swanageview: Second homes?

Friday, July 14, 2006

Second homes?

Wow all you holiday home people better watch out now is there not a new lawa saying that unocuppied homes can be seized to house people, with no right of appeal, another crushing blow for all the hard workers !

--
Posted by Anonymous to swanage view at 7/13/2006 11:16:17 PM

39 comments:

The Postman said...: Do you have a source for this information? Sounds more like Zimbabwe than England.; 14/7/06 8:03 am
Anonymous said...: The new Empty Dwelling Management Orders were steered through the Commons by the disgraced adulterer and Deputy Prime Minister under the 2004 Housing Act which allow local authorities to take over and rent out homes which have been standing empty for more than six months, together with their furniture, fixtures and fittings.

Forced entry

Councils would have forcible powers of entry once an Order was made, there would be no right of appeal and people could be taken to court and charged with a criminal offence if they put up any resistance by, for example, taking up residence.

In a further intrusion into market forces and the private contracts that exist between members of the population a property put up for sale could be seized by a council if the asking price was considered to be "unrealistic".
it was in some newspapers aswell; 14/7/06 9:38 am
Anonymous said...: Home seizure plans criticised
By George Jones, Political Editor
(Filed: 12/07/2006)

Local councils will have power to seize furniture and fixtures and fittings when they take over empty homes according to new rules published by the Government yesterday.

Town halls have been given the authority to take over and rent out homes which have been standing empty for more than six months.

Caroline Spelman, the Conservative local government spokesman, said the detailed guidance issued by the Government contained "heavy-handed state powers" that would allow bureaucrats to seize private homes in perfect condition, including the fixtures and fittings, if they had been empty for a short time. The new Empty Dwelling Management Orders were steered through Parliament by John Prescott under the 2004 Housing Act. The Conservatives voted against the Second and Third Reading of the Bill.

Mrs Spelman said the detailed guidance showed the state had the right to possess furniture, fixtures and fittings when a home was seized, even in cases where a property was taken over because the owner was dead.

The Government admitted that the purpose of the new laws was to provide "a credible threat" and was intended to put pressure on the owner. Yet empty public sector properties were unaffected and exempt from the new powers. Under the Orders a private home could be seized for up to seven years, 28 days after an Order was granted - and with no right of appeal.

A home did not have to be blighted, boarded up or uninhabitable to be seized, merely empty for six months, including homes of the recently deceased.

Homes for sale could be seized if a council thought the asking price "unrealistic".

Councils would have forcible powers of entry once an Order was made and people could be taken to court and charged with a criminal offence if they obstructed officials.

Once seized, there was no obligation to obtain a market rent, and social tenants could be housed in the property. The owner could even be charged and billed for their property being seized, if service or standing charges were greater than the rent, after the council deducted its "expenses".

Mrs Spelman said there was a case for action to put boarded-up and blighted properties back into use.

"But these heavy-handed state powers allow bureaucrats to seize private homes in perfect condition, including the fixtures and fittings, just because the homes have been empty for a short while.

"John Prescott's parting gift of confiscating private property is a slap in the face of hard-working families and pensioners, given tens of thousands of public sector properties are lying empty."

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/12/nhomes12.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/07/12/ixuknews.html; 14/7/06 9:41 am
Postman2 said...: But holiday homes are excluded...
Prescribed exceptions
3. For the purposes of section 134(1)(b) of the Act a dwelling falls within a prescribed exception if —

(a) it has been occupied solely or principally by the relevant proprietor[2] and is wholly unoccupied because—

(i) he is temporarily resident elsewhere;

(ii) he is absent from the dwelling for the purpose of receiving personal care by reason of old age, disablement, illness, past or present alcohol or drug dependence or past or present mental disorder;

(iii) he is absent from the dwelling for the purpose of providing, or better providing, personal care for a person who requires such care by reason of old age, disablement, illness, past or present alcohol or drug dependence or past or present mental disorder; or

(iv) he is a serving member of the armed forces and he is absent from the dwelling as a result of such service;

(b) it is used as a holiday home (whether or not it is let as such on a commercial basis) or is otherwise occupied by the relevant proprietor or his guests on a temporary basis from time to time;

(c) it is genuinely on the market for sale or letting;

(d) it is comprised in an agricultural holding within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986[3] or a farm business tenancy within the meaning of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995[4];

(e) it is usually occupied by an employee of the relevant proprietor in connection with the performance of his duties under the terms of his contract of employment;

(f) it is available for occupation by a minister of religion as a residence from which to perform the duties of his office;

(g) it is subject to a court order freezing the property of the relevant proprietor;

(h) it is prevented from being occupied as a result of a criminal investigation or criminal proceedings;

(i) it is mortgaged, where the mortgagee, in right of the mortgage, has entered into and is in possession of the dwelling; or

(j) the person who was the relevant proprietor of it has died and six months has not elapsed since the grant of representation was obtained in respect of such person.; 14/7/06 10:07 am
Anonymous said...: Its nice to know all the hard workers own second homes. The ones I know must have poor memories as most of them dont even recall owning a first home.

All this froth on this issue is a bit premature as the legislation is not aimed at second homes in the first place.

How would the council prove one was empty for the qualifying period of 6 months? Have someone sit outside it round the clock to make sure nobody ever went in? In any case, where couples own a second home a high proportion claim one lives there and the other lives in their main home so that they get the single occupants council tax relief on both, so these do not show up in official records as empty.; 14/7/06 10:08 am
Anonymous said...: bottom line is it give the local council powers and you know how they can abuse those powers either by being stubborn or just plain moronic, imagine a council ruled by left wingers who see a couple house ownded by what they call capalists my god what will they do, abuse of the home owners human rights what next unused savings cars boats, all those who put a X on tony's party please put your hands up ....if you dare!; 14/7/06 2:28 pm
Anonymous said...: Give all those right wingers the ability to sell off council houses and you end up with gerrymandering and homeless families....whatever next!
Duncan; 14/7/06 8:11 pm
Anonymous said...: Am I right, that the house if taken over still remains the property of the owner no matter what?; 14/7/06 9:48 pm
Anonymous said...: dont know but i think they can keep it for upto 7 yrs, my grandad dies and his house was empty for about 14 months, due to lagal wrangling selling etc, these little dictators would have seized that! what ever next; 14/7/06 9:52 pm
Anonymous said...: Does reading the Daily Torygraph produce a choleric mentality or do you have to possess a bilious disposition in the first place to want to read it?

The great chicken and egg question of our time. Answers, on a postcard please, to Mr Moderator.

Actually its almost miraculous the way it finds a blood pressure raising angle on everything and all the Colonel Blimps dutifully rise to the bait.; 15/7/06 12:47 am
Anonymous said...: "the disgraced adulterer and Deputy Prime Minister"

Ah.........puts me in mind of John Major's extra-marital adventures. A great parliamentary tradition; 15/7/06 12:59 am
Anonymous said...: All this talk about MPs and their sex lives makes me smile. One thing is for sure, its been going on since time began.

While some of those that post here I suggest have also had something to do with it?
You have? natural!
You have not? Stone me... you should try it!; 15/7/06 10:53 am
Anonymous said...: what the bloody hell has reading the telegraph got to do with this subject? its a known fact that that legislation has/is going through parliment, so why the barb about the telegraph? its a vicous peice of law that will cause lots of problems! but until it affect you it will be ok? after all i bet you own more property than the church what do they call people like you champagne socialist; 15/7/06 2:11 pm
Anonymous said...: Someone saw fit to post a lengthy extract from the Torygraph, which, predictably, rubbished this piece of legislation. Its the wonderfully splenetic tone of the comments, all in the vein of "disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" that made me wonder whether that paper's readers were normal before they fell under its spell or whether they had to pass an irritablity test before being admitted to the Colonel Blimp Hall of Fame.

Rubbishing this paper has as much to to with this thread as ranting about a law which quite specifically excludes holiday homes from its coverage and which will have absolutely no effect in Swanage. But then you have never let the facts get in the way of a good rant have you?

I'd love to be a champagne socialist if you will buy the champagne. Very kind of you to offer. A case of Pol Roger, which was Churchills favourite, would be greatly appreciated.; 15/7/06 5:37 pm
Anonymous said...: so they posted from the telegraph?? can you as obvisoulsy far superior to the rest of us difine a holiday home? it was not me who posted that extract.And yes a good rant is fun it stops me having to think about idiots like you, who to be honest are pompous. but as we are talking about newspapers go finnish reading the gaurdian and where did i offer to but champagne.... mmmmmm then again you thinking that i did makes you out to be what i suspected you are a parasite!; 16/7/06 7:08 am
Anonymous said...: It's interesting to see the exclusions to this legislation, but what sort of empty property is it aimed at?

And please stop slagging each other off, you turn what could be an interesting forum for debate into something resembling the playground (or Parliament!); 16/7/06 10:19 am
Anonymous said...: im all for debate, but when someone take an OT comment like the telegraph and makes it personal what chance does it stand, i still dont see what the telegraph comment has to do with the origainal posting ? and yes you raise a good point, what if you have say 3 holiday homes which one is your principal holiday property? I like many others I have spoken to find this avery nasty little bit of legislation, one that could have far reaching affects on an individuals property.; 16/7/06 6:28 pm
Anonymous said...: The question was posed: "Do you have a source for this information?" I searched the Internet and found that at that moment the only website with a comprehensive answer was The Telegraph. That's why the article was posted.

And yes, before you ask, I read other newspaper websites too, not just The Telegraph.

What's wrong with reading the opinions of people with whom you don't necessarily agree? Quite healthy, I would have thought, and indeed the purpose of the Swanage View website.

The fact remains that there has been very little publicity about this piece of legislation. Personally I believe that like a lot of the law nowadays, it can have catastrophic consequences in the hands of virtually un-trained bureaucrats in local government.

This country is going through some incredible changes and we all need to be vigilant. There are many Labour supporters who cannot believe what this New Labour government has done and is doing.; 16/7/06 8:24 pm
Anonymous said...: I think that the thing that upset me most was the champagne socialist who assumed that because myself and others were against this new law ( or concerned about it) we read the telegraph and voted tory I do niether, but because I questioned this im tarred with that brush , and yes I will get ansty about it. as the perevious poster said even labour voters are having their doubts!; 16/7/06 11:24 pm
Anonymous said...: What seems to have happened is that Shadow Secretary of State for Local Government, Conservative MP Caroline Spelman sent out a press realease grumbling about Empty Dwelling Management Orders. The Telegraph, being the house journal of the tory party dutifully wrote an article round it so what appeared in print was opinion masquerading as news.

WWW.residentiallandlord.com also published something but the rest of the national press didn't rise to Ms Spelman's bait. Conclusion, the story had more to do with routine telegraph harrasment of a labout government than real news.

Has anyone who is worried by it gone to the trouble of phoning or emailing the leader of the council Bill Trite to ask if he anticipates instructing council staff to seek out empty premises? Establishing this before ranting on Swanageview would have been helpful unless it was a piece of calculated mischief making.

I would rather some families had somewhere to live than a few landlords be given the luxury of keeping their property empty. Now I expect all the defenders of the rights of property will tell me what an idiot I am for saying this and what a worthless lot the people who would be housed are but all they care about is their bank balances and they think the rest of us can go and **** ourselves.; 16/7/06 11:47 pm
Anonymous said...: Local authorities have had the right to make complusory purchase orders in respect of empty housing for years but those getting hot under the collar about the new provisions have not mentioned this.

With the new measure, the decision making body is not the council, it is something called a residential property tribunal. The council has to show the tribunal it has established that none of the exemptions, including the one for holiday homes, apply. I wonder whether the original poster knew this to be the case and was just trouble making like the torygraph.

This is not going to solve the problems created by the conversion of our villages into ghost towns.; 17/7/06 12:31 am
Anonymous said...: Firstly if you own property wether it be a home car boat etc why should the state have the power to confiscate it if no criminal act has been done? secondly the complusary purchase situation was not enforced to cover this aspect ie housing of others(?) its the same thing again is it not it does not affect you so you dont give a toss, i still beleive this piece of law will cause problems, another new labour strike!; 17/7/06 9:05 am
Anonymous said...: just a point to the chapmpagne socialist/ your mouthpiece ...ohhh soory the BBC printed stories on its BBC news website so I think your argument that it was widely ignored is untrue, (since last year and upto and including june thsi yr); 17/7/06 9:39 am
Anonymous said...: a couple of points keith, firstly is it not up to an individual what he does with his property, if he/she owns it what right do you or I have to make them do anything with it? second point is numbers 1 2 and 3 allready excist in swanage!

P.S as far as I am concerned it was widely reported it was after all on the internet(BBC) which can be read by lotttttsss of people.; 17/7/06 8:14 pm
Anonymous said...: perhaps holiday homes was not the right expression to be used, but I know 2 people who have inherited homes from elderly relatives in town and neither has been occupied in the last 15 months or so, they both say they want to sell but are in no hurry so if you were them what would you think? one for a fact is not used for a holiday because they stay in a hotel when they come down. also I think champ socialist got a couple of peoples back up when he assumed that they read the telegraph and voted tory, so paerhaps that gentleman (used loosely) should establish facts as well, also keith what about all those empty army/police house and council places do you not think they should be put up before private property? also what critera would you put on the new occupants locals ?? new job seekers please enlighten me. food for thought; 18/7/06 1:39 am
Anonymous said...: Lets be blunt. If its a choice between the abstract rights of absentee landlords and the need of local people to have a home then the latter wins every time.

How selfish can you get? 2 homes empty for 15 months. Its taking the piss isn't it. Raising two fingers at Swanage. There is a huge need for year round rentals here. Theese homes can be rented out for 6 months or a year. If the owners would rather they can wait for the council to rent their property out for 7 years. I am siding with the hardworking families who need a home not with the element who have inherited grandma's retirement dream and don't know what to do with it.; 18/7/06 11:25 am
Anonymous said...: been there done that rented out, most people are ok some destroy houses and think well its only £500 deposit so what? go see some house on northmoor that have been rented, also to be very very contrevesial, therse not a shortage for local people theres a shortage because theres a % of people whop come to live here with NO intention of working after all swanage is a nice place to doss all that sun sea and rock n roll

P.S before i get flamed I have just walked around town and seen about 25 + people who have not worked and dont intend to drinking outside numerous pubs mmmmmmm its 31c and they love it well of to work again!
And again keith its upto those peolpe with the houses to do what they like with them tehre is lots of injustices in this world mate.; 18/7/06 1:52 pm
Anonymous said...: Second Homes when purchased should have an added ‘stamp duty’ levied based upon the location of the property, and the loss to the community of such a property becoming effectively moribund so not contributing to the local economy, the said revenue should be available to local authorities to provide user friendly lending to indigenous locals, or those providing essential services to the local community.

Many of the ‘second’, (or third or forth homes), usually front line to the shore, can be paid for out of one years ‘bonus’ by a Londoner working in the financial ‘Industry’. However, there is a more serious situation, an owner of a second home also gets the opportunity to vote at local, District and County elections, they are not supposed to vote on General Elections, but this is not monitored. See Representation of the People Act 2000 ~ (not surprisingly during the Thatcher reign).

It is therefore little wonder that we have a Conservative dominated local government/administration.

RobO; 18/7/06 7:18 pm
Anonymous said...: Take care RobO lest you be accused of a taste for champagne.

The strangest thing about those conservative election wins in the 80s was that you never met anyone who was prepared to admit to voting for them.; 18/7/06 8:42 pm
Anonymous said...: keith where did i say that people who cant afford to buy are feekles wasters that is not in my post anywhere Its says most people are ok most meaning the majority! so dont put type into my mouth thank you, to be honest i was always ready to cut you some slack but perhaps not now as I said i have rented property out NO problem, but also i know landlords who have seen their houses destroyed and I also worked in 100's yes 100's of rented house again the VAST majority are fine but some not, and its not the type you think it is very often its a familly who just dont give a toss, therefore you have to appreciate why people dont rent out properties for christ sake man just watch these shows that tell you how to do up places to rent they are allways warning people that a few tennants are a nightmare. the poster after you seems hell bent on not letting people buy other house WHY not? I agree if they are in the holiday home bracket full tax should be paid, but dont stop people becoming proerty owners after all some willingly rent these out. and robo cant be a champage socialist he probably does not read the gaurdian or like sundried tomatoes; 19/7/06 1:46 am
Anonymous said...: what was said or implied is that i feel there is not a shortage of housing for locals but due to a large percentage of wasters who come to this area just to doss around housing is then short, I then backed up that statement by saying i had just seen a number of these people who I happen to know sat outside pubs drinking, most of them have not worked since they arrived and if you talk to them seem intent on not working at all. this is from personal experience. As I have stated I have personally rented property out and have worked in 100's rented places so i feel i can speak with some knowledge. It insults ne to say I called people who rent feckleess wasters, I DID not say that at all you have blantantly twisted what i said. But I did say theres a number of people who have moved here and have no intention of working and they have exsaperated the shortage of housing. please read a lot of ads for renting they say things like refs req no DSS why do they put that keith? please explain to me and others.; 19/7/06 2:48 pm
Anonymous said...: no what i said was they do not help the situation, and yes i do stand by my comment that some people of working age do move to this area just because of its appeal and that they do not work or intend to. perhaps when you have kids who want local housing and they cant get it due to various reasons, the above being just one of them you will understand. thers is lots of properties in town that could be rented but are not for variuos reasons so lets move on, when your kids want to move out and spread their wings I hope they have luck getting affordable decent places, but as it stands now they will not.; 19/7/06 9:49 pm
Anonymous said...: keith shut your mouth I gave an opinion I gave that opinion based on personal experiences of the market both on being a landlord and experience of the town you may not agree or like my personal opinion but its what i feel is correct go back to the de mowlem rd area and view town from there! and lets move on; 20/7/06 8:42 am
Anonymous said...: ok keith lets explain it slowly for you, my personal opinions have been stated as experienced by me so therefore thay are facts as they have actually happened. its a fact I have rented places out its a fact that I know a few people in the area, who dont/wont work and have taken up a % of the limited accomadation. Its a fact I have worked in 100's of rented properties and my experiences both of tennants and landlords is good. are you ok with this so far. also I said that the MAJORITY of tennants are very good, but a small amount are NOT ie the destroy places leave dirt muck possesions drugs etc on site ( again, a fact 2 yrs ago i went to buy a houses on northmoor park both were a mess ceilings down sinks ripped out both were occupied by tennats) not oppinon but FACT. so I have given you facts backed by personal experience or personal experience backed by facts. pray tell do you know what checks are done on tennats I do, again factual also personal experience. so what more do you want? landlords keep properties empty for many reasons, tax/persoanl reasons/maintenece/ council regulations ie fire regs. and also lack of CREDABLE tennants. all these reason are fair.
OK!; 20/7/06 4:23 pm
Anonymous said...: Apparently the pubs are full of feckless wasters who came here to steal our housing, take drugs and rip off private landlords thereby forcing them to keep properties empty. This has caused the wicked government to bring in a new law to confiscate all private property and imprison Daily Telegraph readers. Actually I'm wrong, the pubs aren't full, but the tables outside are.
Duncan; 21/7/06 7:42 pm
Anonymous said...: get a life duncan no one has said that at all, I think even keith realises what goes on and to his credit has taken on board alot of the comments,99% of pub users are great but like anything in socirty thare are a few, but I will take issue with you over the housing, im sorry to say personal experience give me some knowledge to speak. and keith a posting i made about the checks carried out has gone missing mate sorry, it covered what was needed perhaps the site owner could explain?; 21/7/06 11:30 pm
Anonymous said...: Hello, I,m a moron who needs a life because I write "drivell". At least I enjoy my pints outside pubs and can recognise torygraph bile when I read it. Mind the blood pressure dude.
D.; 22/7/06 10:52 am
Anonymous said...: moron drivell where do those words come from ? and I had my blood pressure checked last week and its fine thank you, also torygraph I for one dont read that, do you know in here who does? not being a pub user who has tables ? now do they have planning permission tehe; 22/7/06 11:43 pm
Anonymous said...: and on and on and on.........; 23/7/06 6:46 pm

swanageview

Pages

Friday, July 14, 2006

Second homes?

39 comments:

ShareThis

Blog Archive

Links

Search This Blog

Labels

Unique visits

swanageview

Pages

Friday, July 14, 2006

Second homes?

39 comments:

ShareThis

Blog Archive

Subscribe to Swanageview

Links

Search This Blog

Labels

Unique visits