I am frequently reminded of a time, many years ago, when some friends were squatting a long-term empty terraced house in London. They were young, resourceful, and working in low-wage jobs, making squatting a desperate necessity for them to simply get by and have a roof over their heads. I recall that typical two-up, two-down Victorian home very clearly, not just for its modest architecture, but for how meticulously they looked after it—a powerful testament to their respect for a home, even one they didn’t legally own. They had transformed a derelict space into a vibrant, if temporary, community.
This memory has been brought sharply into focus recently. A house on my own street, an otherwise well-maintained residential road, has stood inexplicably empty for nearly two years now. Its continued vacancy is a silent, baffling puzzle, prompting frequent thoughts of that old squatted house and the friends who were forced to find shelter where they could. The juxtaposition of a genuinely cared-for squatted home and a passively decaying one on my street is a stark reminder of the fundamental injustice within the housing market. Unsurprisingly, the housing crisis, and specifically the morally charged issue of “empty homes,” continues to be a frequent and important subject in my ongoing conversations with some of those friends, a discussion that has endured for decades.
This experience compels us to ask difficult, vital questions: Does the current housing crisis, characterised by soaring rents, unaffordable mortgages, and massive social housing waiting lists, necessitate a bolder approach to the significant and growing number of empty homes? More specifically, is the appropriation of these vacant properties—through compulsory purchase orders, enforced leasing schemes, or other means—a morally and practically viable solution to inject desperately needed supply into the market?
The Taxonomy of Emptiness
Under the overall, deceptively simple term of “empty homes,” there are, in reality, several distinct, complex categories of properties, each with different causes and requiring tailored policy responses:
- Truly Vacant: These are properties with no residents and no personal possessions. They are genuinely empty, often for sale, awaiting renovation, or in probate.
- Second Homes/Pieds-à-terre: These properties are furnished and actively used, but only for holidays or occasional short stays. They are distinct from truly vacant homes for Council Tax purposes but still remove housing stock from the primary residential market.
- Long-Term Empty (LTE) Dwellings: These are the most egregious examples—dwellings that have been empty for an extended period, typically defined as over six months. These are the homes often subject to significant Council Tax premiums, which local authorities levy to disincentivise the practice (e.g., 200-300% of the standard rate).
- Derelict/Abandoned: These properties are often too damaged, structurally unsound, or otherwise uninhabitable without major, costly works. They represent a different challenge, often requiring state intervention to prevent decay and regenerate the site.
- Investment Properties/Buy-to-Leave: These are homes intentionally left unoccupied by an owner whose primary motivation is capital growth or shielding assets. They are often purchased purely as a financial instrument, decoupled entirely from the social need for housing.
The Scale of the Problem in London
The statistics for London are staggering. The capital, a global hub of wealth and a hotbed of housing poverty, has tens of thousands of empty homes. Recent figures paint a worrying picture, showing around 93,602 vacant dwellings in 2024. Crucially, this figure includes over 38,000 homes classed as long-term empty—unoccupied for over six months. This long-term figure is particularly alarming because it has been rising year-on-year, indicating a systemic failure to bring stock back into use. It’s important to note that definitions can vary, with some reports focusing exclusively on the long-term empties as the key policy target.
The problem hits close to home. According to data compiled by Action on Empty Homes, there is approximately 1 in 37 homes out of use in the borough I live in, Lambeth. This local reality check underscores that this is not an abstract issue confined to headlines, but a visible, measurable waste of vital resources in my immediate community.
However, I understand that these statistics, while powerful, can be flawed and easily misunderstood. A home classified as merely “vacant” on the day of the latest census or survey simply means a property wasn’t occupied on that single day. An empty home could be a second home, a property between short-term lets, or a property that has been vacant for only a short period while an owner moves house. The focus must remain on the long-term empty properties, where the intention is clearly not a quick transition.
The continued, perplexing vacancy of the house on my street could be due to a number of reasons. These potential explanations could include an owner’s deliberate choice to “buy-to-leave” it as a passive financial investment, or perhaps a lengthy and complex probate process following the passing of the previous owner. Whatever the reason, the outcome is the same: a perfectly habitable unit of housing is locked out of the market.
A Necessary, Though Not Total, Solution
While the issue of empty homes will not, by itself and by any means, solve the gargantuan housing crisis, it is a significant, inexcusable factor that must be urgently addressed. To put the scale into perspective: in London alone, there are now approximately 38,000 homes classified as long-term empty. This figure is eerily comparable to the estimated 30,000 squatters in the city at the height of the housing crisis at the end of the 1970s. The fact that the number of long-term empty dwellings exceeds the number of people who were once forced to illegally occupy homes speaks volumes about the systemic waste of the current era.
It is clear that the government cannot rely on market forces alone. It needs to simultaneously and aggressively tackle the problem of empty homes—perhaps by strengthening compulsory purchase powers, dramatically increasing empty home levies, or introducing ‘use it or lose it’ taxes—while also rectifying its catastrophic failure to adequately fund and invest in a new generation of genuinely affordable social housing. Only a two-pronged approach that addresses both the supply being needlessly withheld and the urgent need for secure, affordable rental stock can hope to address this fundamental societal failing.
- https://www.actiononemptyhomes.org/
- https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-02/Empty_Homes_and_Voids_Action_Plan.pdf
- https://jonn.substack.com/p/no-empty-homes-cant-solve-the-housing
- https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2025/10/30/the-market-is-not-the-solution-to-our-housing-problems/
Leave a Reply