My comments on requisitioning property in Kensington proved both popular and controversial yesterday so I am pleased to have been pointed in the direction of some research that shows that there is empty property in the borough. Bryan Rylands pointed out this excellent blog by Who Owns England? I recommend reading it. And for the record, it would seem that there is property available, as shown on this map:
As they say:
The truly insane thing about this map are the blue dots showing homes that have been empty for 4,200 — 5,734 days. That's homes that have lain empty for between 11 and 15 years. I count about 50 of them.
They may not, of course, be suitable for habitation right now as a result. But the point is that there is empty property. And that means that the option of requisitioning is viable.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
But what is the point in doing this before basic stuff like going to the local letting agent is done. Why are you going straight to the nuclear option of requisitioning? The impact of 120 families on the letting market will not be significant, and it will be considerably less than the rent paid on the properties on this map. You are both profoundly dangerous and illiberal.
Of course I have no problem with going to the local estate agent
But I do have massive problems with putting up the rents for everyone in the area as a result
As for my illiberality – sure I am when it comes to property over people
When it comes to people I am decidedly liberal
You make your colours very clear
There aren’t 120 families though are there. I read somewhere that support and emergency accommodation had been provided for 77 families. The rest? Where are they? I think we all know that, but there has never been an announcement of how many actually survived from the 120 who were supposedly to be living in the tower
I note that the stats come from the Department for Communities and Local Government, Richard, which publishes these, local authority by local authority, on a regular basis (it’s a favourite source of info for fairly regular articles on this subject in Private Eye). I wouldn’t be surprised that now this resource has been utilised for “hard left” purposes this feature of the DCLG’s work is quietly dropped if the Tories remain in power. After all, all those absentee owners of property in Kensington in Hong Kong, Singapore, Russia, etc must now be worried sick that Corbyn’s idea – solidly supported by your Today appearance – that they be used to temporarily rehouse those in dire need could actually catch on, and we could never have that could we!
There is a tendency for useful stats to disappear
many I have given publicity to have gone now
maybe but the clue is “absentee owners of property” – who pay different rates, the councils will hold records on these and an FoI request should unlock them – working on the basis that if they provide them now – why not at any time in the future.?
Richard, the option isn’t automatically viable just because empty property exists. Here’s Jeremy Corbyn –
“It cannot be acceptable that in London you have luxury buildings and luxury flats kept as land banking for the future while the homeless and the poor look for somewhere to live.”
If the Government were to compulsorily purchase the properties it would be a grossly profligate waste of taxpayers’ money when the residents of Grenfill could simply be housed in temporary B&B accommodation until permanent alternatives were found. Corbyn isn’t proposing a sensible solution, he’s indulging in a bit of class war posturing.
However, if you think the government can just seize property, then there is no clear right in law as explained here –
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40303142
So legal challenges would stall the process, requiring alternatives to be found in the meantime — making the whole purpose of requisitioning the properties redundant!
If this is an example of how government under Jeremy Corbyn would work then I shudder at the prospect, he seems more interested in kicking the rich than in proposing realistic and affordable solutions.
I despair
Temporary b&b is not an option – are you really callous enough to think so?
Don’t you realise that it was this indifference to need that has led to the revulsion for Tory politics after the fire?
And I pointed out why the legal right does exist
Richard, the link I gave explained why requisition during WWII doesn’t set a precedent for requisition in peacetime. You may disagree, but that just means there will be a protracted legal process to determine the truth — which is clearly of no benefit to anyone, least of all the residents of Grenfill.
So (unless you dispute that there will be a lengthy legal process) alternative accommodation will need to be found anyway: these people need accommodation now. Calling me callous might give you a sense of moral superiority, but it doesn’t do anything to resolve the problem.
A CPO takes up to two years, whereas the requisition path would almost certainly require emergency legislation (see the link I provided earlier) and be subject to legal challenge — again, it is doubtful that this could be accomplished in much under two years. Either solution would prove impractical, both in terms of time and expense.
The law I refer to provides for no compensation
Anything paid is then voluntary
Hard to challenge that
Lessons were learned
Why not read the law instead of making stuff up?
Richard, the law you referred to will be met with a legal challenge, as explained in the BBC link I gave in my first post. That means a lengthy legal process and, as such, isn’t a practical solution.
You may say ‘but the government shouldn’t brook any legal challenge’, but that’s an approach used in dictatorships, not democracies. In our system the government is thankfully subject to the rule of law.
OK
So law can be changed in a day or so – as Corbyn said
Richard, the idea that a bill can be drafted, timetabled and processed in a day or two is nonsense – even assuming it would get a smooth ride through both houses is nonsense, because there are practical issues such as compensation to discuss (whether or not you believe there should be any!), value for money, etc. You’re looking at several weeks of debate and little chance of getting it through. Even if parliament agreed to pass the legislation (a huge ‘IF’), it would still be subject to legal challenge by property owners with very deep pockets, drawing out the process for many months, even years.
Corbyn isn’t offering a practical solution to the problem, he is indulging in a grubby bit of class politics, I was very surprised to hear you defending him.
It’s an Order in Council that is needed
Read the Act I have pointed to
They can be done in no time
If you are still relying on s22 of the Civil Contingencies Act, that section is simply a power to make emergency regulations on a topic. It does not say it is currently the law that property can be confiscated for these purposes.
A power to make regulations is quite different.
Regulations could be made on the topic. Have they? Can you refer to them if they do.
But you seem to be confusing (and misleading your readers) on what the law ‘is’ rather than what you think the law ‘should be’.
I think I can read it correctly
The power to make regulation by Order in Council to tackle an issue like Grenfell Tower exists
Compensation is not required
So I am right: I said the power to achieve this exists. It does
Sorry, I misunderstood.
I thought you were suggesting a responder (most likely, the local authority) already had the power to do this.
The local authority would need new regulations in place (ie effectively a change in the law) to be able to do so.
But an Order in Council (that’s the Privy Council) is incredibly quick and that is all that is needed
Richard, an Order in Council is covered by the Civil Contingencies Act which is meant to be used only for existential threats to the UK, obviously it wasn’t meant to cater for situations like Grenfell.
The link in my very first post had a statement from an expert lawyer explaining that the legislation to requisition property following this sort of tragedy doesn’t exist. You may disagree, the point is that a protracted and costly court case will decide the matter, you can’t just claim that your interpretation is correct. I hope this goes some way to explain why Corbyn’s solution is impractical.
Read the Act
Corbyn is wrong. These homes cannot be described as “land banking for the future”. They represent future capital gains – speculation. LVT would stop all property speculation as it’s only land/location value which varies over time, with the expectation that it will always increase in the longterm.
That is land banking Carol
He was right
The term usually refers to developers holding land unused until they decide to build – I thought. Either way, LVT is a solution.
you posted this: “an Order in Council is covered by the Civil Contingencies Act which is meant to be used only for existential threats to the UK”
– well is dat so? – existential threats – that being the case, how come Thatcher used an order in council to abolish exchange controls in 1979 – I’m just dying to know the existential threat facing the UK at that point – oh hang on – the middle classes buying up French property & attempting to dodge exchange controls by exporting cash – that existential threat?
Shows how hard it is to prove the case for one….
I think it was quite clear that Jackie was saying that the Civil Contingencies Act is used only meant to be used for existential threats to the UK, not that Order in Councils are only meant to be used for existential threats to the UK.
Order in Councils are in common use, most of the time entirely uncontroversially. It is clear that Richard is well out of his depth on this thread.
I read the Act. The current situation meets the desription of an emergency using its own language. I have no doubt it could be used.
RM: “I have no doubt it could be used.”
Richard, Mark Woloshak of the law firm Slater and Gordon, an expert in housing law, says you’re wrong.
So?
I’ve been told countless times I am wrong
I have to say I’ve usually found I am right
RM: “I’ve been told countless times I am wrong. I have to say I’ve usually found I am right.”
Unfortunately you can’t be the final arbiter: where there is a dispute over law, it is settled by the justice system. So we’re back to a protracted legal process which will be of no benefit to the residents of Grenfell, people who need accommodation immediately.
If you know that there is no possibility of immediately requisitioning the properties of the super-rich in order to help the residents of Grenfell then your proposals are of no benefit to them, you are simply [ab]using a tragedy for political advantage.
With respect, suggesting there is a better system is than at present is a lot more useful than denying those in need access to property held for speculative purposes
I also stand by all I said
But most of all I know which side of morality I would rather be on
I now think you have wasted enough of my time
How appalling and mean minded to think that the survivors of such a disaster can be ‘simply be housed in temporary B&B accommodation until permanent alternatives were found’ Try it yourself and see how you like it.
I doubt that any of these owners will be affected one iota – they are as Richard points out well away from here. And there is an assumption they will object – I like to think that even the sort of people who buy these sort of dwellings for investment purposes have some common humanity. Well at least some of them. Perhaps enough.
50+ of the properties have been empty for 10+ years – I doubt they would even notice if somebody moved in for a year or so & then moved out. Tell you what though – this dispute (put them into empty properties) is certainly sorting out those with some level of humanity & common sense from the (mostly tory) rest. What a nation we live in.
Utterly repugnant that the government can’t get its arses in gear to help out these people and house them in the area.
It is totally unacceptable to expect people who have suffered enough from this disaster to be expected to be moved far away from their families, support networks, schools and jobs. They should be rehoused as close by as possible.
I think requisitioning of empty properties should be considered as one of the possible solutions.
Speaking of empty properties more broadly, when they are in areas of high demand I would subject them to an empty property tax to encourage them to be put back into use (with the exception of empty homes of people who have been put into care). Ditto second homes.
I wholeheartedly agree re empty property tax
A start would be five times council tax
But that may not be enough
when I worked at a local authority in (i think) 2010 the (Tory) Cabinet were talking about introducing an increased council tax rate for empty properties. Can’t remember whether it came to fruition though.
Richard
I heard you make your case on the radio. You were excellent – well done.
Thank you
Jackie Holt,
I refer you to the song “Palaces of Gold”.
You and I both know that if this were the sons and daughters of private executives, judges and company directors ……”buttons would be pressed……rules would be broken and magic words spoken”
.
Dave, I’m not familiar with the song and I simply don’t believe what you say is true. Requisitioning multi-million pound properties isn’t a sensible use of taxpayers’ money, regardless of the sort of people who needed housing: it’s an extremely profligate use of government funds and is certain to lead to very lengthy and expensive legal battles. There are simpler, quicker, cheaper and more obviously lawful solutions to the immediate crisis.
Corbyn isn’t offering a practical solution, he’s just taking a cynical pop at the 1%. I think we deserve better than that.
So now we have it
Corbyn is wrong because he is a socialist who wants to redistribute wealth
Good for him!
And he has you scared
Good for him, again
Richard, Corbyn is wrong because the solution is wrong. The solution is wrong because it’s not the quickest, simplest and most straightforward way to meet the needs of Grenfell’s residents. It’s a bad solution because it’s the most expensive way imaginable to meet the needs of the people and would likely embroil the government in a protracted legal wrangle resulting in suits for eye-watering levels of compensation.
It’s a bad solution because, rather than asking ‘how best may I help?’, Corbyn’s seen the tragedy of Grenfell as an opportunity to bash the rich. I’d call that disgustingly cynical. And yes, I’d call that wrong.
It could be underway tomorrow
Opposition would not be possible
Boy you would not like capital to be upset
Please don’t waste more of my time
The Cadogan Estate just like the neighbouring Grosvenor Estate of the Duke of Westminster shows the extent to which the old aristocracy, morphed into the corporate age still wields much influence. Although your point is about the immediate relief of suffering (in which I completely agree with your solution), the wider aspect is yet another estate using a system of holding companies and trusts to retain control of huge investment potential by a few very rich people. It is a strong temptation to call for the state to simply seize the Cadogan and Grosvenor Estate and bring them into public ownership and while I am all in favour of abolishing hereditary titles, such a call actually reveals a much more widespread and deepseated issue; that of exactly who controls the investment potential of such estates and the purpose to which that investment is directed (which will remain a question under public or social ownership). By the way, as an immediate temporary housing solution, Kensington Palace is not far away!!
Land Value Tax would sort it. http://www.labourland.org.
Given that the UK has largely done away with its negative gearing tax rorts can anyone explain how it is that owners can find find advantage in leaving these places empty?
I don’t think that AirBnB could explain these stats.
Is there a typo in there? (Says the master of them)
No, no significant typo. I honestly can’t fully identify a satisfactory explanation for why it is that so many of these property owners find some rational advantage in leaving these places empty (as opposed to renting them).
I was under the impression that negative gearing rorts had largely been cut over time with the latest changes occurring in 2015. The 2015 changes don’t get rid of the practice altogether but they do seem to be quite restrictive.
Looking at them it would appear that one would need to own a very large and varied property portfolio to gain any NG advantage from leaving some properties empty. My best guess is that there are more of these mega-rich owners than I suspected, there is a grandfathering issue or I am barking up the wrong tree and these vacancies are not just a result of negative gearing.
The Who Owns England blog noted that some of these empty places are being RENTED – by the mega-rich:
“It’s possible that they have negotiated lengthy leaseholds that will still accrue in value over the years when they come to sell them on. But it is possible that some of those renting from the Cadogans are so obscenely wealthy that they don’t even bother to take up their tenancies and are not even making an investment decision”.
So yes – too many mega-rich, no – not rational? I think “its possible” is not a very satisfactory explanation. I would like to know more but this seems to be a difficult area to research. One thing that has become apparent is that foreign ownership restrictions on residential property are long overdue in the UK (but that’s just one thing).
I don’t know exactly how it is that offshore tax-dodgers find a net advantage in owning vacant property but I do know that there is no societal benefit in the foreign ownership of established homes. In Australia a conservative government recently tightened their existing foreign-ownership restrictions under pressure from public opinion.
I can’t help
But I do know people are not rational
Properties that can be used, should be used. I would say the approach to property which is left to stand unused, as an investment, when land and housing is in such limited availability for so many, has to be changed. Perhaps all property should have a clause for the future that where they sit empty for more than a minimum period, they have to be made available to the local community for a set amount of compensation/rent value.
It may not resolve the issues now, but it is something that does need to be considered for the future in my view.
If the desire to change the law was there, it could and would be done. As it stands the suggestion by Corbyn makes sense, and the Privy Council could if they desired change the law.
In the meantime, the empty flats of the super-rich in Cadogan Square will stare vacantly, uncaring, across the borough of Kensington to the empty, blackened shell of Grenfell Tower: two cities, a world apart.
Jeremy Corbyn’s call to use local properties reminded of when my daughter’s flat was empty for a year in Brighton, and the council contacted her to determine her intentions. Further digging (or rather HT Neil Wilson) revealed the 2004 Housing Bill which contains the Empty Dwelling Management Order which fits the requirement to rehouse the Grenfell survivors.
‘Empty Dwelling Management Orders (EDMOs) are a legal device used in England and Wales, which enable local authorities to put an unoccupied property back into use as housing. EDMOs were created by the Housing Act 2004, with the relevant legislation coming into effect in mid-2006;[1] in the three and a half years to the end of 2010, however, only 43 had been issued.’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_Dwelling_Management_Orders
Very helpful
Thanks
Perhaps it would be more appropriate for the local authorities to ‘get their own houses in order’ first?
7500 Council Homes Lying Empty in London 26/5/16 London Standard
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/shocking-waste-of-7500-council-homes-lying-empty-in-london-a3256401.html
Did you notice how many there are in Kensington and Chelsea?
What’s your next crass comment going to be?
(Note: it will not be published if it is as inappropriate)
Please explain how my comment is any more crass than a complete disregard for private property contrary to Protocol 1, Article 1 of the EHRC?
Because as you should be well aware, any rights given away against one will be used against all others using precedent.
All I was pointing out is that the local authorities, who had responsibility for safety for Grenfell and the other similar social housing blocks across the capital, have empty properties which would be easier to revert to usage than wading into the legal mire against the absent landlords who would obviously use their wealth to prevent it, thus costing the country more in fees than in solutions.
I was being practical rather than ideological.
Apologies for any misunderstanding.
No need to be rude to alternate opinions, that just undermines your own arguments
And as I have pointed out the power to do what I suggest exists
I gave stressed the need for accountability in its use
And as I also pointed out, property is not available where needed
That power derived from the Order in Council would still be subject to Judicial Review, no?
The owners of the properties are hardly going to refuse to demand one.
And although yes, it would be preferable for the Grenfell residents to be housed in the area for a variety of reasons, social & moral, there is no explicit right to this in law, only for adequacy of accommodation.
Better elsewhere in London, using properties that require no further legislation to bring back into use, than waste our money on lengthy litigious arguments when people need somewhere now.
The judicial review would consider if the powers were properly used
I find it hard to see how they could concede
Of course a lawyer could be found to disagree
It would be in their interests to do so
That is the point I was making – practical solutions wasting the least time and money not just ideological soundbites to appeal to the masses.
We have to uphold the (apolitical) rule of law for all or all else disintegrates.
As I have pointed out, the law exists
maybe because it does another solution has been found
This is a turn up for the books though –
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sixtyeight-flats-in-2bn-luxury-block-to-be-given-to-families-whose-lives-were-devastated-in-grenfell-a3569876.html
From the City of London Corporation no less…interesting times we live in
This looks to be very good news
“As I have pointed out, the law exists
maybe because it does another solution has been found”
You may think that, I couldn’t possibly comment on such pretension
The idea was not mine
Jeremey Corbyn floated it
I supported and clarified it
But you reveal your hand very clearly
they said it couldn’t be done!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/21/grenfell-tower-families-to-be-given-68-flats-in-luxury-apartment-complex
Fletcher, the character in the tv series Porridge was asked how he coped with confinement,
he replied that it was all about winning the little victories,
Indeed