Changes to EDMOs January 2011
Hello
With regard to the proposed changes to EDMO's, the numerous press releases and blog entries have suggested different criteria are set to define a property which is a 'blight'.
Do we know what these are, the BBC says it has to be boarded, and others have said it needs to have been squatted or vandalised, or associated with criminal activity.
However on Eric Pickles press release he says
"They will be limited to empty properties that have become magnets for vandalism, squatters and other forms of anti-social behaviour – blighting the local neighbourhood."
he mentions boarding up earlier but not really as a condition, does anyone know if any crieria has been set, or any suggestion as to how this blight will be measured by the LA, or assessed by the RPT?
Thank you
- Forums
Consultation underway
Hi Luke
We have been invited by Sally Turner at CLG (she is subscribed to the EHN) to comment on the proposals. She said:
"I would be grateful for any thoughts you may have on what we are proposing since we will not be be consulting widely on this. The proposals are:
"To amend the length of time a property is empty before an EDMO is authorised from 6 months to 2 years and which are causing a nuisance to neighbours. The Regulations would also require local authorities to give property owners a minimum notice period of 3 months before applying to the RPT for an EDMO.
"As you know under current legislation, an interim EDMO can be made on properties empty for six months or longer. There is provision, however, for a longer period to be prescribed by order. From the 40 interim EDMOs that have been approved the average time these properties are empty is around 7 years. We propose to increase the minimum time to two years.
"We are also proposing that local authorities give the property owner three months notice of their intention to apply for an EDMO to give them a final opportunity to bring the property back into use.
"When the local authority applies to the RPT for an interim EDMO they will need to demonstrate that the property has been causing a nuisance to neighbours and that there is clear community support for the EDMO."
I asked the same question of her concerning the various differences between what was implied and what was stated in the Eric Pickles statements along with any differences between that and what she herself had written.
She responded: "Could you just comment on the points in my email that would be really helpful". So we have to hope that some of the changes implied by Eric Pickles are red herrings
You will see that I have now drafted a response which is available for comment.
David Gibbens (EHN Policy and Support)
Excellent response, David
I particularly like the idea of being able to let the property at the new lower LHA rate (without having to make up the difference) - or rather, being able to point out to the owner that if he gets cracking & brings the property back into use, he can let at market rent, but if he doesn't and an EDMO results, he will lose out by £xk over the life of the final EDMO. Can't help thinking this may produce a result! Which is all we want, after all.
Changes to EDMOs
I am also uncertain what these conditions may mean - and concerned about how restrictive they could be. Many of our empty properties that are eyesores and causing concern to neighbours would not meet any of these conditions but nevertheless they are still a blight on neighbourhoods and a wasted resource. Could vandalism just be a broken window?
The Eric Pickles press release also gave a very muddled message about the government's approach on empty properties with examples of misuse that seem to have been lifted straight from the pages of the Daily Mail. While I haven't ever applied for an EDMO like others I find the threat very useful and would not like to have the power virtually nullified by restrictions.
Kathy
Kathy Alcock Housing Policy & Initiatives Tunbridge Wells Borough Council
Proposals less prescriptive than expected
Kathy and others
Having laboured long and hard to produce our "response" yesterday, it now turns out that a lot of what I did is proving unnecessary because the changes implied by Eric Pickles are not going to be implemented in such a prescriptive way. This is based on informtion received today from CLG.
The proposal around nuisance properties looks as though it will come down to a requirement for the local authority to supply to the RPT information about the impact of the nuisance property on neighbours and the support within the community for the action the LA will undertake. So it is very much more about localism and less about trying to specify particular criteria that the empty home will have to meet.
A major rewrite is now urgently required.
David Gibbens (EHN Policy and Support)
4th and final(?) version of our response available
The fourth draft of our consultation response is available from here.
David Gibbens (EHN Policy and Support)
CHanges to EDMOs
There is a clear benefit to owners of problem empty properties when an order is in place. The LA takes over the property, deals with the problems, spends tax payers' money to bring it up to a standard in which it can be let, manages the property and can povide an income for the person that caused the problem - the relevant proprietor.
It has to be wrong that the LA cannot recover any defecit between what they have spent and the income recovered from the benefiting owner without the relevant proprietor's written consent - Housing Act 2004, Schedule 7 para 13 5 (a).
If the government wants EDMOs to be used to deal with problem empty properties this clause needs to be changed. Some will say that the owner has to give written consent if they want the order revoked - but what if the LA needs to recover? If there is a good reason for the LA to recover the deficit they should be allowed to revoke the order and recover without the need for written consent.