Labour-run Westminster Council claims it can solve its chronic housing shortage and slash its £140m temporary accommodation bill by commandeering the borough’s 11,000 empty properties.
Currently, Empty Dwelling Management Orders (EDMO) allow a council to take over a property for a fixed period and act as its landlord if the property has been empty for more than two years and has been attracting anti-social behaviour or criminal activity.
Adam Hug (main picture), the leader of Westminster council, however, describes the two-year rule as “extremely limited” and, according to RICS’ figures, they are rarely used with just six in the UK’s last recorded period in 2018.
Hug is now trying to pressure the Government into relaxing the criteria for an EDMO to allow councils to confiscate empty properties after just six months.
Is this just a money-making scheme?”
Westminster’s estate agents are, unsurprisingly, up in arms. James Benson of independent estate agency James of Westminster says: “Is this just a money-making scheme? It’s nothing more than legalised theft.”
He adds: “How are they going to police it? Will they be watching every property? And what about those owners who use their places as pied-à-terres, as many do in Westminster?
“They could easily be elsewhere every time the council calls. And what about landlords? It would destroy the PRS in the area because if there was an extended void period, the council could just confiscate the place and landlords would not want to invest.”
Sound bite politics
And Paul Finch, New Homes Associate Director, Beauchamp Estates, Mayfair tells The Neg: “The premise seems understandable in many ways, people casually see what appear to be vacant homes with no lights on, at first glance this seems a simple and relatively immediate solution.
“However, the practicalities for all parties involved are anything but simple or immediate. The legal challenge alone would be substantial, with potential unintended consequences for other homeowners and legal principles of entitlement.
“This appears to be ‘sound bite politics’ when in reality the cost to the taxpayer is likely to outweigh the perceived benefits.”
It would be a further attack on wealth and international investment in our cities.”
Another local agent, Mark Pollack, of Aston Chase told The Telegraph: “Legally it’s difficult to imagine that actually being enforced without huge objections. It would be a further attack on wealth and international investment in our cities.”