Property owners need greater clarity over safeguards surrounding new powers allowing councils to intervene when homes have been empty for six months, a property rights campaign group warns.
Justice for Property Rights has raised concerns following the Government’s decision to reduce the qualifying period for an Empty Dwelling Management Order from two years to six months.
EDMOs allow local authorities to take over the management of qualifying empty properties and return them to occupation for up to seven years, although ownership remains with the property owner.
The Government is also removing some existing evidential requirements, including those relating to anti-social behaviour and community support, as it seeks to make it easier for councils to use the powers.
OWNER SAFEGUARDS
Justice for Property Rights says the shorter qualifying period makes it important that owners understand the circumstances in which councils will intervene.
Richard Merrin, spokesperson for Justice for Property Rights, says: “The objective of bringing genuinely abandoned homes back into productive use is entirely understandable. But reducing the threshold for state intervention in a privately owned home from two years to just six months is a substantial change and deserves proper scrutiny.
“A property can be empty for six months for many legitimate reasons. It may be undergoing probate, caught in a legal dispute, awaiting substantial refurbishment, affected by a failed sale or simply temporarily vacant while an owner’s circumstances change.”
Existing EDMO legislation requires councils to make reasonable efforts to notify the property owner before applying for an order and establish what steps they are taking or intend to take to secure occupation.
A tribunal must also consider the effect of an order on the rights of the property owner and third parties.
STREAMLINED PROCESS
J4PR wants the Government to explain how the revised regime will distinguish between abandoned properties and homes legitimately vacant for extended periods.
It is also seeking further detail on notice periods, owners’ ability to challenge intervention and the treatment of costs incurred while a property is subject to an EDMO.
Merrin says: “The important question is therefore not whether genuinely abandoned properties should be brought back into use. It is where the Government draws the line between tackling abandonment and protecting the rights of people who lawfully own property.
“There is an important principle at stake. Government should be able to explain clearly what circumstances justify intervention in privately owned property, what safeguards protect the owner and why the intervention is proportionate.”
The Government says the reforms are designed to bring more long-term empty properties back into use and prevent homes falling into serious disrepair.
