Second home owners reprimanded? (1 Viewer)

[Malcolm Bolt]

Deleted

 

[DJA]

Read the story of the Derbyshire village of Eyam in the 1660's maybe then you will understand why not to go to your second home etc.

The population of the village were virtually wiped out when Cloth delivered from London brought the Plague. The villagers isolated themselves not allowing any oneout or people in in order to stop the spread of the plague elsewhere.

Mary Hadfield survived but lost 13 of her relatives.

 

[Minxy]

No double standard, he’s a key worker.

The problem is that his London 'home' is also his workplace so I seriously doubt if he was there he would be able to recuperate.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Stoosal]

Is it ok to turn local houses into b and b’s and rental properties to attract visitors and bring in income.....or does that not also deprive locals from these houses? seems some very contradictory posts here as to nobody wanting second homes or building extra houses but want properties for locals or to use land for building on their own plots? Like it or not people who want to buy properties can! Where those who seek to instigate laws to prevent certain people buying things need to be careful what they wish for.... how long before ‘no second vehicle ownership’ in these places or anywhere else.... or perhaps it may progress further.....certain types of people or those with certain ways of living won’t be allowed to move to these areas or live there.....they say history repeats itself.....surely not?

 

[Louis]

?? How??

PS I’m not advocating moving out of one’s own area at all.
just looking at the issue from different view points. Stuck to the rules. Defiantly.

(but stiill interested how being isolated for nearly 21 days, with no symptoms, then being charaponrd around a supermarket at 2m distance will infect the local community)

For information :- listen to tv news, read newspapers, no need for me to educate ?

 

[philmc79]

My granddaughter is picked up each week by her dad who is a POLICEMAN on a certain day he takes her to his house which he shares with his mum and dad who are of an age, then at weekends he picks her up from my daughters and then takes her to his girl friends house with who there is a new baby and 4 others some 60 miles away from his house, stays there all weekend and then brings her back at the end of the weekend, you would think he being an officer of the law he would not so blatantly flowt the instruction from the top. ????? !!!!!!!!, this has happened right from the start of the lockdown.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Casper46]

I think it would have been clearer to everyone if the Government had laid down absolute do’s and don’t. We are in a complex of 6 houses. We are all lucky that we have gardens so we are not stuck in the house.
One householder is an 80 year old who is convinced that sitting in the garden is against the rules. Ourselves and one other are staying at home as much as possible, I have been out once in the last 3 weeks and that was only a couple of mile to buy fuel. One young couple are sort of sticking to the going out rules, until they wanted to garden, so off they went to find a garden centre open. One insist he is an essential worker and is in and out doing gardening jobs. The sixth property is owned by someone in the food industry, he seems to be working from home, in between going out twice to bring flat pack furniture home, and going to his girlfriends, he says that he is allowed to go out and about as much as he wants to.
Non of them are harming me as I stay away from them, other to ask the older ones if they want to share my supermarket delivery slot. But if things were clear then neighbours wouldn’t be complaining about others as non of us know exactly what we are allowed to do. Other than use some gumption.

 

[Vipar]

Newspapers are just photocopies of the day before.

 

[Wh05apk]

. One insist he is an essential worker and is in and out doing gardening jobs.

I think this sums up the confusion perfectly, he isn't a key worker, but does not have to be, we were told to work from home where possible, but if that could not be done, as clearly gardening cannot be done, and you can work safely, maintain social sustaining then it is permitted.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[tonyidle]

Too right, they still do operations using whiskey as a sedative around here. Best to stay away.

Mallet & cap around here. We don't waste Whiskey.

 

[robnchris]

They also out price the people who live in the towns and villages who then can not then afford to buy a property or live there because off it and have to move away to some were else cheaper losing village community as for bringing jobs to the town totally disagree I live Dartmouth in Devon they don't bring money to here don't pay council tax on their second homes either and split the community as well as they don't mix at all with any one wat brings money into this town is the people who come to visit come end off septenber all these second homes are empty and the town like a ghost town there also salcombe round corner all the locals couldnt afford to buy a house there and most ended up haveing to move else where and the few who still live there live in a deserted town after september as all the shops totally shut through the winter and it spelled the loss off a town community as many towns and villages in Devon and Cornwall have suffered badly because off second home owner properties, which is a fact so as said don't agree with that comment at all

I would just like to point out that it was the people that used to live in that little hamlet in Cornwall/Devon etc that sold the property for a nice hefty chunk of cash, thus bringing about the demise of the country family life of the locals they once used to be part of.

 

[Herbyventures]

What I do get livid with is the way they then go back to their main residences during the week.
Certainly not classed as necessary travel.

I agree, that is absolutely why we have these travel restrictions. To me it seems obvious there is only one real issue here - is it anti social to travel against government advice and in particular when travelling from a virus hot spot in a city to a relatively unaffected small community. Surely the answer to that can only be YES. It's selfish and anti social.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Shaders]

I would just like to point out that it was the people that used to live in that little hamlet in Cornwall/Devon etc that sold the property for a nice hefty chunk of cash, thus bringing about the demise of the country family life of the locals they once used to be part of.

It actually was not people die and people need to move to bigger house and because off all those coming here from the city as a second home an such even proper shops for locals closed down an fancy designer an other expensive shops opened which then obliterated the town I like to point out

 

[eddie]

It actually was not people die and people need to move to bigger house and because off all those coming here from the city as a second home an such even proper shops for locals closed down an fancy designer an other expensive shops opened which then obliterated the town I like to point out

Locals don’t have to sell for inflated prices, they could sell to locals for a fair price

Seems the sellers were none too bothered

 

[MacroMad]

Can you all remember how long it took us to leave the EU, it took a long time did'nt it.
And why did it take a long time, because everyone (in Parliament) had a different view of how they saw "Leave".
The Government have shied away from "Thow shalt" and gone for a more "would you mind awfully" staying at home please except for..........
Everyone interprets this in a different way.
We should all have been given stronger instructions for the "lock down" rules, law abiding citizens obey the law anyway, those that stretch the rules only need a vague instruction to give them an excuse.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Minxy]

Perhaps the govt was hoping that the info they were giving about the need to stay away from each other was simple enough ... unfortunately you can't account for the muppets who don't understand.

 

[two]

It is not against the rules to have more than one home. The rule is about moving between them.

 

[Shaders]

Locals don’t have to sell for inflated prices, they could sell to locals for a fair price

Seems the sellers were none too bothered

A house is dictated by market value which was raised by second home owners an due to lack off jobs here with seasonal work they can not afford the inflated mortgages and people who do still kive here they live in the same house till they die which then houses are priced by house prices due to death duty wich then still makes it expensive for relatives to jeep come back wen you live here instead off coming out with things yoy think you know but dont experiance

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[eddie]

A house is dictated by market value which was raised by second home owners an due to lack off jobs here with seasonal work they can not afford the inflated mortgages and people who do still kive here they live in the same house till they die which then houses are priced by house prices due to death duty wich then still makes it expensive for relatives to jeep come back wen you live here instead off coming out with things yoy think you know but dont experiance

Well you have no idea where I am originally from in the West Country

it still comes down to the locals sell to make a quick buck, at the cost to the other locals

it takes two.

why not suggest to local Council that you pay double on your Council Tax, they compulsory purchase the houses sold by locals to ‘incommers’ and the Council then can sell the purchased houses, to locals, for the kind of money that they should have been sold for, had the greedy owners grabbed a quick buck

Seems a good resolution to me

 

[Thedriver]

Kate and will are in Norfolk, Charles is in balmoral so it must be perfectly ok.

And now to bring this up to date, Our Prime Minister has gone to recover in Checkers (is that hoe you spell it? I don't think so!!) I am sure they are all holiday homes, anyone think of any more ?? Bruce

 

[buttons]

Well, in our village we have a mixture of second home owners with different sized properties ranging from little 1 bed cottages to huge houses sat in a few acres.

So far, 4 second home owners have escaped London contrary to lockdown rules. One pair are in their design built eco home sat in 3 acres, the others are in small cottages with little or no gardens.

Someone round the corner had obviously called the Police about the apparent disregard for lockdown rules and low and behold the Police turned up yesterday.

So it looks like they're getting pro active and taking a hard line on these people who flout the rules/laws/guidelines, whatever they are.

Alas, it wasn't to be. Apparently they visited the smallest property and the occupants admitted that they had ignored the rules and did understand how serious it was. The Police then decided to advise them that they should make arrangements to leave the village within 7 days and return back to their primary residence in London.

The neighbour who lives in the cottage next door (not sure if this is the complainant) asked the Police if that was all they were doing and whether they were going to do the rounds in the village to the other 3 second homes, particularly the people in the big property who have had gardeners there and visitors etc? They replied saying that they were only acting on a complaint received about this property and didn't intend knocking on anyone else's door.

So, the people who have ignored the rules have been given the all clear to have their Easter weekend in the country and can go home next week.

And we wonder how this virus is able to spread? What's the point of laws if they're not enforced?

It's so contrary to what we are led to believe is the correct way to behave when certain fractions are allowed to continue irrespective of other people around them.

I know it's a well worn topic but I'm just shocked at how some behaviour is almost condoned by the powers to be....we've got no chance of getting out of lockdown at this rate!

Are they moving back to their first/second home next week, staying put or is this just supposition.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[gus-lopez]

Putting advice, regulations, rules and legislation to one side it seems to me that keeping apart from others is the required outcome.
For the past ten years whilst on our 'gap year' we moved address to my son's house. At that time he was single and we had plenty of space.
We also bought an old static van on a holiday site. We holidayed there in the summer. We holidayed in the RMB abroad in the rest of the year.
Over the years my son got married and had a family. My son is a gas engineer and my daughter in law is a midwife working in a local hospital. They have two young sons under five.

We recently complied with foreign office advice to return to the UK from Spain. Would it have been sensible for us to have moved into our 'main residence' to self isolate thereby put them at risk?

I believe that it would have been totally irresponsible and we did not do it.

We did not comply but were we wrong?

No.

Boris is out and heading for Chequers - is that his secondary home?

No 3rd

only been shopping once in that time,

Clock resets every time you go out.

No double standard, he’s a key worker.

No he isn't .can work from home. His main one.

is picked up each week by her dad who is a POLICEMAN

The part in capitals of your post explains the problem. A vast amount are the most hypocritical tas lot you can ever hope to come across. Even if you sit them down & explain the problem slowly they still cannot understand.
Unfortunately they should have stuck with the original ' whichever parent had them at outset' kept them?

how long it took us to leave the EU, it took a long time did'nt it.

we haven't finished yet

Seems a good resolution to me

Problem with that is "council" you can't trust them not to scam the idea as is usual.

 

[gus-lopez]

No double standard, he’s a key worker.

So leaving hospital going to No.10 making a speech, Off to pick up the GF, then on to chequers. Isn't a few non-essential journeys combined with 2nd ,3rd home visits.

 

[Captain Pants]

Well you have no idea where I am originally from in the West Country

it still comes down to the locals sell to make a quick buck, at the cost to the other locals

it takes two.

why not suggest to local Council that you pay double on your Council Tax, they compulsory purchase the houses sold by locals to ‘incommers’ and the Council then can sell the purchased houses, to locals, for the kind of money that they should have been sold for, had the greedy owners grabbed a quick buck

Seems a good resolution to me

Your continued insistence that any local who sells a house in the West Country is ‘greedy’ is quite bizarre. Have you ever sold a house on the open market? If so, does that make you ‘greedy‘ too?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Captain Pants]

So leaving hospital going to No.10 making a speech, Off to pick up the GF, then on to chequers. Isn't a few non-essential journeys combined with 2nd ,3rd home visits.

Oh come on, he’s the Prime Minister for chrissake. What do you expect somebody with his role to do? You’ll be arguing that the Army should be working from home next!!

 

[Boris7]

Locals don’t have to sell for inflated prices, they could sell to locals for a fair price

As laudable an idea as that is, it’s really just not reality.

To be able to do such you would need to be very financially secure and very charitable, also you would need to be very sure about the buyer, imagine you lived in the West Country and as a seller decided to do such a “local market price” unlike the channel Islands you would have no guarantee that the buyer would not sell to an open market.

Therefore, the benefit of your generosity would simply be last, or in other words you would be giving your own money to someone else for no long term benefit to the communit.

 

[gus-lopez]

Oh come on, he’s the Prime Minister for chrissake. What do you expect somebody with his role to do? You’ll be arguing that the Army should be working from home next!!

He's no different to you or anyone else in the UK.There's one set of rules. There are no exceptions as far as I am concerned .In fact any decent person in office should consider themselves to be at the bottom of the pile after those who they serve.
the army are employed to kill people you can't do that from home. Except with drones.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Captain Pants]

As laudable an idea as that is, it’s really just not reality.

To be able to do such you would need to be very financially secure and very charitable, also you would need to be very sure about the buyer, imagine you lived in the West Country and as a seller decided to do such a “local market price” unlike the channel Islands you would have no guarantee that the buyer would not sell to an open market.

Therefore, the benefit of your generosity would simply be last, or in other words you would be giving your own money to someone else for no long term benefit to the communit.

Absolutely right, and what is an ‘inflated price’ anyway? There is no such thing. The market is the market, simple.

 

[Boris7]

You’ll be arguing that the Army should be working from home next!!

strangely enough, my nephew is in 8 Para and that’s exactly what they are doing

 

[Boris7]

Tomorrow I may leave my home in Northamptonshire and drive 420 miles to my second home in the highlands, carrying with me a screen shot of the BBC news report of the other Boris going to Chequers just in case I get asked

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}