New measures to tackle the blight of empty homes and protect tenancy deposits will be added to the Housing Bill.

Government Response: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

Housing minister Keith Hill said: "We will not tolerate houses sitting empty, becoming magnets for vandals and anti-social behaviour, at a time when there is a shortage of homes in some parts of this country.

"Although I will continue to encourage voluntary measures wherever possible, I recognise councils need effective powers if owners refuse to co-operate. Management Orders, which allow the council to step into an owner's shoes, are the key to unlocking the potential of thousands of empty homes.

"We want to see arrangements which stand to benefit both the community and individual owners, to create a situation where people
needing homes are housed and where owners stand to gain both an income and an improved asset."

"Twenty per cent of tenants say they have suffered from landlords withholding their deposit without good reason. This is something the government will not ignore, it is the right of the tenant to have their deposit safeguarded and it is the responsibility of government to ensure they do. Therefore new provisions in the Housing Bill will require that tenancy deposits be protected in the future."

Party Response: Liberal Democrat

Edward Davey MP, Liberal Democrat ODPM spokesman, said: "This is a huge campaign victory and a welcome change of heart by Ministers.

"Only weeks ago, the Liberal Democrats’ identical plans were dismissed by Ministers in the House of Commons.

"Given Britain’s problems with homelessness and affordable housing, the case for new powers to end the scandal of homes left empty for years had become unanswerable.

"Parliament must be given ample time to consider the details, but these moves are a real step forward. I congratulate everyone, from Shelter to colleagues in other parties, who helped in the campaign to change Ministers’ minds."

Forum Response: Shelter

Adam Sampson, Shelter's director, said: "This is fantastic news for tenants and responsible landlords alike. We are delighted that ministers have listened and acted to end the multi-million pound tenancy deposit rip off. It is a vital step in delivering a healthy, thriving private rented sector.

"We must end the waste of empty homes allowed to fall into disrepair when there is such a desperate need for good quality affordable housing. This proposal will help local authorities provide homeless families with the decent temporary homes they need."

Forum Response: British Property Federation

Ian Fletcher, director of commercial and residential policy at the British Property Federation said: "We supported in principle the introduction of Empty Homes Management Orders at the consultative stage and are therefore pleased that government is giving them careful consideration. Contrary to some of the headlines in the tabloid press, these are not proposals that will allow local authorities to take over properties the minute the owner's back is turned, but are about ensuring that derelict and long-term empty properties are brought back into use, where all other routes have been pursued and failed. There were significant safeguards built in at the consultative stage and providing these are in legislation no professional landlord should have anything to fear from these proposals.

"The decision to include tenancy deposit scheme legislation is more perplexing given the government's complete rejection of its inclusion at every previous stage of the Bill. The evidence base for such a move is flimsy and we have always rejected a single tenancy deposit scheme, believing that forcing the vast majority of good landlords into a scheme was a heavy-handed way to tackle the deliberately bad practices of a few. We take some heart from the modifications made that will allow members of trade and professional bodies to comply through their own schemes. What is absolutely imperative is that this is introduced in a way that levels the playing field, rather than encumbering the vast majority of good landlords, and not catching the few who deliberately pursue sharp practices."

Forum Response: Country Land and Business Association

CLA president Mark Hudson said: "This increase in the power of local authorities to take privately-owned property is wrong as a matter of principle.  Local authorities already have extensive powers to compulsorily acquire the freehold of long-term empty properties.  That power should be exercised as a last resort, in proportion to the scale of the problem and the impact on the owner as well as the likely public benefit, and with fair compensation to the owner.  These are the basic principles governing any use of compulsory powers.

"When a freehold is acquired, the control that goes with freehold ownership is accompanied by responsibility.  However, under these proposals, local authorities will be able to take effective control of residential properties without taking on the underlying responsibilities of ownership as the freehold owner. This is unreasonable in principle, but is also likely to distort the decision to exercise the power in the first place by making it appear a relatively cheap and easy option.  As such, the provisions of the power go beyond the reasonable constraints set by the principles for compulsory purchase.  In short, the power to compulsorily acquire a leasehold interest would be draconian and unjustified.

"In any event, according to the government’s own figures there has been a decline in the number of privately owned empty homes nationwide,  from around 760,000 in 1993 to 600, 000 in 2002 , and thus we question the justification for the proposed power, which seems to be based on a supposition that the problem is becoming more acute. 

"It is not that the problem is not serious; but a decline in the number of empty homes does suggest that the working of the market is beginning to ameliorate the problem.  It would be unwise for government to interfere with the market when it is working in this way, because the effect could well be counter-productive.  The result may be to discourage investment in rented property, at a time when that investment is particularly needed.

"In any event it does not warrant any change to existing laws.

"In our view, public resources and efforts should be spent encouraging the owners of empty properties to let them.  At the moment this encouragement is not happening. Simply helping with the costs of refurbishment would provide a much more immediate and acceptable benefit that the introduction of yet more compulsory powers.

"We very much doubt that the exercise of the power will bring the environmental benefits the government claims. Any harm caused by the condition of an empty property to an adjoining property is a matter between the respective owners and occupiers. There are sufficient private law remedies by which an aggrieved owner can obtain redress.

"In any event, if local authorities think they do have a role in resolving the environmental harm caused by empty dwellings, they already have a plethora of powers available to them, most obviously those contained in the Housing Act 1985 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990."