With the risk of getting into a history and politics debate; I am defining "property rights" in a broad sense as the legal ability to enjoy what you own assets (i.e. possessions, property, businesses etc) whilst being unmolested by either the state or by other individuals.
John, I thought with you American mind that you would be in tune with what I was trying to say.
I was pointing out that if we feel that our private property can be seized at will, then we will not invest in, or seek to acquire more of it, which is why we as a society are 'richer' than those who do not enjoy such protection
Nick, I take your point that there are all sorts of restrictions on our ability to use our own property but I feel there is a line between restriction of use and having someone else take control.
NLA, I was not equating property rights to humanity, I was saying that property rights allow us to live in an environment that allows us to show our humanity. There are a lot of terrible things that happen in countries that are not so lucky as to enjoy our freedoms, however I do not believe that they are genetically or intrinsically less humane than we are, they merely find themselves in a position where they are forced to be mutually inhumane, and a large part of that is to do with property rights.
Others may differ but I do not like the idea of others being able to control something that I own, just because they are unhappy in the way that I use it.
Unfortunately I am sure if I did look into constitutional law I would be horrified by the fact that the Queen owns it anyway, (isn't that why they call it 'Real' estate, because real means Royal?)

I agree with Matt,
You should be able to manage and operate your property as you see fit. Provided that is, that you execute these pivilages (rights?) within acceptable boundaries. Having a rich legal system which isnt codeified but developed through custom and practice should allow us width and depth in enjoying this.
In the event that reasonable behaviour is not prevelant then, action could rightfully IMHO be taken. This then leads onto a further debate as to how this would/could/should be policed or regulated.
Rob
Sourcing genuine property deals in West Yorkshire
Follow me on Twitter @walkerfox
Read my blog http://walkerfox.wordpress.com/

Mathew Davies said:

With the risk of getting into a history and politics debate; I am defining "property rights" in a broad sense as the legal ability to enjoy what you own assets (i.e. possessions, property, businesses etc) whilst being unmolested by either the state or by other individuals.
John, I thought with you American mind that you would be in tune with what I was trying to say.
I was pointing out that if we feel that our private property can be seized at will, then we will not invest in, or seek to acquire more of it, which is why we as a society are 'richer' than those who do not enjoy such protection
Nick, I take your point that there are all sorts of restrictions on our ability to use our own property but I feel there is a line between restriction of use and having someone else take control.
NLA, I was not equating property rights to humanity, I was saying that property rights allow us to live in an environment that allows us to show our humanity. There are a lot of terrible things that happen in countries that are not so lucky as to enjoy our freedoms, however I do not believe that they are genetically or intrinsically less humane than we are, they merely find themselves in a position where they are forced to be mutually inhumane, and a large part of that is to do with property rights.
Others may differ but I do not like the idea of others being able to control something that I own, just because they are unhappy in the way that I use it.
Unfortunately I am sure if I did look into constitutional law I would be horrified by the fact that the Queen owns it anyway, (isn't that why they call it 'Real' estate, because real means Royal?)

***Please hold the line, service has been interrupted. Steven has had heart failure.***

Matt I am probably not too far from your view.
In general, I don't want the State butting its nose in...BUT there are some big BUTS here.
I was simply saying we have to look at rights wth responsibilities.
Empty properties really is a very big issue in this country.
Mathew Davies said:

With the risk of getting into a history and politics debate; I am defining "property rights" in a broad sense as the legal ability to enjoy what you own assets (i.e. possessions, property, businesses etc) whilst being unmolested by either the state or by other individuals.John, I thought with you American mind that you would be in tune with what I was trying to say.I was pointing out that if we feel that our private property can be seized at will, then we will not invest in, or seek to acquire more of it, which is why we as a society are 'richer' than those who do not enjoy such protectionNick, I take your point that there are all sorts of restrictions on our ability to use our own property but I feel there is a line between restriction of use and having someone else take control.NLA, I was not equating property rights to humanity, I was saying that property rights allow us to live in an environment that allows us to show our humanity. There are a lot of terrible things that happen in countries that are not so lucky as to enjoy our freedoms, however I do not believe that they are genetically or intrinsically less humane than we are, they merely find themselves in a position where they are forced to be mutually inhumane, and a large part of that is to do with property rights.Others may differ but I do not like the idea of others being able to control something that I own, just because they are unhappy in the way that I use it.Unfortunately I am sure if I did look into constitutional law I would be horrified by the fact that the Queen owns it anyway, (isn't that why they call it 'Real' estate, because real means Royal?)

BUT we must not equate property ownership with full rights. I thought the posts were drifting that way...
NLA said:

Matt I am probably not too far from your view.In general, I don't want the State butting its nose in...BUT there are some big BUTS here.I was simply saying we have to look at rights wth responsibilities.Empty properties really is a very big issue in this country.Mathew Davies said:

With the risk of getting into a history and politics debate; I am defining "property rights" in a broad sense as the legal ability to enjoy what you own assets (i.e. possessions, property, businesses etc) whilst being unmolested by either the state or by other individuals.John, I thought with you American mind that you would be in tune with what I was trying to say.I was pointing out that if we feel that our private property can be seized at will, then we will not invest in, or seek to acquire more of it, which is why we as a society are 'richer' than those who do not enjoy such protectionNick, I take your point that there are all sorts of restrictions on our ability to use our own property but I feel there is a line between restriction of use and having someone else take control.NLA, I was not equating property rights to humanity, I was saying that property rights allow us to live in an environment that allows us to show our humanity. There are a lot of terrible things that happen in countries that are not so lucky as to enjoy our freedoms, however I do not believe that they are genetically or intrinsically less humane than we are, they merely find themselves in a position where they are forced to be mutually inhumane, and a large part of that is to do with property rights.Others may differ but I do not like the idea of others being able to control something that I own, just because they are unhappy in the way that I use it.Unfortunately I am sure if I did look into constitutional law I would be horrified by the fact that the Queen owns it anyway, (isn't that why they call it 'Real' estate, because real means Royal?)

I have just come across a company called Global Guardians on twitter.

They offer a service (currently only in London it would appear) whereby they provide "live in" guardians for empty properties.

From their website:

Secure Your Vacant Properties in London With Live In Property Guardians

Global Guardians Management Ltd is the leading providers of Property Guardians in London for vacant property security.

Our Property Owner clients receive excellent service and save a substantial amount of money on securing vacant properties under their remit. Once the keys are handed over to Global Guardians your property is in safe hands. We are very responsive and will return your vacant property back to you in the same condition we received it. Our Property Guardians live in your property and by doing so prevent the risks of dereliction, squatting, theft and vandalism.

I have recently read somewhere that the local council will be given the right to charge 150% council tax on a empty property if they so wish. These changes along with the removal of the 6 months exemption are to force property owners to sell or rent them out.
I have a large 7 bed property that the council want me to do something with however over the 3 years of ownership they keep refusing planning permission for flats saying they want it kept as a single property
We have just started the process again approaching the local council and the local people to see if we can come to an amicable solution including the possible use of student HMO accommodation for nurses using the cellar as study rooms

(18-08-2012 04:51 PM)Michael_Brown Wrote:  I have recently read somewhere that the local council will be given the right to charge 150% council tax on a empty property if they so wish. These changes along with the removal of the 6 months exemption are to force property owners to sell or rent them out.
I have a large 7 bed property that the council want me to do something with however over the 3 years of ownership they keep refusing planning permission for flats saying they want it kept as a single property
We have just started the process again approaching the local council and the local people to see if we can come to an amicable solution including the possible use of student HMO accommodation for nurses using the cellar as study rooms

Why have you not rented the place out whilst you have been going through the planning process?
You would have 3 years of rental income.
If it is a lettable why not let it out?

The council could take another 3 years.
You will be unlikely to obtain your permission
Councils don't want flats replacing big house anymore.
You would be better of converting the house to self-contained flats of say 1 bed each.
There is incresing demand for 1 bed properties by the over 30 as they come off the shared room rate and onto the 1 bed LHA rate.
Trouble is ther are not enough 1 bed properties around.

The property is not suitable to let in it's present condition. Our first choice would be six one bed flats. I realise it may well take sometime however we are the proud owners and will just have to be patient. It doesn't help that the local MP lives on the same street and is opposing any development however I think we will eventually succeed but we will no doubt have to go through the appeals process.

This all depends on who you are. If you're the local waste collection service and the property is empty then great - less rubbish to collect whilst still collecting council tax (after short term exemptions.) As a Landlord empty properties excite me as I see them as an opportunity to earn money and house a tenant. As a council not building enough homes or doing enough about it I see it as a problem for them.

An Englishman's home is his castle! In a perfect world he/she should be able to leave it empty if that's what they choose. A tad wasteful of potential rent but with all the anti Landlord laws and the sheer pain for getting your house back (courts now have waiting lists for looking at your papers of 7 days or more and over two days to say a fax was received!) who can blame them.

As long as it isn't attracting drug dealers etc then you should be free to choose to leave you house vacant or occupied. Perhaps the council should start helping Landlords....

Phil