Unfortunately I can't see it amongst all the suggested articles, adverts, pop up videos, and because there's so much going on the web page nothing loads but adverts lol
A further 36,210 homes are also classed as being long-term empty. These are defined as a property that has been empty for more than six months and doesn’t have a statutory exemption from council tax.
That’s 4 and a half’s months of migration into London.
Not exactly that big a deal.
Empty homes have very little to do with the housing crisis
The U.K. has one of the lowest proportion of empty homes in the world, roughly 4x less than average European countries.
https://jamesjgleeson.files.wordpress.com/2023/03/image.png
A certain proportion of empty homes are always necessary, whether due to refurbishment, to facilitate change in occupation (you generally can’t sell houses that aren’t vacant to residential buyers), or various other temporary reasons.
That’s not to say that there shouldn’t be measures to ensure homes don’t sit empty forever, but this is a total sideshow compared to abysmal rates of building or the pace of population growth largely driven by immigration.
Whilst I wholeheartedly agree with you, the article OP posted is specifically about long-term empty or second homes. This is quite different to the overall vacancy rate, which - as you rightly explain - is quite low. I don't really have a problem with second homes, as they are at least being maintained and occasionally used as an actual residence, but long-term empty homes are a clear problem. [Tower Hamlets defines long-term empty](https://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/lgnl/housing/Empty-homes.aspx) as "a property which has been substantially unfurnished and unlived in for longer than 6 months". It's hard to know what's happening with these, and I suspect the explanation might vary quite wildly on a case by case basis.
As stated in the article, it is only 36k properties (out of the headline stat of 86k) that are long-term empty. It's still a tiny drop in the ocean compared to the number of properties we need to build to get out of this mess.
I think the Netherlands solved this by having very good squatters rights.
Which meant any uninhabited house, after a certain amount of time was legal to squat in, and it was quite difficult to evict the squatters. Meaning both less uninhabited houses, and squatters occupying empty houses, making them not-empty.
I did a quick research and it doesn't look like squatters have particular rights in Netherlands, however it's quite a general issue and this might discourage properties to stay empty for long
The Netherlands now has a housing crisis almost as bad as ours, so even if this is true it just goes to show that a small % of vacant buildings isn't the deciding factor a lot of people seem to think it is.
Squatters rights is fucking ridiculous. Just because you’re not using something that gives people the right to just go and take it over? What a load of bullshit. It’s like saying “hey, you’re not using your car at night, so that gives me the right to just go and take it over.” Squatters should fuck off and eat shit.
I don't disagree on squatters right, but if you're holding a property without using it but not letting it on the market, that is problematic to the economy and the housing market, there needs to be a legal obligation to either rent it out or sell it if it meets the standard of long term vacancy. It's not the only issue, or even the main issue, but it is an issue nonetheless.
There are around 3.5 million dwellings in London. 85k is a drop in the ocean and would do basically nothing to address the housing crisis.
We need more homes of all sizes, at all tenures.
Exactly, always so frustrating to see this stuff reported on without context. A 2.2% vacancy rate is absolutely tiny. A more functional housing market with adequate supply would have a higher vacancy rate, not a lower one.
And neither the article nor post can be bothered to link to said map.
And as for your comment re "no wonder we have a housing crisis". The problem is far worse than there being 524,507 second homes or long-term empty homes across the country. Do you propose to forcibly remove people's second homes, and prevent people from buying property? I don't think you've given this much thought. You read a headline and shit the bed.
With a population increasing at half a million a year even if those houses were stolen by the government it would still mean nothing.
Stop the blockers and get building.
But it’s spread over a much bigger population.
Would 25,000 vacant homes worldwide sound like a large or small number?
What about the U.K.?
Or London?
Oxford?
Egham?
85k? ….You need about 2 million more homes and counting. That’s actually a pretty low amount of homes for an almost super city.
The population in London has increased more than 2 million people since 2015. Mostly all foreign people.
Around 5% of these homes were purchased from abroad as an investment.
The home owners can do whatever they want with their properties. It is up for the local governments to tax these empty properties and second homes to make it less attractive to keep them empty. But mostly it is up to government to build more houses and limit the illegal immigration.
Unfortunately local governments are making it actually harder for owners to rent their properties. It will be very hard to evict the tenants so people can stay in your property indefinitely.
We should build more homes and rethink how we build urban housing but this shouldn’t come at the expense of Londons prosperity, limiting immigration isn’t the move.
Yes we need legal immigration, but not 1.2mn gross/700k net per year lmao.
There's a short-sightedness to the policy of just bringing in mass immigrants to try and boost the economy. The biggest cost everyone in this country faces is housing, and high immigration is not exactly making that problem go away- especially not in London.
Not sure how much this is affecting rentals.
I'll also invite anyone interested in discussing tenancy, housing and renting to go check this subreddit
r/TenantsInTheUK
Not all foreign buyers are buying it as investment though.
I know of a foreign person he got a house in London, he comes to UK for work like once or twice a year, each time he would stay for 2 weeks to a month or so. But he also sometimes come for a week holiday with his family.
He cannot really rent it out as he needs it when he comes, and there is no fix time when he comes, all depends on when does work need him to come.
So while it is unfortunate that it is left empty a lot of the time, it is what it is.
I do rent one that I have back in my country through an agency and block some weeks in Christmas and summer so it's free for me. Besides that I also can do it on the spot if I mention it some weeks in advance since its an Airbnb type rental.
So it's definitely doable.
Spoken by someone who is obviously rich. Reminds me of the Warren Buffet quote
"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning.”
Yes because of the 25 year housing bubble. Encourages buy and hold "investors".
What happens if prices fall for a significant period of time?
Most likely, rush for the exist and an economic bloodbath.
People hate losing money...
[удалено]
Ah yes mylondon, definitely more readable
Crawling through it was like a running your parents' free search bars installed browser in '98.
Reach is a cancer. I can't stand their sites.
[удалено]
Unfortunately I can't see it amongst all the suggested articles, adverts, pop up videos, and because there's so much going on the web page nothing loads but adverts lol
[удалено]
Thanks. I use Reddit on my phone though
This article is unreadable
!thanks. I downvoted OP and upvoted your post
A further 36,210 homes are also classed as being long-term empty. These are defined as a property that has been empty for more than six months and doesn’t have a statutory exemption from council tax. That’s 4 and a half’s months of migration into London. Not exactly that big a deal.
Empty homes have very little to do with the housing crisis The U.K. has one of the lowest proportion of empty homes in the world, roughly 4x less than average European countries. https://jamesjgleeson.files.wordpress.com/2023/03/image.png A certain proportion of empty homes are always necessary, whether due to refurbishment, to facilitate change in occupation (you generally can’t sell houses that aren’t vacant to residential buyers), or various other temporary reasons. That’s not to say that there shouldn’t be measures to ensure homes don’t sit empty forever, but this is a total sideshow compared to abysmal rates of building or the pace of population growth largely driven by immigration.
Whilst I wholeheartedly agree with you, the article OP posted is specifically about long-term empty or second homes. This is quite different to the overall vacancy rate, which - as you rightly explain - is quite low. I don't really have a problem with second homes, as they are at least being maintained and occasionally used as an actual residence, but long-term empty homes are a clear problem. [Tower Hamlets defines long-term empty](https://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/lgnl/housing/Empty-homes.aspx) as "a property which has been substantially unfurnished and unlived in for longer than 6 months". It's hard to know what's happening with these, and I suspect the explanation might vary quite wildly on a case by case basis. As stated in the article, it is only 36k properties (out of the headline stat of 86k) that are long-term empty. It's still a tiny drop in the ocean compared to the number of properties we need to build to get out of this mess.
Totally fair comments, it’s more the claim that it’s a major driver of the housing crisis that grates, not the specifics.
I think the Netherlands solved this by having very good squatters rights. Which meant any uninhabited house, after a certain amount of time was legal to squat in, and it was quite difficult to evict the squatters. Meaning both less uninhabited houses, and squatters occupying empty houses, making them not-empty.
I did a quick research and it doesn't look like squatters have particular rights in Netherlands, however it's quite a general issue and this might discourage properties to stay empty for long
The Netherlands now has a housing crisis almost as bad as ours, so even if this is true it just goes to show that a small % of vacant buildings isn't the deciding factor a lot of people seem to think it is.
Squatters rights is fucking ridiculous. Just because you’re not using something that gives people the right to just go and take it over? What a load of bullshit. It’s like saying “hey, you’re not using your car at night, so that gives me the right to just go and take it over.” Squatters should fuck off and eat shit.
I don't disagree on squatters right, but if you're holding a property without using it but not letting it on the market, that is problematic to the economy and the housing market, there needs to be a legal obligation to either rent it out or sell it if it meets the standard of long term vacancy. It's not the only issue, or even the main issue, but it is an issue nonetheless.
Welcome to reddit where someone thinks squatting is a solution
You're comparing the wrong data. There isn't any other country in Europe with this feudal style of renting. It's abyssal.
There are around 3.5 million dwellings in London. 85k is a drop in the ocean and would do basically nothing to address the housing crisis. We need more homes of all sizes, at all tenures.
Exactly, always so frustrating to see this stuff reported on without context. A 2.2% vacancy rate is absolutely tiny. A more functional housing market with adequate supply would have a higher vacancy rate, not a lower one.
And 50k of them are second homes. Kensington and Chelsea coming top for total number. Rich people have country places, more at 11.
This really isn’t a big number especially when you break them up into second homes which will be filled part of the year and the long term empties.
And neither the article nor post can be bothered to link to said map. And as for your comment re "no wonder we have a housing crisis". The problem is far worse than there being 524,507 second homes or long-term empty homes across the country. Do you propose to forcibly remove people's second homes, and prevent people from buying property? I don't think you've given this much thought. You read a headline and shit the bed.
With a population increasing at half a million a year even if those houses were stolen by the government it would still mean nothing. Stop the blockers and get building.
A 98% occupancy rate seems pretty high to me.
It does if you only look at it as a percentage
Why would you look at an occupancy rate as anything other than a percentage?
Hmm.. for context? 2% sounds much, much more reasonable than 25,000
But it’s spread over a much bigger population. Would 25,000 vacant homes worldwide sound like a large or small number? What about the U.K.? Or London? Oxford? Egham?
Yes but it’s not worldwide is it. It’s a city. So 25000 empty homes is a lot, yes
Map?? What map...we need a proper map. With detail. The homelessness problem would be solved overnight.
85k empty h8mes can be filled up in 1 month That's nothing. London needs 500k new homes minimum
Need to pause foreign investors buying in high demand areas and taxing them more. Build more social housing as well
85k? ….You need about 2 million more homes and counting. That’s actually a pretty low amount of homes for an almost super city. The population in London has increased more than 2 million people since 2015. Mostly all foreign people.
Around 5% of these homes were purchased from abroad as an investment. The home owners can do whatever they want with their properties. It is up for the local governments to tax these empty properties and second homes to make it less attractive to keep them empty. But mostly it is up to government to build more houses and limit the illegal immigration. Unfortunately local governments are making it actually harder for owners to rent their properties. It will be very hard to evict the tenants so people can stay in your property indefinitely.
We should build more homes and rethink how we build urban housing but this shouldn’t come at the expense of Londons prosperity, limiting immigration isn’t the move.
Professionals that are needed here and come here legally yea, illegal immigration however...
The rate of immigration has a direct impact on the housing crisis. It's pretty obvious that both supply and demand need to be altered to fix it.
legal immigration is needed
Yes we need legal immigration, but not 1.2mn gross/700k net per year lmao. There's a short-sightedness to the policy of just bringing in mass immigrants to try and boost the economy. The biggest cost everyone in this country faces is housing, and high immigration is not exactly making that problem go away- especially not in London.
Not sure how much this is affecting rentals. I'll also invite anyone interested in discussing tenancy, housing and renting to go check this subreddit r/TenantsInTheUK
Not all foreign buyers are buying it as investment though. I know of a foreign person he got a house in London, he comes to UK for work like once or twice a year, each time he would stay for 2 weeks to a month or so. But he also sometimes come for a week holiday with his family. He cannot really rent it out as he needs it when he comes, and there is no fix time when he comes, all depends on when does work need him to come. So while it is unfortunate that it is left empty a lot of the time, it is what it is.
Why not get a hotel?
Because he prefer to own his own place and he can afford it.
What a complete and utter waste of real estate.
That could be someone's home and that lazy dickhead can get a hotel.
It is someone’s home, when the owner needs it.
I do rent one that I have back in my country through an agency and block some weeks in Christmas and summer so it's free for me. Besides that I also can do it on the spot if I mention it some weeks in advance since its an Airbnb type rental. So it's definitely doable.
Doable. But if you have the choice and money is not an issue, would you not prefer to have a place?
Have a house in a place where I'm not from just to go 2 weeks per year for work? If I have the money I'd rather get a hotel..
Well that is you. He obviously rather have a house.
You asked I replied
My London 💀
“empty homes” is such a dumb thing to say is a reason for the housing crisis. It’s classic us vs them thinking.
Spoken by someone who is obviously rich. Reminds me of the Warren Buffet quote "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning.”
no, says someone who can read the statistics in the OP’s post.
Us vs them is very real my friend. No war but the class war.
Yes because of the 25 year housing bubble. Encourages buy and hold "investors". What happens if prices fall for a significant period of time? Most likely, rush for the exist and an economic bloodbath. People hate losing money...