Thursday, Jul 12, 2007
Add this shortfall to those with BTL 'empires'
Firstrung: propertyfinder.com reveals the empty homes scandal in the UK
propertyfinder.com has revealed the scandalous fact that 420,000 properties stand empty and in a state of disrepair, despite there being a shortfall of 600,000 homes to meet England's current housing needs....
Posted by converted lurker @ 10:32 AM (252 views) Add Comment
19 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. confused76 said...
CL
I think a petition should be made to n10 about it. Why to waste taxpayers money if housing problem has a simple solution
2. tyrellcorporation said...
This has been known about for years...and ignored for years. There was some talk about Councils being able to force owners to sell them or renovate them but like everything Tony Blair said it was a soundbite to catch a passing headline and nothing more.
Anyone else remember his 'Respect Agenda' with the appointement of the Respect Tsar and shots of him hosing off some graffiti...pathetic! ...and yet the media lapped it up.
3. maddison said...
I think that empty properties should be subject to a land tax. Commercial already is in the form of empty rates, note that GB increased these taxes recently. Empty homes do pay almost full council tax after a year but this does not discourage enough obviously. Absent landlords, nothing to bailiff on etc etc. If the inland revenue rather than council chased the bills it might be more effective. In a strong market this is attractive. BUT if everything goes wrong a tax on empty properties which are genuinly trying to be occupied could be a problem. The Government would have to look into this as cutting taxes when their is falling tax reciepts is not easy...
4. stillthinking said...
This happened before, which is why there are some abandoned houses in the North with the roofs off. The roofs were pulled off to assert the fact nobody could live in them and so evade some rule or other.
So perhaps faced with penalties over their own property, owners might think it easier to smash the cistern with a hammer.
Then we will have empty properties with broken lavs -still- not lived in.
5. Mark Wadsworth said...
Maddison, thank you, land value tax aka site value rating is the way to go!!
Stillthinking, land value tax aka site value rating is on the unimproved site only land value only, so if people make a place uninhabitable, the land value stays the same, being a sort of averaged out value for each postcode sector.
6. monty said...
Here we go again. More demands for yet more legislation. The Empty Dwelling Management Order (EDMO) act has been in place for well over a year now. There is no excuse, other than lack of demand or lack of council funding for houses to remain empty for longer than 6 months.
7. wage slave said...
I read somewhere that there needs to be a certain amount of slack in an efficient housing system for it to function properly.
I've seen recently on here that Germany has 8% empty properties.
8. dohousescrashinthewoods said...
Supply issue is there?
My big Brown butthole there is ;)
Speculation, speculation, speculation.
9. auntie said...
I am sick and tired of the lack of will of central and local govement to sort of the 'empty home mess'! So Brown is priortising housing is he! I'll believe it when I see it. What has he been doing for the last 10 years? It is a known fact that BTL investors are buying properties and deliberately keeping them empty so that they remain 'as new'.
So Brown and his oppos are unaware of this website then????? .........
http://www.emptyhomes.com/resources/stats/statistics.html
Monty, you are so right!! They just can't be ar s ed!
10. george monsoon said...
So much for the wafer thin argument about supply and demand.
11. Orwell said...
In 1994, shelter, had figures to suggest that there were 500,000 empty properties in the UK and 500,000 people who needed rehousing. Nothing was done about this. One wonders whether cynically, it was within building societies, banks and insurance companies province to keep these properties empty so that they created a false sense of demand for housing. There is also pressure on local authorities. I have worked in some local authorities. It is inevitably the case that they do not want to prosecute. One reason is the finance given by central government. Again cynically, one might consider that it is deliberately withheld, another reason is the lack of time and a lack of legal knowledge within local authorities.
About the only way of tackling empty properties is a tax burden that falls on the absent owner. This would be political suicide for any government right or left. Don't hold your hopes on or Gordon Brown solving the ‘apparent’ housing shortage.
12. planning4acrash said...
I totally agree with maddison. The simple solution is to tax empty properties. Brown has begun this process already for making empty commercial units liable for business rates. This is similar to a Green tax. It would be popular, taxing things that people hate, and would provide additional revenue rather than additional cost to tax payers. Maybe the additional revenue could be earmarked for urban regeneration funding?
13. george monsoon said...
hmm. what about empty properties that are undergoing renovation in preparation to be lived in?
14. maddison said...
Taxing empty properties is designed to bring them into use and I like the idea of the tax funding regeneration. If there is no demand or the land owner can simply not afford to do the repairs ( not all landowners are rich ). Another important thing to realise is empty properties have a value on the balance sheet of companies and can be used as collateral to fund other activities.
15. Koala Bear said...
Horrified at the large number of vacant and/or derelict homes in my local area (SW London) I asked the council about council tax discounts on these properties. This was their reply:
'Until 1 April 2004 we were required to award a 50% discount off the usual charge for properties which had been empty for more than six months or which were furnished but not lived in by any one as their main home.
From April 2004 however due to a change in legislation councils could choose to award between 0% and 50% discount for properties which have been unfurnished and unoccupied for more than six months and between 10% and 50 % discount for furnished unoccupied properties. Richmond council chose to award 0% discount on long term empty properties and the minimum 10% discount on furnished unoccupied properties.'
16. monty said...
Keep repeating the mantra George and eventually it'll eventually make sense, right? Wrong. Of course it's all about supply and demand.
[Reusing my post on a previous thread because it still applies.]
These houses are empty because there is no-one willing to live in them either because (.1) they're in the wrong area with no jobs, schools etc. - location, location, location (2.) they're being held by a BTLer holding out for an unobtainable rent figure or a buy-to-sitter - both of these are obviously unsustainable over the long term or (3.) they're unfit for human habitation and the council or private owner is unable/unwilling to fix them.
Housing is a non-homogenous entity and empty house stats are only useful when considered in a local context. There is already legislation in place to allow councils to make use of properties empty for longer than six months. They should use it. Both (2.) and (3.) can be solved this way. (1.) requires a tad more investment magic when it comes to creating jobs and regenerating entire areas.
Supply and demand does matter. I think you'll find that all the nice little cottages with gardens, in the right areas, near good schools and commuter links are all very well occupied.
17. Hedger said...
Whilst I agree there is a supply and demand element to the housing boom, my take is slightly different.
I do not think the demand is through basic need (i.e. someone HAS to find somewhere to live and so will pay whatever it costs to live somewhere) because if so, why are there so many rental properties with static rents on the market. There ARE places for people to live so I dont buy the basic supply and demand argument. I think the demand is effectively synthetic. By that I mean, housing is in demand simply because people have access to cheap money and (believe it or not) still think the prices will go up and up. The demand is for returns on highly leveraged investments.
We will see a drop in demand roughly in line with credit tightening when yields stop (I realise some already do) covering running costs and the capital growth isnt there to make it worth it anymore. EA's and mortgage providers will claim the fall in demand is because the FTB are priced out due to increased mortgage repayments but it will mostly be because the maths simply do not work anymore for the amateur BTL brigade.
The demand is not real in the old fashion sense of the word and it will reverse when the conditions do not make property an attractive investment. We are not quite there yet but I think we are close.
18. planning4acrash said...
Monty: "These houses are empty because there is no-one willing to live in them either because (.1) they're in the wrong area with no jobs, schools etc. - location, location, location (2.) they're being held by a BTLer holding out for an unobtainable rent figure or a buy-to-sitter - both of these are obviously unsustainable over the long term or (3.) they're unfit for human habitation and the council or private owner is unable/unwilling to fix them."
Sometimes the case, but more often, a developer has too much hope for the site, payed too much for it (hope value), can't get planning permission for overdevelopment of the site, or the required design standard. Or, the site is being used as a land bank, purely as collatoral for other projects or as a savings buffer "guaraneed" to outstrip money in a bank. Sometimes its because the owner died and didn't pass it on, etc. We discussed empty properties on Hackney Road, where a one bed flat goes for a minimum of 250k, where demand is huge. Sometimes tho, higher demand has the peverse effect of mutliplying the greed of a developer and multiplying the hope value of a site, heading them on a collision course with the local council.
19. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.