YOU THINK THE UK IS OK ?

[essbee]

Its clear that there are many worried folk in Thailand who have purchased property in HH, but those who have empty property in England should be concerned by His Tonyships latest wheeze. If a house is empty for more that 3 months and is not on the market the local authority can enter the property, change the locks, take possession and move in a tenant of their choosing !!!

[Jaime]

What are the criteria? I would hope it involves more than simply being empty, otherwise you could get back from a long stay in Hua Hin to find the Clampets in your garden. I have a client to whom this is already happening but the house is also in a serious state of disrepair and has been for a few months.

[essbee]

I believe that if it is not lived in for more than 3 months that is enough, if the condition is not good they will move in builders (who pays for this I am not sure). Whilst the deeds remain in the name of the owner he/she would have to go to court to have the situation resolved. This is all very new and as is the case with His Tonyship it was sneaked through with no public debate. I would say that its a developing situation. HH English locals with empty property (this apparently does not include holiday homes) should for peace of mind get the situation checked out with a UK Solicitor who can explain whether or not their property is at risk.
I just thought as a hygiene factor I would raise this as it may have some effect on expats living in Thailand. Not much fun going home for Christmas and finding Mary Poppins living in your house !!

If you can demonstrate that you have the property on the market (sale or let) then the council cant do anything.

[essbee]

I will call my lawyer and ask him if there are any other conditions to this. It does not effect me now but it may in the future and I would also like the full picture.

Let you know.

[caller]

It might be cheaper to contact your local authority and find out waht the rules are from them as they will be the ones enforcing this. I doubt its as black and white as stated.

[essbee]

Caller

Your probably right, my solicitor owes me some free advise I will post what he tells me.

[JW]

Cannot believe thats possible. And we thought Taksin was dodgy! Wonder if His Tonyship has set up a real estate business?

[lomuamart]

I've been thinking about this myself and it seems there's probably confusion between council properties and fully owned/mortgaged properties on leasehold. Freehold dosn't enter into the equation as there's only the mortgagor to deal with.
If someone was a council tenant and went on a big holiday for say 6 months, still paying rent but with the premises unoccupied, I can just about understand that the authorities may feel that that home should go to someone else.
If you "own" the property on a leasehold basis, as I do in London (and the freeholder in my instance happens to be the council), they have absolutely no rights to enter my property for the purpose originally stated, unless I breach a term of my lease with them, in which case they can apply through the courts for repossession. Incidentally, my building Society might have something to say about that as they lent me the money in the first instance and until it's paid off they do have an interest in the place.
There is no way a freeholder can enter your property and reclaim it "just like that".
As for the law being slipped through, I just can't see it. I studied Law for 4 years through degree and Law Society Finals and whilst that was a while ago, i do remember that this change of direction would have required a major upheaval in Property Law. Such that you certainly wouldn't have missed the debates in Parliament. I've seen nothing in the British Press about this and I do read some of them every day.
As I said at the begining, I'm sure this "new law" will only apply to council tenants.
Having said that, I'll contact my management agency on Monday and report back.

[tuktukmike]

This sound like Horse Shit to me.

Can you really see HSBC allowing people to move into property in which they hold the deeds.

And who says it will be the Patels or the Kumars, maybe this was put around by the National Front.

Mike.

[Jaime]

And who says it will be the Patels or the Kumars, maybe this was put around by the National Front.

I was kind of thinking along the sames lines as you Mike when I read essbee's response, so I'm glad someone else got in first - I didn't think there was any need to bring racial slurs about hygiene into the discussion. When talking about dodgy hygiene standards there's no need to look much further than our wonderful LoS, eh? Maybe we should be more worried that Khun Somchai and family may be ushered into our vacant houses.....

[splitlid]

And who says it will be the Patels or the Kumars, maybe this was put around by the National Front.

I was kind of thinking along the sames lines as you Mike when I read essbee's response, so I'm glad someone else got in first - I didn't think there was any need to bring racial slurs about hygiene into the discussion. When talking about dodgy hygiene standards there's no need to look much further than our wonderful LoS, eh? Maybe we should be more worried that Khun Somchai and family may be ushered into our vacant houses.....

and you didnt think there was any need to bring in racial slurs into the topic

[lomuamart]

So, after this thread started, I'm amazed to see the lack of response. It's not as if there aren't members on the board who live in the UK and aren't knowledgable (sic).
To essbee, I will check up on this tomorrow. It's easy to do.
And there are no reasons to make racial slurs. So lets leave that well alone, please.

[essbee]

My solicitor is already on the case.

Iomuamart, your assumption is wrong it is not relating to council tenants it is directed at private property. The papers were full of it a week ago and I had been intending to raise it with my lawyer during a recent meeting but after 3 hours of intense contract discussions it slipped my mind.

I agree with the general view that it seems outrageous but I read it and report what I read, it raised enough of a concern with me so that why I raised it and am looking into it.
Building Societies don’t care who is in a house as long as the mortgage is paid.

AND......................

Hmmm........ since when has a name been racist ?

It could be Smith, Jones (sorry might offend the welsh). My two business partners are and Indian and a Russian Jew, I am married to a non white demonstrates there is no racism in my camp. Its such a pity that today people look for what is not there ! But i'll use the name Mary Poppins instead and that will stop those sad people from reading something innocent and twisting it. Is that OK ?

[essbee]

I have found a copy of the Press Association Release, I have included the web address but have also copied the story below; This article suggests that it is directed to inherited property but another article suggested that it could apply to any empty property, that is why I am seeking clarification. I will report back.

By the way this was printed in the Guardian that Bastion of National Front Supporters


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/stor ... 12,00.html

Government accused over homes plan
Press Association
Saturday June 17, 2006 8:03 PM


The Government has been accused of using the World Cup to "bury bad news" over measures to seize empty homes.

The Tories claimed the powers would be used to commandeer the homes of the deceased, and that ministers had sneaked out the announcement while the nation's eyes were on the World Cup finals in Germany.

But the Department for Communities and Local Government described both allegations as "nonsense", stressing that the legislation had been passed in 2004.

A spokesman also denied that the powers, to be granted to local authorities next month, would be used to seize homes inherited by relatives.

Shadow housing and planning minister Michael Gove said: "Homeowners will be alarmed at John Prescott's parting gift of new state powers to confiscate people's homes for up to seven years, with little compensation for the owner.

"Given the controversy over Prescott's three homes, Labour's spin machine has scored an own goal by using the World Cup to bury their bad news.

"There is a case for action to put boarded-up and blighted properties back into use and councils need to reduce their empty housing stock. But these heavy-handed powers allow bureaucrats to seize private homes in perfect condition just because they have been empty for a short while.

"Seizing homes of the recently deceased is particularly disturbing. I doubt that state officials will always recognise the delays that can result from complex wills or appreciate the traumatic ordeal that families face with the task of clearing a home of personal possessions.

"I fear this is a stealthy new form of inheritance tax by the Labour Government."

But the DCLG said that the powers would only be used where there was no intention of bringing the property back into use. This would be decided by a tribunal, a spokesman added.

© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2006, All Rights Reserved

[Jaime]

And who says it will be the Patels or the Kumars, maybe this was put around by the National Front.

I was kind of thinking along the sames lines as you Mike when I read essbee's response, so I'm glad someone else got in first - I didn't think there was any need to bring racial slurs about hygiene into the discussion. When talking about dodgy hygiene standards there's no need to look much further than our wonderful LoS, eh? Maybe we should be more worried that Khun Somchai and family may be ushered into our vacant houses.....

and you didnt think there was any need to bring in racial slurs into the topic

No embarrasment on my part - you have obviously missed the irony that I was trying to illustrate. Sorry, obviously too cerebral for you!