In an average working day, Claudia Bowring has to play the role of detective, estate agent, family mediator and, occasionally, grief counsellor.

She’s an empty homes officer for a borough council in the suburbs of Nottingham.

There are just short of 700,000 empty and unfurnished homes in England, according to the most recent government figures, external. Of those, 261,471 are classed as “long-term empty,” meaning no-one has lived there for six months or more.

If all empty homes were brought back into use, the housing crisis would be solved at a stroke and, arguably, the government would not have to build 1.5m new homes.

Unfortunately, it’s not as simple as that. Bringing derelict and abandoned properties back to life can be a long and complex process.

Even finding out who owns properties that have been standing empty for years, or in some cases decades, can be a challenge.

When persuasion fails, the gloves come off.

Like many local authorities, Conservative-controlled Rushcliffe charges extra council tax on homes that have been unoccupied for more than a year, under the Empty Homes Premium brought in by the previous government.

If that doesn’t do the trick, the council can take enforcement action.

It treats abandoned properties as an environmental health issue - derelict properties can be a magnet for vandalism and vermin, harming the quality of life for people living next to them.

In some cases, the council is able to carry out emergency repair work on abandoned homes, and then force a sale at auction to recover its costs. This sometimes results in a windfall for the owners who were so reluctant to sell up in the first place.

Another tool at the council’s disposal are Empty Dwelling Management Orders, which give councils the right to take over and make repairs to run-down private properties that have been vacant for at least two years. They can rent the property out for up to seven years to recover costs.

But it does not have to do this. There is no legal requirement for local authorities to bring empty homes back into use – and some councils choose not to.

  • Venator@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Should have a tax on empty houses, to dicincentivise land banking with properties that are unoccupied. That could also bring a means to take over properties where the owner is unknown, when the taxes are unpaid long enough.

    • RobotToaster
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      And a tax on second, third, etc homes. Outside of summer some places are starting to look like a ghost town.

      • frazorth@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        We can, but very few people own a second, let along a third or fourth.

        Either they are landlords and running it through a business, and how do you prevent a business from owning two locations?

        Sorry Londis, you can only have one store because you have a flat upstairs?

        Or they own them privately, and in this country its massively overstated. Presumably to try and start a bit of class warfare, but folks see US news and think it applies here.

        Fucking Tories, making the crabs pull everyone back into the bucket when there really aren’t that many. Even Shelter doesn’t call it out as a problem, compared to the many other things we could do to help.

      • galmuth@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 month ago

        Making short term rental completely illegal is not a good idea as it would impact on local tourism etc, but they should allow (or force) councils to limit licences for short term rentals to a certain percentage of housing.

          • frazorth@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 month ago

            I wouldn’t visit.

            I have two children, and the number of hotels where I can get joining rooms so I dont have to actually share with them is basically zero.

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 month ago

              It didn’t prevent tourists from visiting before so I’m sure you would just learn to live with it.

              Anyway, short term rental and the abundance of tourists compared to locals caused by short term rentals actually hurts the local economy because it drives out people who are present 24/7 and need non tourist oriented services.

              • frazorth@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 month ago

                And thats fine. I’m just letting you know how I feel about this.

                Banning short term rentals is one thing, but can we please at least request that hotels fill the gap that this creates?

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Because some people don’t want to own the place they live in? Heck, I’m one of those, I moved far from where I used to live but knew that it might be temporary (two years max) so you’re saying I should have been forced to buy and be stuck selling it two years later in order to be able to buy something else back home?