Councils can take your property from you ...

[Asterix]

...if a number of criteria are met.

When did this peach of law get passed?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/art...

[loltolhurst]

i thought that as well when i heard about the labour people might get their house repossed just because theyre not in it for a few months!

[69 coupe]

Looks like 2006 is when the law was passed.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2006/20060367.htm

[FourWheelDrift]

That communist law was passed 2-3 years ago I think, I recall Prescott being involved with it. Although I do find it amusing that it's being enforced on a Labour MP.

[Eric Mc]

Councils have had the ability to slap compulsory acquisition on a property owner for decades.

[Puggit]

I see James from UAE has submitted a comment

[FourWheelDrift]

They never seem to allow mine, can't think why.

[Puggit]

FourWheelDrift said:

They never seem to allow mine, can't think why.

Nor mine - and never on the Sky website either

[Asterix]

Puggit said:

I see James from UAE has submitted a comment

Hahaha - yup

We're going through the purpose of buying a place in the UK as we speak - We should be fine as the house is prime rentable stuff (and newish) but even the fact that should the place be not used for 6 months, and that someone could, for whatever reason, report it as such (for investment purposes and the requirement to rent out it would be kept in a tidy condition) is a little worrying.

[jeff m]

Eric Mc said:

Councils have had the ability to slap compulsory acquisition on a property owner for decades.

Since 1066 I think

[BrassMan]

Google says:

Empty Dweling Management Orders. Part of the Housing Act, 2004.
.gov

I would have thought that it would have been more memorable. It must have been bundled with something innocuous, or they promised not to abuse it.

An Empty Dwelling Management Order (EDMO) allows a local authority to step into the shoes of the owner of a dwelling which has been unoccupied for six months or more where the owner is not intending to re-occupy it.

There are two types of order - interim EDMO and final EDMO. They allow a local authority to secure occupation and proper management of privately owned houses and flats that have been unoccupied for a specified period of time and where certain other conditions are met. The council must apply to a residential property tribunal to authorise the interim order which precedes the final EDMO. The local authority may not sell the property but can carry out works to make the property fit to occupy and can also let the property. With an interim management order permission of the owner is required for letting however when a final management order is made the council can let the property without the permission of the owner.

The council must keep account of the cost of managing the property. Any excess profits must be repaid to the owner. Equally the owner can be required to pay any costs of the local authority which cannot be met from the rental income.

Edited by BrassMan on Thursday 25th June 23:09

[Deva Link]

BrassMan said:

I would have thought that it would have been more memorable. It must have been bundled with something innocuous, or they promised not to abuse it.

There was quite a kerfuffle at the time, and I've since seen complaints that it's not used enough - there was a TV programme a while ago that reckoned there are over a million unoccupied properties in the UK. They quizzed councils about why these orders aren't being used and just got a load of waffle back.

Edited by Deva Link on Friday 26th June 10:35

[Jasandjules]

I can't imagine such legislation being found compatible with the ECHR - The state cannot remove your property because you are not using it. What next? Sorn a car, find it removed? Haven't watch that DVD for six months? Give it to the state...

[mcflurry]

Didn't the telly programme find that only about 6 properties had actually been subject to this order as it's a "last resort" rather than a way to get houses that have been empty for a fortnight

[Jasandjules]

mcflurry said:

Didn't the telly programme find that only about 6 properties had actually been subject to this order as it's a "last resort" rather than a way to get houses that have been empty for a fortnight

Last resort for what?

I would like to think that if I had the money I could buy as money houses as I liked, and if I want to leave them empty then that is my right as the owner. IN the same way as if I bought another couple of cars and left them sat on the driveway for six months, I don't expect the Govt to come along and take them away from me because I am not using them. They are mine, to do with as I please.

The state ought not to be infringing upon my property in this manner.

[mcflurry]

Jasandjules said:

mcflurry said:

Didn't the telly programme find that only about 6 properties had actually been subject to this order as it's a "last resort" rather than a way to get houses that have been empty for a fortnight

Last resort for what?

Leaving them unattended and in a crap state.

For example my mates neighbour hasn't been round there in 20 odd years. The glass is smashed, roof fallen off etc. The idea in principal is the council gets hold of the property, spends £10 to bring it up to code, then lets it out at market rate. Once the £10 is covered, the excess goes back to the owner.

In reality we all know that won't happen

[Jasandjules]

mcflurry said:

Leaving them unattended and in a crap state.

But then does that mean that the lovely Lotus Eclat I see monthly sat under a car cover (someone's long term restoration project) should be taken from them? Of course not.

What about those DVDs that don't get watched regularly? Should the state remove them from our property and give them to chavs? Of course not.

[Coco H]

I have a house that has been empty for over 6 months. It has sold more than once in that time yet th ebuyers own chains have collapsed. Currently I am getting it fully renovated - the roof is being done as I type.
This is quite a common scenario - property empty in anticpation of renovation - awaiting builders/planning etc. What do they do then?

[Deva Link]

Jasandjules said:

mcflurry said:

Didn't the telly programme find that only about 6 properties had actually been subject to this order as it's a "last resort" rather than a way to get houses that have been empty for a fortnight

Last resort for what?

I would like to think that if I had the money I could buy as money houses as I liked, and if I want to leave them empty then that is my right as the owner. IN the same way as if I bought another couple of cars and left them sat on the driveway for six months, I don't expect the Govt to come along and take them away from me because I am not using them. They are mine, to do with as I please.

The state ought not to be infringing upon my property in this manner.

I have mixed feeling about this - I do think it's bad that houses can be left empty when there are clearly shortages, but many of the empty properties that were featured in the TV programme I referred to were MOD property, or houses that had been repossessed for a road widening scheme that had been delayed, or they were in areas where no-one wants to live - like whole streets in Burnley etc.

OTOH where do you draw the line? My road is full of decent sized family houses but only a couple of the houses, including mine, have any kids in them. A fair number now just have one occupant. Should all those people be kicked out and put into little bungalows somewhere so young families can be accommodated? Ideally yes, in my view, but young families couldn't afford to buy them - unless they all came on the market at once and the prices crashed.

[Spiritual_Beggar]

I think it's ok that council's have the right to take charge of property if it's not being looked after and harming values of the surrounding area. But the time frame for this should be a lot longer.

What's scary about this instance is the fact that it has only been "1 YEAR". That is far too short a time to start making threats like this IMO.

And even if the council are to seize a property....it shouldn't be for free. They should have to pay some form of compensation to the legal owners, albeit at a largely reduce number than the current value of the house.

And there need to be warnings prior to seizure to give the owners a chance to rectify the situation.

Edited by Spiritual_Beggar on Friday 26th June 22:15