Empty Neighbouring Property - what to do?

RelievedSheff

MultiFuelBurner said:

[Deleted User] said:

The situation of empty houses is bad when there's so many needing homes.
There's a house near me, empty and has been for 15 years, the owners visit it every couple of weeks but only in the early hours.
They stay for a couple of hours, then leave.
These instances are wierd !
Neighbours imaginations have run wild, with theories, during this time but nothing's changed despite council and police being asked to look into things.

Checking on the grow

Burying more dead bodies

Skiddaw1

There was a house like the one OP describes close to where we used to live. The trees in the front garden were so overgrown that it was some years before I even realised there was a house there. I remember all the windows were broken and that there was a wrecker of a car in front of the garage. It used to make me sad as it was potentially such a lovely house (a detached, classic 30's house) and all the other houses in the road were pristine. I was glad I wasn't a next door neighbour. I imagine there's always a back-story with abandoned houses. There's another one in a very desirable village near where we currently live- again, it could be beautiful (it's a very old, stone-built, detached cottage with fantastic views of the fells) but it's been derelict for so long that most of the roof and one of the walls has given way. My best guess is that there's been some sort of long term and ongoing probate dispute but who knows?

NameUnavailable

Empty houses are pretty few and far between. Unlike empty shops and offices...........

Herzlos

Section62 said:

Herzlos said:

Nebulous2 said:

A friend supported an old man who was struggling to live on his own and the man gave him a key. The old man died, had no direct descendants and a niece or nephew inherited. They took an interest, used it as a holiday house, and came 2 or 3 times. 

Then with the heating switched off there was a leak from a suspected frozen pipe, and much of the interior was destroyed. The owner simply abandoned it. That was 17 years ago - my friend still has a key - but has not been called on to do anything. 

Some people cannot face up to the responsibilities of home ownership, and simply give up. Unless you understand them and can convince them of your positive intentions, they can find it impossible to dig themselves out of the hole they find themselves in....

You'd think at the giving up stage they'd just get an estate agent to take care of selling it off and getting rid of the responsibility. But I guess that takes a lot of emotional energy and stress to do, so some folk will just shut down completely and ignore it.

Even a house that's completely collapsed is still going to be worth a significant chunk of money too. I can't imagine leaving 10's or 100's of £k in an abandoned house and then spend hours pretending that it's occupied, it just seems like far too much work.

In threads like this one there are often strange borderline judgemental comments (not yours) about people retaining a property in similar circumstances being somewhat selfish (though weirdly owning a rural or seaside holiday home tends not to get the same level of opprobrium).

I've got a special dislike for holiday homes, particularly around rural/scenic places as they price most of the locals out whilst adding minimal economic value to the town. At least the dreaded short term lets (which I also hate) have a higher occupancy rate and the visitors are likely to at least spend some money locally. Assuming there's anything left as the service staff can't afford to live there.

Section62 said:

For me it makes perfect sense in a rising market for someone owning an asset (like a house) to want to hang on to it for as long as they can.  No doubt the gentleman who went into a care home had hope that one day he'd go back to his own house, but equally he may have been aware (having sufficient cash in his account to pay for his care fees) that the house was likely to be going up in value and keeping it for the time being would mean when he did sell he'd get more for it than selling up on the day he moved into a care setting.  In some cases (mental) health issues may be the cause of someone hanging on to a property they no longer need, but it would be a shame for this thread to conclude that the only reasons for keeping a property which wasn't lived in were either due to criminality, or else insanity.

I guess it depends on the market and the property, I still find it bizarre that there are houses in the London area that out-earn their owners in terms of value.
But that presumably relies on the house being in good condition, even a slightly rough house with some potential will grow in value rapidly but once it hits a point of being too much work then you're only going to attract flippers or builders. Once a roof has collapsed or it's otherwise exposed to the elements you're just holding onto some land with an expensive liability. 

There's also the maintenance and opportunity costs - are you better off selling the house now whilst it's inhabitable for £300k and be done with it, or are you willing to spend a few hours a week cutting the grass and moving bins whilst it collapses and eventually sell it as a ruin for £150k despite having sunk hundreds of hours into it?

I totally get that mental health is a big factor here, and some people couldn't bear to sell a relatives house even though they can't look after it properly.