|
Since July LAs have had a potentially powerful weapon to use against the
owners of unoccupied residential properties. Empty Dwelling Management
Orders (EDMOs) allow private sector dwellings to be brought back into
occupation even if owners are unwilling or unable to do so.
The starting point is an interim EDMO. This lasts for 12 months and it
can only be granted with the prior approval of a residential property
tribunal. During the 12-month period the LA has to work with the owner
to try to find a way to bring the property back into use; it may seek
consent to let the property (but it cannot let it without the owner’s
consent). If no agreement is reached then the council may seek a final
EDMO, which will replace the interim EDMO. This will then give the LA
the power to let the property without the owner’s consent, and carry out
any necessary repairs so as to make the property fit for habitation. A
final EDMO can last for up to seven years.
Before an interim EDMO can be granted, the property must have been
wholly unoccupied for at least six months, with there being no
reasonable prospect of it being occupied in the future. At the same time,
there are exceptions from the EDMO regime (in particular, owner-occupied properties where the owner is temporarily resident elsewhere,
and also holiday homes).
If an EDMO is made, the owner will receive the rental income, minus the
LA’s running costs. If the LA charges less than the market rent then the
owner will be entitled to the balance from the LA.
The real point to appreciate is that this can apply to any residential
property; it is not restricted to dilapidated or run down properties. No
doubt there will be arguments as to whether a property is ‘genuinely on
the market for sale or letting’ (who decides what is a reasonable price
to be asking?), and there may well be disputes as to whether owners are
temporarily absent, or using the property as a holiday home. Despite
ambiguities of that sort, the legislation is an important step forward.
Needless to say, many property owners are extremely unhappy about it.
See article in [2006] 178 Property Law Journal 3.
|