New 85% Club, Landlords Only

Kenny4315

olly300 wrote: »

The comment by poppysarah is basically that the goverment or someone needs to do something to force that home to be used.

If you were the neighbours of that property and it was a terrace or semi-detached would you be happy living next to an empty property that had problems?

I bought it derelict for 10 years .. went to sealed bids ... I won as mo-one was insance enough to take on such a massive job, in such a massive house. It is stunning now though .... It really is a one off ... over 4 storey with stunning views over one of the country's finest historical buildings ... it blows most people away when they see it, especially from my living room.

Councils can enforce the sale of abandoned buildings or at least repair and rent out.

Generali

olly300 wrote: »

The comment by poppysarah is basically that the goverment or someone needs to do something to force that home to be used.

If you were the neighbours of that property and it was a terrace or semi-detached would you be happy living next to an empty property that had problems?

It's not reasonable to force the owner of a piece of property to use it IMO. If you own a house and want to keep it empty, fine so long as it isn't full of vermin or something but there are laws about causing a nuisance.

It's a very dangerous road to go down, forcing other people to do things. One day you'll find you're being forced to do something to your disadvantage.

Cannon_Fodder

Forcing people to do things is bad?


Like driving on the left-hand side of the road? so less people die...
Like enforcing speed limits? so less people die...
Like enforcing seat belts? so less people die...
Like contributing to NI? so pensions/NHS is funded...
Like paying tax? so education/MoD/social services etc are funded...

(ok tax could be argued as too high or mis-directed, but for the essentials its a necessity.)

Govt is here to make the population do stuff for the greater good/own good.

Whilst they are making people sell family homes to pay for care in old age, then LLs should use their properties or lose them for the greater good, imo.


In an era of environmental concern, with limited resources on the planet, and green belt at risk of being built on, it seems simple common sense to use every existing house, rather than build new ones.

Maybe knock them down, re-use the bricks, and build afresh on the site, etc, if it is more environmentally efficient to do so. Or refurb if its practical and effective.

leviathan

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

Like enforcing speed limits? so less people die...

Speed is not a cause of death on the road.
Inappropriate driving for the conditions or skill level of the driver however is.

Speed itself cannot cause or be responsible for accidents. Please don't continue the myth.

abaxas

leviathan wrote: »

Speed is not a cause of death on the road.
Inappropriate driving for the conditions or skill level of the driver however is.

Speed itself cannot cause or be responsible for accidents. Please don't continue the myth.

Totally agreed!

If speed killed, the fuzz wouldnt be able to put their 'nee nars' on!

Cannon_Fodder

Because a lot of the population are too thick to understand what "constitutes inappropriate driving for the conditions", or over-rate their "skill level", it is necessary to have limits.

In fact, you are making my point here, as a limit is being put on you which you disagree with - i.e. you are being forced to do something by Govt...

LLs might disagree, but if Govt decide its "for your/greater good", and can get some popular support, then it could be on the cards.

leviathan

Govt is supposed to be here for the greater good. hahahaha

Quite honestly it seems they are there for their own greater good and thinking of their dodgy retirement package from which ever company they've managed to advance.

Really2

I do not see this as something caused by "greedy BTLers" as people call them.

I used to live in an old market town.

Most of the property and land in the high street and surrounding it were owned by families that had owned it for 100's of years.
A lot had been left unattended or un-let.

I do not see this as a new phenomenon the wealthy have had land and large property portfolios for 1000 years +. Is it surprising they leave properties un let and dilapidated if they don’t need the money?
From what I saw in the last boom they did up those properties then, but if they go empty now I don't think they really care.

macaque_2

To allow investors to hold on to empty property when other families are living in over crowded accomodation is not the mark of a civilised society.

The only solution is to treat all second homes as investment properties and charge them a modified version of the business rate (which is calculated on the basis of assumed rental). This won't affect normal landlords (who can offset this against tax they are already paying). It will be a severe kick in the pants however for property speculators, incompetant landlords or city bankers who buy a house in Cornwall to use for 2 weeks in the year. Under the new tax, they would pay £5k a year for the pleasure of depriving needy people of a roof.

StevieJ

macaque wrote: »

To allow investors to hold on to empty property when other families are living in over crowded accomodation is not the mark of a civilised society.

The only solution is to treat all second homes as investment properties and charge them a modified version of the business rate (which is calculated on the basis of assumed rental). This won't affect normal landlords (who can offset this against tax they are already paying). It will be a severe kick in the pants however for property speculators, incompetant landlords or city bankers who buy a house in Cornwall to use for 2 weeks in the year. Under the new tax, they would pay £5k a year for the pleasure of depriving needy people of a roof.

That is all the sell to rent crowd.:rotfl: The market not collapsing fast enough for you?