but it’s always more in cash terms. The poor (properly poor, nut just benefit claimants) should not be expected to contribute financially.