New 85% Club, Landlords Only

Generali

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

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.

Too many people in this country are forced to do too many things as it is. I'm not as stupid as to think that some compulsion isn't required but it should be kept to a minimum IMO and certainly forcing people to rent or to sell a home that they have lawfully bought and are paying necessary fees and taxes on is way beyond a minimum.

You can't just put the entire coutry under the jackboot so that houses are cheaper to buy!

GDB2222

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.

I can't think why landlords would deliberately keep their property empty for no reason, particularly with prices sliding. A few might be too lazy or disorganised, but 1,000,000? Care to comment on the likelihood of this figure being correct?

StevieJ

Generali wrote: »

Too many people in this country are forced to do too many things as it is. I'm not as stupid as to think that some compulsion isn't required but it should be kept to a minimum IMO and certainly forcing people to rent or to sell a home that they have lawfully bought and are paying necessary fees and taxes on is way beyond a minimum.

You can't just put the entire coutry under the jackboot so that houses are cheaper to buy!

Gen, I agree with you but is there not a law or local diktat that allows councils to take over empty properties (say over 6 months) and rent them out?

abaxas

GDB2222 wrote: »

I can't think why landlords would deliberately keep their property empty for no reason, particularly with prices sliding. A few might be too lazy or disorganised, but 1,000,000? Care to comment on the likelihood of this figure being correct?

About 3 years ago I viewed a rental flat in Sheffield. Build 2001 and had changed hands 5 times since then. Never occupied.

The property simply was sold on, then sold one etc etc. Increasing in price each time.

Had a nice kitchen though :P

GDB2222

StevieJ wrote: »

Gen, I agree with you but is there not a law or local diktat that allows councils to take over empty properties (say over 6 months) and rent them out?

I've actually got a spare stapler here (not the £150k one I keep banging on about, but another one). I haven't used it for over 6 months. Is there a chance that the local council will rent it out? If so, will they pay me for it, and is there a tribunal to sort out the wrangles if I don't agree with the rent? What if it needs servicing?

If they do rent it out for me, what happens when my main stapler stops working and I want my spare back?

PasturesNew

Also, in the instances where the empty flats actually belong to the mortgage companies, they would get upset if the council could just take them over. Council payment for properties in a high rent area wouldn't be close to covering the mortgage. I looked into this once. They have a set scale of rent they will pay, which can be disproportionate to local private rents, value of the house, mortgage payments.

A lot have been bought and sat on purely for capital gains. In a rising market, it would be worth more if nobody had lived in it than if it had been rented out for 2-3 years because it'd all still be shiny and new.

No hassle either.

abaxas

Isnt the problem that no human other than the queen actually owns these things?

The crown owns them, and the morgagee (sp?) simply owns the 'estate'. Hence the crown can do what the f it likes.

StevieJ

GDB2222 wrote: »

I've actually got a spare stapler here (not the £150k one I keep banging on about, but another one). I haven't used it for over 6 months. Is there a chance that the local council will rent it out? If so, will they pay me for it, and is there a tribunal to sort out the wrangles if I don't agree with the rent? What if it needs servicing?

If they do rent it out for me, what happens when my main stapler stops working and I want my spare back?

Hey mate don't shoot the messenger.

Cannon_Fodder

Bournemouth homeowners warned over leaving properties empty

5:24pm Monday 17th November

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/3855379.Homeowners_warned_over_leaving_properties_empty/

http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/news/Council-given-ahead-compulsory-purchase-orders-Derby-homes/article-459478-detail/article.html

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2008/08/26/landlords-face-crackdown-on-derelict-homes-61634-21601797/

Compulsory Purchase isn't the first step, better to encourage, but there are noises being made that it will become more frequent...