A New Type of Property Show on TV - "Britain's Empty Homes"

[Deleted User]

That's only a problem when it's a nearly derelict block or street but with a few inhabited houses stopping anyone pulling the whole lot down. If it's only one or two derelict properties, then there's no reason why someone shouldn't pull them down and build new ones instead of renovating them. On a street near me there are fairly average sort of houses - definitely decent properties but nothing extra special - but for ages there was one that was empty and clearly in a poor state of repair. Then it must have been bought by a small developer because in came the bulldozers and knocked it down. A pair of semis swiftly went up in its place, and now there are people living there. It's relatively easy to get planning permission for that sort of thing as long as you design the new house(s) to be in a similar style to the rest of the street. Everybody ends up happy, pretty much, because it improves the street not to have a derelict house in it.

That's what I meant - it's often cheaper to knock them down and start again. In which case these empty properties are actually further from being homes than an empty plot of land. But yes, it's impossible to do this if one or two are inhabitted and the owners won't budge.

My brother and I had to put my mum & dad's house on the market a couple of years back. The house was 40 years old and had never been modernised. As such it really couldn't be considered much more than an empty shell. We got a few EA's in and asked what we should do prior to putting it on the market. They explained - NOTHING! According to them TV programs such as Homes Under the Hammer and so on cause no end of problems. People think there's money to be made in buying a property, doing it up and selling it on.

They told us that the previous year two houses had gone up for sale in my parents' street. One was in pristine condition and the other was in the same state as my mum & dad's. They both sold for the same amount. The house value lay in it's location - a nice area, a huge garden and backing onto open countryside.

They went on to say that generally speaking the only reason to spend money to do up a house is when you plan to live in it and enjoy it for a few years. You might then get your money back if you later sell. But they claim there's no money to be made in doing up property - except in a few rare cases.

So a very different story from what we see on TV (I'm addicted to these types of programs). Yet I've since heard the same from EA's now that I'm selling my house. Now I know EA's aren't the most reliable of sources, but it could well explain why so many properties do lie empty when they get into a poor state of repair.

For what it's worth my mum and dad's house went for a price that broke all records on the street. 40k more than the offers over price. I couldn't believe it. Whoever bought it would have needed to gut it completely - new roof, new double glazing, central heating, plumbing, wiring. There is no way that a developer could have done that without a huge loss - it had to be a labour of love.

julieq

You could probably get something for not much more than that. You could then put £30K into making it habitable and find you lived next door to a crack house or had children chucking bricks at your home. These properties are not empty for no reason. There may be a few people who'll tolerate them, but they couldn't raise the money to make them habitable.

I think Housing Associations would tend to try to fill the gap anyway, and I guess the fact there's an agency trying to get people into these houses is a good sign.

bernard_shaw

It's not all about dereliction.

Vice Admiral Timothy Lawrence, Chief Executive of Defence Estates recently said he thought he’d made a rod for his own back over his target to reduce vacancy levels in MOD homes from their current incredibly high 17% rate.

So how’s it going? According to this extraordinary story…not well. Amazingly 700 MOD homes have been left empty for five months over a delay in fitting carpets.

To his credit the Vice Admiral describes the fiasco as “totally unacceptable”. But in explanation says rather confusingly “Carpets are a difficult area. There is a risk attached”
He continues: “They were suggesting that we should add a lot of risk factor into the sum; we decided that was not good value for money for the public purse, so we took it out.”So if I understand it right, the carpet fitters were a bit pricey so Defence Estates decided to leave 700 homes empty instead of pay them too much. This ended up costing the tax payer £1.4million in lost rent. Either these were the most expensive carpet fitters in history or the Vice Admiral is right – With decision making like this he really has made a rod for his own back.

wageslave

julieq wrote: »

You could probably get something for not much more than that. You could then put £30K into making it habitable and find you lived next door to a crack house or had children chucking bricks at your home. These properties are not empty for no reason. There may be a few people who'll tolerate them, but they couldn't raise the money to make them habitable.

I think Housing Associations would tend to try to fill the gap anyway, and I guess the fact there's an agency trying to get people into these houses is a good sign.

There is a way past that.

Move in enough middle class families (and I use middle class for easiness sake, I am working class to the bone)move in enough desperate,decent young families.

Naturally their first thought would be to get out. Lets trap them.

Would it work?

bernard_shaw

julieq wrote: »

To be honest if a year variously filled with fear, recession, mortgage rationing, collapsing confidence and headlines screaming that the housing market is in free fall has ended in postitive HPI, it's hard to see how saying "1 million empty houses" while turning three times round anticlockwise is going to have much of an effect.

Just wait till there are several other TV shows jumping on the same bandwagon...

Suggestions for names, anyone?

How about: "Confiscation, renovation, reallocation"

chucky

why shouldn't you be able to have a 2nd home that you use whenever you wish or even just leave empty using it when you feel like it. if you can afford it, it's up to you right?

there's plenty of families that have 2 cars and don't use the 2nd one as often or at all...

wageslave

chucky wrote: »

why shouldn't you be able to have a 2nd home that you use whenever you wish or even just leave empty using it when you feel like it. if you can afford it, it's up to you right?

there's plenty of families that have 2 cars and don't use the 2nd one as often or at all...

Because homes are not cars.

There is something really wrong with having a little place in the country when the locals are living in caravans.

It may not be your fault and you may imagine you are bringing something to the area.

Dont kid yourself on.

chucky

wageslave wrote: »

Because homes are not cars.

There is something really wrong with having a little place in the country when the locals are living in caravans.

It may not be your fault and you may imagine you are bringing something to the area.

Dont kid yourself on.

forget the cars then. how about timeshares - would they be more acceptable?
or is it the point of the place being empty or is it the person being able to have a 2nd home?

i'd read recently that it was these people buying up 2nd homes in the country that gave those places a bit of life and a bit of cash. if it wasn't for them most people would have ended up leaving anyway as there was nothing there for them.

i don't have a 2nd empty home btw

wageslave

chucky wrote: »

forget the cars then. how about timeshares - would they be more acceptable?
or is it the point of the place being empty or is it the person being able to have a 2nd home?

i'd read recently that it was these people buying up 2nd homes in the country that gave those places a bit of life and a bit of cash. if it wasn't for them most people would have ended up leaving anyway as there was nothing there for them.

i don't have a 2nd empty home btw

I never thought you had.

I can only speak as I find. I live in a rural area where more and more houses are being bought up as second homes.

The buyers aren't bad people and they want to integrate for the half dozen weeks they live here. I don't dislike them, in different circumstances I would positively like them.

They are driving prices up beyond what locals can afford. Every house they buy is a house less for a family born and bred in the area.

I am not saying dont buy a holiday home, just don't kid yourself on you are welcome.

StevieJ

wageslave wrote: »

Because homes are not cars.

There is something really wrong with having a little place in the country when the locals are living in caravans.

It may not be your fault and you may imagine you are bringing something to the area.

Dont kid yourself on.

The Queen has a lot to answer for