I agree on the 12 months and also think it should be pointed out that enforcement in some form will be a useful part of achieving the stated aims of the Empty Property Rescue Plan as produced by the conservatives last year.  There seems to be an underlying thought that it’s just a matter of money to get empties back into use but of course we know in practice that that is not necessarily the case – some form of enforcement is often essential!    We’re co-ordinating a regional response from our Sussex Forum at the moment so the above are just my initial thoughts.

David

Thank you for taking this initiative. It would be good if the EHA and NAEPP could present a common view on this.

Aren't PRODs already an adequate tool for dealing with public sector vacant properties?

Regarding your EDMO proposals, I certainly agree with raising the minimum vacancy period to 12 months or even longer. However I'm uneasy about suggesting a prerequisite of a neighbours' petition, the absence of which certainly doesn't prove there's no problem. The current requirement for the Tribunal to "take into account ... the interests of the community" already makes residents' views a factor the Tribunal must consider.

Graham Everett

Watford

Pragmatically, I think we should recognise that EDMO powers are only justified in many people's minds when they are addressed at "problem" empties.  We all know that there are major housing problems in this country and requisitioning empty homes to tackle them isn't an unreasonable point of view when we are talking about a basic human need such as shelter.  But the process of obtaining EDMOs is always going to be a rigorous one and so volumes will be low.  EDMOs are scarcely going to scratch the surface of housing need.  Yet surely any local authority has enough empty properties that are in some ways problematic to restrict EDMO action to them?

So what is a "problematic" (or "anti-social") empty property? I would use the following criteria:

• the local authority or another statutory body has had to take action to secure it,  repair it, or deal with a nuisance at it within the last two years; OR

• there is a petition from the neighbours to deal with it.

I agree with Graham that requiring a petition is too restrictive.  I don't agree with the 12 month requirement because a property can throw up problems before that, or have a history of problems. It might have been squatted.  I would remove the 6 month requirement too.  An HMO doesn't have to be empty to be subject to a management order.  It just comes down to practical tests. Is there reason to believe a properrty is likely to remain empty for the foreseeable future? Does it present a problem for neighbours?  If the answer to both is Yes - that should be good enough.  If we are going to restrict EDMOs to problem properties, let's really ram that point home.  Getting a problem empty occupied is the best way to ensure that he problems don't persist.

I am in support of raising the limit to 12 months because in reality most properties we consider for 'enforcement to secure occupation' have been empty for at least 12 months anyway.

We separate out enforcement for empty properties - a more longer term view of 'securing occupation', where we give owners every opportunity to show they are doing something and secondly, enforcement notices to deal with any issues in the meantime, such as action required under PDPA, s215, securing the property etc.

Requiring neighbours to submit a petition creates yet another barrier and is unhelpful and, as pointed out before, we have to demonstrate to the RPT that we have taken account of the interests of the community.

The problem we have found with EDMOs is that we cannot realistically target the worst properties with them, although we find the prospect of one works with some owners, because renovations costs cannot be recovered within the 7 years of a final edmo. Then again, this is not the only tool that can be used in this instance. Surely the beauty of edmos is that they can be targeted at properties that are not a problem, where other tools may not be appropriate. My job is to make best use of housing stock, not just tackle 'problem properties'.

One other problem we have found in implementing them is finding a partner management agent, who is prepared to charge market rent, as our rsl partners baulk at this. Local authorities are also in the position, since transferring stock or setting up almos, of now having lost the staff, systems, resources and inclination to take on properties and manage them. Edmos have arrived about 10 years too late to make them indispensible.

Also, looking at some of the decisions that RPTs have made to refuse edmos, they seem quite harsh and seem to protect the empty property owner rather than the local community. I think the RPTs have a role here to ensure their success and continuance.

Personally, as things stand at the moment it would make little difference to me whether the tool remains or not.

Well this is an interesting one!

Having just done our first EDMO at Bolton I would be disappointed to lose this tool in the box. I would be happy with the change to 12 months as this will hardly be an issue. However, I would be less comfortable concerning a neighbours petition in that it would unneccessarily identify the neighbours who have complained. In application to RPT we asked the ward Councillor to write a letter detailing her involvement e.g. neighbour attending her surgery over the past few years. Therefore it may be that rather than a neighbours petition you could use a community impact statement similar to that used when the Police wish to close a house down for drugs but do not wish to identify witnesses. I would suggest that an allternative could be for a senior council officer or ward Councillor to write a impact statement covering the neighbourhood issues and incorporating the neighbours views without identifying them.