Empty homes do need to be brought back into use.

One of the most useful projects in recent years has been the campaign to get empty homes put back into use. We have all seen empty homes throughout our travels, and may live near them. They tend to be a magnet for vandals and squatters, fly tipping and generally drag the appearance of the area down. They also tie up the resources of the council and the emergency services. When there are over 90,000 people waiting for social housing, it cannot be a sensible use of resources to leave homes empty and blighting an area.

Properties can become empty for a variety of reasons such as inaction, lack of funds to refurbish properties and inability of owners to sell or let. An empty property also creates a downward spiral in that some of the problems of unmaintained properties are only going to get worse over time. Sometimes there is thus a need for local authorities to intervene, and in the worst case scenario, can be taken over by the local authority. These powers have not escaped criticism, with some complaining that the website used to report empty homes increases the risk of burglary, and constitutes an unwarranted attack on property rights.

So it is perhaps no surprise that the coalition has acted to curb the power of local authorities to seize empty homes . In announcing the move, the coalition alleged that councils have used the powers to sieze good homes simply because the owners have been away. This despite just 44 homes being seized since the introduction of the powers.

In fact these powers are used as a last resort; it is usually the case that owners find the intervention of a local authority helpful (some even finding out for the first time that they are the actual owner of the property in the case of inheritance) and take advantage of various grants available for refurbishment, and subsequently find themselves with rental income. In other words the empty homes project is often mutually beneficial. Furthermore, those critical of the alleged violation of property rights also ignore the externalities of empty homes. Other homes in the area see their own value dragged down, and the local authority will have to use resources to clean up vandalism and fly-tipping.

When this attack on the powers to seize empty homes is viewed within the wider context of cuts to housing benefit, it becomes clear this decade may well see some of the good work on homelessness undone.  Those of us concerned with homelessness and the quality of our areas need to get together to defend the powers of local authorities to take action on empty homes, and protect the rights of people to homes.