Keeping home habitable (not rental)

Halle71

Hello

I am at my wits end with our next door neighbour.

We moved here in 2014 and were told by other neighbours that the house next door had been unoccupied for at least 10 years. It wasn't that obvious - slighty dodgy area of london with lots of rental properties so a scruffy house front didn't stand out too much!
We have contact details for the owners's son. We are terraced.
He has his business registered there but I am 100% sure that no one lives there and he only visits to collect mail.

But it's causing us issues - all our ground floor rooms that border this house smell slightly of damp, the joint chimney stack was collapsing and they refused to contribute to the cost of removing it and their garden is overgrown and we constantly have brambles pushing our fence panels apart and it houses a new litter of foxes every year. Not to mention, it's a massive problem if we come to sell.
I know for a fact it's not inhabitable (no kitchen, smashed windows, leaking roof) and I think that I have read somewhere that houses, even those that are empty have to be kept in a habitable condition...

We have legal cover on our insurance, but I would like to get some basic facts first.

I am also going to call the council on Monday as empty homes in our area incur a 150% council tax fee and I am sure they will not have declared this.

If anyone has any advice I would be most grateful.

davidmcn

Halle71 wrote: »

I think that I have read somewhere that houses, even those that are empty have to be kept in a habitable condition.

I don't think there's an obligation as such, though it might be a reason for the local authority using CPO powers if they think that's the only way of getting it back into housing use.

The owners need to avoid their property causing a nuisance/danger to neighbours and e.g. passers by, but beyond that I don't think there's much you can do about it becoming unsightly or deteriorating in a way which only really affects the owner. You should however be able to enforce repairs/contributions for things like party walls or common chimney stacks.

tlc678910

Hi, I just had a google and it seems Councils can make compulsory purchase orders if it is the only way of getting a derelict property back in use. They also try to work with the owner to get it back in use. Might be worth looking at your Council's website or getting in touch with them to find out their policy on empty or derelict homes.

HampshireH

It amazes me people retain an asset and allow it to deteriorate so significantly.

Putting it into auction to reclaim some costs would be far more beneficial & allow someone to do it up for occupancy in the meantime.

The lack of anything for 10years would suggest little intention to renovate.

AdrianC

Halle71 wrote: »

We moved here in 2014 and were told by other neighbours that the house next door had been unoccupied for at least 10 years. It wasn't that obvious...


Not to mention, it's a massive problem if we come to sell.

<scratches head>

Cakeguts

I identified a house like this sometime ago and reported it to the local council. They did a quick investigation and contacted the owner who said that they lived there. The neighbours said that they didn't but the council needed proof that they didn't before they would do anything. Because I don't live near that house I can't prove that it is vacant but the neighbours would be able to. I would suggest that you have proof that they don't live there before you contact the council.

00ec25

the bad news
having a neighbour with an unkempt garden is not a legal matter (unless there is Japanese knotweed in their garden which is now damaging yours - and saying that in your case appears to be untrue)

a property owner is perfectly entitled to use, or in this case, not use, a property as they wish to. Just the same as how you use yours. if that means the property has been unoccupied for more than 2 years and is liable to the empty home council tax premium rate (+50%) that again that is not your concern.

the good news
if, in order to avoid the premium home council tax rate, the owner has rendered the property "offically" uninhabitable by removing bathroom and kitchen (ie bare walls, not just cosmetics) then every council has a designated Empty Homes Officer who is precisely the person you contact to moan at. The EHO is the one who would decide if the council will use its legal powers to "force" a property to be returned to occupation - of course if it is, you will have to take who you get as neighbours as they also may not be gardeners


although dated 2014, this article shows that even then the empty homes officers cannot simply wave a magic wand and solve your problems for you.
https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2014/jan/03/mortgage-lenders-restoration-empty-homes

Davesnave

HampshireH wrote: »

It amazes me people retain an asset and allow it to deteriorate so significantly.

A friend of mine rather foolishly bought semi detached to an unoccupied cottage. The farming fanily who owned it had reserved the house for the use of their son, "when he marries."

By then, the son was in his 40s and, all things considered, marriage looked distinctly unlikely.;) A dodgy roof and damp problems surfaced as concerns.

Suddenly, two years ago, the house was spruced up, the son married and all seems to be good now, so miracles do happen. In this case it was particularly remarkable, as the family's record for allowing dilapidations isn't great.


What's the odd cottage to people who have several farms and a dozen or two redundant outbuildings?