Where are those empty homes in Kensington ?

empip

empip

Joined
24 Sep 2005
Messages
6,345
Reaction score
269
Country
United Kingdom
Sponsored Links
I don't understand why the owner isn't free to do as he pleases with the property that he has bought and paid for? I left several cars on my drive today when I took the train to work. Mrs motorbiking walked to her work. I noticed plenty of people go by on the bus, should I be required to hand over the keys?

Lots of people would love to live in London, but cannot afford to buy or rent, even though prices are starting to come down. Those people choose to live where they can afford to and travel in daily. Why should others (other than those being emergency re-homed) live in high end expensive property at the expense of the tax payer?

If the government compulsory purchases empty properties in London, they have to compensate the owner under the terms of the Land Compensation Act 1961. Effectively they have to pay the going rate. That tab will be picked up by the tax payer otherwise known as Jeremy Corbyn's money tree.
 
Last edited:
We see homes as both a place to live and an investment which leads to perverse outcomes. A land value tax would be better - if you don't live in the property or even intend to let it out then you can still pay the LVT.
 
motorbiking said:
I don't understand why the owner isn't free to do as he pleases with the property that he has bought and paid for?
Click to expand...

I think it's called the Greater Good.

Same as owning land where roads and other public services are to be built.

You will see deviations from the ideal route in some railway lines where, in the past, the landowner had too much power and just refused - even though they had not "bought and paid" for it.



Where do you suggest the displaced people go?
 
Sponsored Links
It's such a city attitude that land and house values can change so much just one side of the road to the other, there's no sane reason for it. The poor buggers struggling to get on in life and get a leg up have to put up with the waste and opulence of red-trouser wearing la-de-dah champagne socialists just over the road.

Nozzle
 
If you buy a property in the uk over a certain value, it gives you a type of leave to remain.
There is a whole row of houses in Hampstead that is unuccupied and left to rot because the land is rising so fast that the asset still increases while allowing overseas owners to gain tax advantages, be able to hide assets from their own governments, and gives them a bolthole if they need one

A recent development of flats near me was sold off plan before a brick was laid to a hong Kong investor and has been empty since it was finished
 
The UK is up for sale but not the British. Railways, Utilities, Nuclear Power, Hospitals, Schools, Prisons etc - how dare we have them under state ownership for the public.

Remember.

We won't build it, we won't own it, we won't control it but damn sure we will pay for it.
 
assume the ignored member has posted his twaddle up
himagain always exaggerates ask his missis :)

here him whats green and hairy and go's up and down .he will not know he is to thick :)

sooo I will put him out of his misery










a gooseberry in a lift:LOL::LOL:

ok I will get my coat :oops:
 
Doggit said:
127 flats in grenfell towers, 50 luxury flats purchased to rehouse them; let see, 127 - 50, should make 77, so how come you get to 500. As always exagerate wherever necessary to get your point across.
Click to expand...
Sorry Doggit, you are correct, my apologies.
I had the number of 600 in my mind, which is of course the number of people, not families.
It was a genuine mistake, not an attempt to exaggerate.
I dashed off a couple of comments without giving it sufficient thought.

I trust you will retract your accusation now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top