« Crapita card | Main | How Blair is killing our soldiers »

Not my Castle anymore

Telegraph | News | Anger at power over inherited property

The government came under fierce attack yesterday after quietly bringing in measures to give councils the power to seize the homes of the dead from bereaved families.
Ministers were also accused of "burying bad news" by publishing details of the rules while the nation's eyes were trained on the World Cup.

The measures, released by Ruth Kelly, the Communities Secretary, on Friday afternoon, give local authorities the power to confiscate homes that have been vacant for six months and rent them out to the homeless.
From next month councils will be able to break into, alter or refurbish the properties and let them out to tenants of their choice for up to seven years.

Robert Whelan, of the think-tank Civitas, said the "outrageous" confiscation of property ran "right against the ancient common-law principle of private property, which is as fundamental as habeas corpus.

"The right to private property is the Englishman's right to his castle". Labour was "behaving more like a dictatorship than a democratic government", he said.

Yvette Cooper, the housing and planning minister, said, however, that it was an outrage that empty properties were not being used to tackle housing shortages.

Her "outrage" versus the fundemental rights of free born people everywhere - I know which one I back!
I don't think I know a family which has inherited a family home which has settled all the scores and actually sold a house within six months. I blogged about this back in March and included this material from the Government...

An Englishman's Castle: An Englishman's house is Prescott's Castle..

The Housing Act 2004 contains provisions about the occupation of privately owned empty homes. The device for securing occupation of empty homes is known as an Empty Dwelling Management Order. Once the legislation has been commenced, an Empty Dwelling Management Order would enable a Local Housing Authority, in certain circumstances, to take management control of a dwelling in order to secure occupation of it. The legislation is intended to operate alongside existing procedures for securing occupation of empty homes..... When an EDMO is in force, the LHA takes over most of the rights and responsibilities of the relevant proprietor and may exercise them as if it were the relevant proprietor. A relevant proprietor is not entitled to receive any rent or other payments from anyone occupying the dwelling and may not exercise any rights to manage the dwelling whilst an EDMO is in force.


Must remember (a) to visit my house in England every six months and (b) not to piss off my Labour-voting neighbours in case they denounce me.

My wife gave the Labour canvassers at the last council elections (she happened to be there) a good talking-to. Would she dare to do it again? Where is the burden of proof here? This reveals Labour for what it is.

I don't suppose the second and third homes of Labour's donors will be at threat, nor the as-yet unsold inherited homes of Labour party activists. No, this will only be used in pursuit of political vendettas. It is part of the steadily-forming apparatus of a police state - and the Tories should be shot for their feeble opposition to the original enabling legislation.

As if we ever needed more proof, this is it - Socialism is theft.

How far do these buggers have to go before the country rises up against them?


Freemen own firearms, surfs/slaves don't/can't. Welcome to surfdom. If I had this happen to me or mine, there would be some SERIOUS fires started in a lot of places.

Interesting point then would the "real" owner still benefit from any fire insurance?

Still should be a whole bunch of nuLabour constituency dwellings up for grabs after the next election

Define "empty". If I have a house that nobody lives in, but I use it to store furniture etc., is that "empty"?

Furniture has nothing to do with it. The question is whether it's occupied.

Post a comment