abandoned house - law

Skidder · 18 May 2009 at 17:11

Does anyone know if a house which is privately owned but unoccupied must be kept in a habitable state? There is a house near me which is secure but unliveable and the owner isn't doing anything to fix it up. (there are no floors inside etc.)

I would like to understand the law on this. I wouldn't mind seeing it improved or may be buying it to renovate and would like to put a fire under the owner if poss. My google skills have failed me! Thanks

Skidder · 18 May 2009 at 18:16

M0T said:
There is some kind of law but I dont really know too much about it. All I know is that there is a house down our road that has been unoccupied for 20 years and was a complete mess (there was a car under about 10ft of grass/weeds/hedges).

A couple of years ago it became eligible for the council to repossess so they sent off the required letters and within a couple of weeks someone turned up cleared the garden and put a few new windows in and now its being left again.

Apparently the ownership of the house is under dispute, the original owner died and the 2 children are locked in some kind of legal battle and are apparently just waiting for the other one to die off so they can inherit the whole place.

That's interesting, it's a similar situation as I understand it. It's been 25 years in this case too.

Skidder · 18 May 2009 at 18:22

Jez said:
No, of course not. How is the condition of his privately owned house a concern of anyone but the owner of the property?

That's a failry emphatic view, is it based on anything? I know there is law regarding this, I'm just trying to figure out what it is.

Tefal said:
iirc the roof has to be in sound condition.

that makes sense, the roof has been done (and only the roof) so may be he has addressed issues within the law.

mejinks said:
Umm, whats it got to do with you?

Nice attitude and thanks for your help. Do you always contribute this much, I will remember to look out for your posts.

There are several reasons I would like to motivate the owner in to do something (or me getting the opportunity to do it, or someone else). It is not well secured and is a potential source of access to my property and it looks horrible and could deflate the value of my property.

Skidder · 18 May 2009 at 18:23

borich_planner said:
Ok guys, In terms of Planning, the Planning Enforcement team can serve a Section 215 Notice of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) which deals with the above problem. However this is only done at extremes eg when:

A notice can be served on the owner or occupier of any private land or building which is in an unreasonably untidy condition and which the Council consider has an adverse affect on the amenity of the area. The Notice puts a charge on the land or property and specifies what needs to be done to correct the situation within a given timescale. It is an offence not to comply with the notice within the specified period.

See a link here:

http://www.communities.gov.uk/archived/publications/planningandbuilding/derelictland

Your best bet is to phone your Council's Planning Enforcement Team

Borich

Brilliant, thanks very much, exactly what I needed.

Always nice to have someone who actually knows what they are talking about make a contribution and rare in GD!

Skidder · 18 May 2009 at 19:23

I'll call planning in the morning and hope I get Borich on the phone!

Skidder · 18 May 2009 at 19:36

AcidHell2 said:
best thing is if you are interested is to trace he owner and ask if they want to sale.

have spoken to him already and he doesn't (but I think there may be a dispute in the background so perhaps he doesn't have the right to sell it)

Skidder · 18 May 2009 at 20:45

DB_SamX said:
If the visual condition is poor, I'd be very annoyed as it would be detrimental to the value of houses nearby.

Similarly, someone could throw all their rubbish in their front yard and say it's their land and none of the neighbours' business, but if it affects the neighbourhood, then the council can be notified.

It is bad, front and back. It's been tidied up a bit, but not much.

Amnesia said:
you want to put the owner under a fire ....like cook him

Yes, that's right. It means to make someone have more urgency.

dowie said:
???

yeah he can - legally he can apply to the courts and get you evicted just like any other property owner would do with any other squatters

I'm not planning to squat!

Skidder · 18 May 2009 at 21:18

Squark said:
surely it just needs to remain structurally safe

did you read the thread? see Borich's post

Skidder · 21 May 2009 at 13:08

Moonpie said:
We had a house like this (that backed onto ours). It was a shame to see it deteriorate. It was only inhabited by foxes and pigeons. We (and, as it turned out - many of our neighbours) got in touch with the local council. They came round to view it from our garden (as it appeared OK from the front). They obviously put the owners under some kind of pressure to do something as it was quickly put on the market and sold. It was later developed into a lovely home (although with extra floors so is now much larger than originally).

Don't feel guilty about owners having to sell. It ended up being sold at the height of the market so they will have done quite nicely out of it.

thanks. It's on my agenda for next week to start causing some trouble about this! The info in the thread has been a big help.