Three year emergency brake would prevent rents rising above CPI, wage growth or 2% – whichever is lowest Zack Polanski will today [2 Oct] unveil the Green Party’s plan for an emergency brake on private rents to put an end to the ‘fear and uncertainty’ plaguing renters and tackle the runaway rents which have outstripped […]
There are various reasons why a home may be vacant, including that they’re up for sale, in probate, under renovation, are occupied solely during the week or at the weekend, have been bought as an investment or have simply been abandoned.
Why did you chose to leave part of the sentence off. Also what’s you’re point? Some are under renovation, sure. Some are asking too high a price for sale or rent. Or, they’re second homes. Or, they’re holiday homes
Or, they’re airbnbs. Or, investments. Or abandoned.
To be classed as ‘long-term empty’ a home has to be liable for council tax and to have been unfurnished and not lived in for over 6 months. This figure is increasing all the time, but as at October 2025, it was 303,143 - a rise of 14% on 2024 and over 50% up on 2016 - the year after the last national Empty Homes Programme ended.
Some may be used as Airbnb type short lets, although many of these now pay business rates and do not appear on the Council Taxbase at all. As at October 2025, there were over 268,000 of these so-called ‘second homes’.
Am I understanding that right as a minimum of 268k in this category? As ther rest are in Holiday Let’s and
NONE of these are included in our total vacancy figure of 1,022,433 for 2025.
That’s a good source, thank you for that. I just used the top one of my search.
I don’t consider a home that is used Mon to Fri to be unoccupied.
That’s nice. I asked you why you chose to cherry pick the article and take partial quotes. Could you answer that please? Do you consider a house that’s abandoned as unoccupied? Stop cherry picking please.
We need to build houses. It’s the best way to get broad based growth. Lots of trades.
Are you under the impression that I’m against building houses?
Here’s me:
Sure build more homes, also fill the ones we have.
We agree: build more homes. Do we agree to fill the ones we have?
Had you read the article though:
Even if the Government meets its target of 1.5 million homes over the course of the parliament, analysis from the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that under current government policy, increasing rents will cancel out all average wage growth until at least the end of the decade — meaning no improvement in affordability.
That’s nice. I asked you why you chose to cherry pick the article and take partial quotes
That’s the relevant part you muppet
Even if the Government meets its target of 1.5 million homes over the course of the parliament, analysis from the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that under current government policy, increasing rents will cancel out all average wage growth until at least the end of the decade — meaning no improvement in affordability.
That makes no sense. Increasing supply will reduce prices and people buying houses are not paying rent.
Thank you, that was a whole song and dance that was entirely unnecessary.
Obviously they’re empty.
Let’s just say that some are habitable. Therefore they’re relevant. Therefore you cherry picked correct?
You don’t know how many abandoned houses there are (see thread), you don’t know how many are of any of the houses are habitable (see comment)
You cannot use partial quotes to cherry pick arguments. So back to my next question you ignored, why are you cherry picking?
You, of course don’t know how many any of the examples are, so your ignorance as to how many there are, or if they’re habitable is no excuse for why you chose some examples and omitted others.
Answer this one and we’ll zip up to the first time I asked again.
To be clear now, they’re now relevant enough to know how many in each category?
Let’s just give this the sniff test:
Ok, you dismissed abandoned houses as irrelevant because you didn’t know how many there are
There are various reasons why a home may be vacant, including that they’re up for sale, in probate, under renovation,
You think these ones are relevant because you did know how many there were?
Can you see why it’s a deflection? It doesn’t matter to your position how many there are. You, at the time, didn’t know how many there were of any of them, but you made a distinction anyway.
No partial quotes please:
Why did you chose to leave part of the sentence off. Also what’s you’re point? Some are under renovation, sure. Some are asking too high a price for sale or rent. Or, they’re second homes. Or, they’re holiday homes Or, they’re airbnbs. Or, investments. Or abandoned.
Action on empty homes has breakdowns:
Long-term empty homes
To be classed as ‘long-term empty’ a home has to be liable for council tax and to have been unfurnished and not lived in for over 6 months. This figure is increasing all the time, but as at October 2025, it was 303,143 - a rise of 14% on 2024 and over 50% up on 2016 - the year after the last national Empty Homes Programme ended.
More here: https://www.actiononemptyhomes.org/facts-and-figures
Under second homes:
Am I understanding that right as a minimum of 268k in this category? As ther rest are in Holiday Let’s and
That’s a good source, thank you for that. I just used the top one of my search.
I don’t consider a home that is used Mon to Fri to be unoccupied.
We need to build houses. It’s the best way to get broad based growth. Lots of trades.
That’s nice. I asked you why you chose to cherry pick the article and take partial quotes. Could you answer that please? Do you consider a house that’s abandoned as unoccupied? Stop cherry picking please.
Here’s what you’re doing, knowingly or not: Reverse Gish gallop
Are you under the impression that I’m against building houses?
Here’s me:
We agree: build more homes. Do we agree to fill the ones we have?
Had you read the article though:
That’s the relevant part you muppet
That makes no sense. Increasing supply will reduce prices and people buying houses are not paying rent.
You’re just being silly now. Are abandoned houses unoccupied? If they are, then they’re relevant. What’s the real reason you’re cherry picking.
To you maybe, it links to a report explaining why. But, given you haven’t figured out whether abandoned houses are unoccupied…
How many are abandoned?
I don’t really trust OBR projections, they’re rarely correct.
https://feddit.uk/comment/27885522
Thank you, that was a whole song and dance that was entirely unnecessary.
Let’s just say that some are habitable. Therefore they’re relevant. Therefore you cherry picked correct?
You don’t know how many abandoned houses there are (see thread), you don’t know how many are of any of the houses are habitable (see comment)
You cannot use partial quotes to cherry pick arguments. So back to my next question you ignored, why are you cherry picking?
You, of course don’t know how many any of the examples are, so your ignorance as to how many there are, or if they’re habitable is no excuse for why you chose some examples and omitted others.
Answer this one and we’ll zip up to the first time I asked again.
According to your source 97% of house are occupied. Your whole argument that empty houses are a massive problem is false.
The answer to housing shortage isn’t going going to be found in current housing stock.
Build more.
Ah, you’re back to deflecting again. How boring.
This is the comment thread we are currently in:
That is the argument we’re currently unpicking. You can deflect all you want.
What a silly deflection, be better. Are they unoccupied?
It’s not a deflection, they’ve listed all the types of unoccupied, how many are in each category?
Are abandoned houses unoccupied?
It is a deflection.
To be clear now, they’re now relevant enough to know how many in each category?
Let’s just give this the sniff test:
Ok, you dismissed abandoned houses as irrelevant because you didn’t know how many there are
You think these ones are relevant because you did know how many there were?
Can you see why it’s a deflection? It doesn’t matter to your position how many there are. You, at the time, didn’t know how many there were of any of them, but you made a distinction anyway.