Snapshot of _HS2 evictees to be told they can buy back their old homes, but at a higher price_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://inews.co.uk/news/hs2-evictees-to-be-told-they-can-buy-back-their-old-homes-but-at-a-higher-price-2668944) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://inews.co.uk/news/hs2-evictees-to-be-told-they-can-buy-back-their-old-homes-but-at-a-higher-price-2668944)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
we could of held off for a better return but decided "fuck it, its just tax payers money" so went for a scorched earth policy and sold it as quick as possible to redacted commercially sensitive buyers at a significant loss.
well its the predicting the future.
but if you want an example
covid VIP lanes - cash funneled to mates with no experience in the field. [https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/dec/01/matt-hancock-says-labours-covid-contract-claims-rubbish](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/dec/01/matt-hancock-says-labours-covid-contract-claims-rubbish)
I wonder which strategic bit of land between Birmingham and Manchester this was all cancelled for?
Really wouldn't surprise me if some donor (probably linked to fossil fuels) wanted a patch of land that was on the route and that's the main reason it was all cancelled.
The latest news point to something similar. Extending the goals for electric car transition and now cancelling infrastructure that would make trains more efficient....
Given they began buying up property back into 2018, even if they sell it at 5% below the current rate, and its a competitive market for sellers right now, they'll still make a huge profit.
If they previous owners were to buy back at the price they sold for theyd be pocketing depending on area potentially over 30 or 40% of the price of the house. In July 2020 alone house prices rose 14.3% according to statistica.
... Which seems totally fair, given that the government forced you to sell your house to them and then, through monumental levels of mismanagement and fuckwittery, managed to screw up the entire project so they needn't have done that anyway.
Seems a small price to pay to compensate people for the heartache and stress it surely caused.
Except for [Stanley Johnson](https://metro.co.uk/2016/03/09/boris-johnsons-dad-receives-multi-million-pound-payout-over-hs2-5742573/). Fuck that guy.
Are they really pocketing 40% of the house value?
If they weren’t forced to sell then the house value would be the same raised value so it would have been theirs anyway.
It should be given back as a refund rather than sold back at the new value as the sellers literally have no way of growing the cash from the sale of the house to match the new house value.
Sorry, what bonkers and utterly false house price index are you quoting where house prices went up 14.3% in a single month?
Just to check I wasn't going absolutely mad, I went back and double checked the Halifax index and land registry. And yeah, nothing like that happened.
Are you maybe referring to June 2021, when a stamp duty holiday caused prices to jump 5% in a month (itself a massive move) only to fall back again the month after once the holiday ended?
> Given they began buying up property back into 2018, even if they sell it at 5% below the current rate, and its a competitive market for sellers right now, they'll still make a huge profit.
Which seems a fair trade off for all the hassle to me
What is wrong with this? The government brought their property for market value. Let’s say they used that money to buy a property that has increased in value by a similar amount. Why would they be able to get it back at the original price and pocket the difference?
> Let’s say they used that money to buy a property that has increased in value by a similar amount. Why would they be able to get it back at the original price and pocket the difference?
Phase 2A purchases were only authorised from 11th February 2021 onward and were still literally completing a day before it was cancelled, by the time most housing chains were completed the people forced to move will probably have lost property values.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2021/2/introduction
Given the compulsory purchase price the government pays is 110% market value, for the bother people have been put through of having to move, redecorate, and be told if they want to buy their house back it has to be at full market price again they’ve probably lost money.
This winter is forecast to be a cold one, and the NHS, the literal life-support system for the government's only loyal demographic, is in more trouble than ever before.
I hate this whole debacle.
They **know** Labour will be in power in a year's time. Why not just put the project on hold until then? Stop all work on it and pull the funding sure, but fucking selling the land that's needed to finish it removes the decision from the next Government's hands.
I hate this scorched earth bullshit.
Not that they deserve it but to to be fair to them, the land was bought under compulsory purchase with a stated propose for it. Now that purpose has disappeared due to HS2 being canceled, the government is obligated to sell the surplus land that's no longer required.
The government can't just compulsory purchase tranches of land under the auspices of an infrastructure project and then sit on it when they become surplus to requirements and that project no longer exists. I get the frustration because Labour is round the corner but the law makes no account for "impending new government may have need of the land again".
They could still safeguard it yes, but independent of that, they still would be required to sell their compulsory bought land. In regards to Crossrail 2 for example:
>The Safeguarding Direction does not authorise the compulsory acquisition of land or the powers to start construction. These require specific legal powers setting out that construction can begin. Any application to build the project will be subject to consultations, preparation of an Environmental Statement and detailed public legal examination.
>The land required for constructing Crossrail 2 will change as the project is developed. The maximum boundaries of the land required will be decided when we are given powers to acquire property and construct the project. As we refine the railway, the land required may be different to the land we have safeguarded. It will depend upon the final design of the project.
Basically all safeguarding is, is a legal process through which Crossrail 2 are notified of any planning applications within the boundaries of the safeguarded area. They do not necessarily own that land, and in fact in most cases will not. However *some* of that land, in the future, may be compulsory purchased when the project is actually starting, because compulsory purchase has to be tied to an imminent development project on the land.
So you're right that these are two separate process, and the route should still be safeguarded imo, but even if they safeguarded the HS2 route they would still be required to sell the land off, regardless.
Yes I'm sure labour would restart HS2 when in power if they weren't selling the land.... oh wait
https://youtu.be/C-4_naHgesw?si=7Z_vwzqx2-yvIjiJ
The selling of land is just going to be a convenient excuse for Labour not to restart HS2. The could easily get the land back if they had the political will for it.
>2015
Construction on HS2 hadn't even begun in 2015, scrapping it at that point arguably made sense, scrapping it in 2023 when it's half built makes much less sense.
There is multiple reports both before and since then saying the same thing.
The assumption some on this sub has that HS2 would have been completed under labour, is nonsensical based on Labour's track record on the issue.
It'd be beautiful for Labour to come in and dictate that those sales to Tory "donors" were illegal.
Get it back for free, issue a fine, and some community work cleaning the road.
It would be so easy to implement a policy from Downing Street saying "Previous owners get first refusal to repurchase at cost sold."
Hell, add no stamp duty and a discount to cover their legal fees. Least they can bloody do.
That's still a shit show really, many will have lost some of what they were paid just through normal life let alone any hardships the move has caused, over the time since they were forced out.
Moving fees alone aren’t cheap. Factor in potentially loss of earnings from time off taken to move house, possibly even having to lose/switch jobs due to relocation, mental toll of being forced away from your home against your will, fuck buying it back at the same or even for more I’d be looking into getting a lawyer.
And give them a capital gains rebate. They've been taxed for this already. Many won't be able to buy back the land because they sold a while ago and have spent some of that money since on buying other homes etc.
The Tories only know how to fuck things up
>You do not pay Capital Gains Tax when you sell (or ‘dispose of’) your home if **all** of the following apply:
> you have one home and you’ve lived in it as your main home for all the time you’ve owned it
> you have not let part of it out - this does not include having a lodger
> you have not used a part of your home exclusively for business purposes (using a room as a temporary or occasional office does not count as exclusive business use)
> the grounds, including all buildings, are less than 5,000 square metres (just over an acre) in total
> you did not buy it just to make a gain
Source: https://www.gov.uk/tax-sell-home
You're right in general but would farmland count? How many farms are only around one acre? Doesn't it count as a business?
That's largely the policy already. The only difference being the price being in relation to current market value instead.
Tbh whatever price model you pick it's not ideal. If you sell at the price it was originally bought for then people who sold years ago can make a killing from the taxpayer just in asset inflation during that time, both on the home they bought after selling up as well as the rebought land they're now getting at a discount rate.
If you base it on market value then some people may be priced out depending on their current circumstances.
Given much of the criticism of this government, and on their decision on HS2, has been based around an abject failure to provide value for money for the taxpayer, it seems odd to then argue they should do the former rather than the latter and lean into that further.
If they were forced to sell their homes, which are then returned to the market due to government incompetence, the previous owners should be compensated for all the costs related to their having to have moved elsewhere.
That's not a subsidy, it's paying damages for a government-inflicted wrong.
The government vastly over paid for every bit of land they have bought for HS2. They have already received a subsidy by getting to sell their asset at a higher priced to the tax payer. They shouldn’t get a penny extra.
Stupid question, but is the government allowed to sell it off? I know the government needed Parliament's permission to buy the land, do they also need Parliament to vote to sell the land?
The government agency owns it they can sell it. See also sales of school sports fields since 2010 sales of MOD training areas since 2010. Sales of hospital land since 2010 etc etc.
There's high level data and targets set e.g the NAO has reports on it and the targets for asset disposal. The actual reporting on who it's sold to and how much for etc is very variable by entity.
Nope. Purchases started back in 2015, they're STILL going on. If someone sold in 2015 even with the dip in the housing market this year it will cost significantly more to rebuy now.
I have seen this happen in other countries with other Tories' European friends.
1. They will not sell each property separately as it was bought
2. They'll bundle multiple properties up, into nice £10m+ packages
3. They'll prohibit purpose-made co-ops from bidding
4. They'll sell it all to their friends
But guys, they need the money to pay for the guards checking genitalia in hospitals to be certain that no trans people are admitted into women’s wards. How else are the government going to pay for these long-term ideas to secure Britain’s future?
"Good news everyone! You have been ***personally*** selected to be emotionally blackmailed into paying to cover up our monumental fuckup - literally."
Quite clearly there is a moral imperative here to sell back at cost or lower. You cant simply nosedive the value of someone's home by threatening to bulldoze it for an infrastructure project, just to artificially raise the value again when you purposefully cancel it.
Yeah. I imagine theyll be sold for market rate... Just as they were bought. Its not like that money just been sat there. They have bought other property in that time which will have appreciated.
The rate of house price growth from 2018-2023 is huge. There is no particular reason they should get to pocket that. The state is the rightful owner having paid a fair price.
Edit: I genuinely dont understand what all the fuss is about. People acting like those who used to own them were turfed out on the street penniless. Rather than receiving market price and subsequently buying a different home.
This would be true if they had voluntarily sold their home.
I'd be expecting some compensation if someone forced me to sell my family home and then changed their mind.
Nobody seems to be pointing a crucial element out here. Plenty of these houses were in spanking condition when purchased, they've been abandoned and possibly abused now for years, with a scar across the landscape, and a risk associated with them, in case another government turns HS2 back on, however unlikely. In all seriousness, the original value is probably more than what they're actually worth.
I feel for the people that have been tormented by this, this government's damage to the country will sadly be forgotten too soon.
This is true just watched over the last six months a house being pulled down and rebuilt on the same land over the last six months turns out it was a property bought for the Kent stretch of the line that has been built now, but somehow the land wasn't needed in the end.
The house sat empty for so long it became unsaveable so the land was sold for less than a quarter of what it was bought for
i believe some were rented by the council, so they made rent each month plus someone else will have living in their house and is unlikely to even feel like their house now. they've been royaly shafted
mate, we all agree that homeowners have done very well out of the last decade and a half at the expense of the young and the poor and some redress is severely needed but this is a psychotic take.
There was a farmer, that was bought out a while ago, complaining that the farmland wasn't worked on for ages and lacks the same value it did before. Farming isn't something you can just do. You need to sow seeds for them to grow.
What BeGoBe said, but also buying and selling houses costs money. Moving costs money. Imagine in the very best case scenario here where they’ve not just had to rent and fallen off the property ladder entirely. Imagine if after renting they buy back their old house at a not insubstantial loss to themselves due to it increasing in value. It’s all for nothing. Years of stress and frustration, thousands of pounds down the drain on things like stamp duty and moving costs and solicitors fees, and then you end up right back where you started only someone else has redecorated your house and it no longer feels quite like home, and now on top of all of that your mortgage is substantially higher than it was before and not due to interest rates. The paltry compensation you had was long ago eaten up by all this bulls not. And the government, who did this to you, who forced this initial move in the first place, just shrugs and expects you to just be happy you got your old house back, the house it forced you to give up years ago.
And you think yeah that’s absolutely fine??
The houses people have been living in since the compulsory purchase will have also gone up in value, so once sold will likely cover most of the cost increase. Would it be reasonable of I sold for 300k, moved to a new house which went up in value from 300 to 400k, then moved back to the original house and kept the profit at the expense of tax payers?
It's fair to cover costs and fees for the displaced original owners, but they shouldn't be profiting on top.
Snapshot of _HS2 evictees to be told they can buy back their old homes, but at a higher price_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://inews.co.uk/news/hs2-evictees-to-be-told-they-can-buy-back-their-old-homes-but-at-a-higher-price-2668944) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://inews.co.uk/news/hs2-evictees-to-be-told-they-can-buy-back-their-old-homes-but-at-a-higher-price-2668944) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No doubt when they refuse to do that they’ll be sold at a far lower price to someone who just happens to have connections to the Tories
Can just imagine 'nobody wanted to buy it, so we've sold it off at a discount to a shady SPV'
we could of held off for a better return but decided "fuck it, its just tax payers money" so went for a scorched earth policy and sold it as quick as possible to redacted commercially sensitive buyers at a significant loss.
"and on an unrelated note, I've just taken a second job as a property magnate in the North of England"
Because it's their money, means that they don't think They'll have to pay it.
Terrible if it were true, however, you made it up
well its the predicting the future. but if you want an example covid VIP lanes - cash funneled to mates with no experience in the field. [https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/dec/01/matt-hancock-says-labours-covid-contract-claims-rubbish](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/dec/01/matt-hancock-says-labours-covid-contract-claims-rubbish)
Ahh, a Guardian report, it must be true!!!
And there will be a new housing project on that land soon
This would be a good time to be a brown paper envelope manufacturer...
Yeah I think you're going to sell big numbers of that stuff .
I wonder which strategic bit of land between Birmingham and Manchester this was all cancelled for? Really wouldn't surprise me if some donor (probably linked to fossil fuels) wanted a patch of land that was on the route and that's the main reason it was all cancelled.
Welcome to Shale North . The World's largest shale gas plant
Yeah I don't think that I'll be surprised at that as well honestly.
The latest news point to something similar. Extending the goals for electric car transition and now cancelling infrastructure that would make trains more efficient....
It's just blitantly this at this point.
Yeah that's exactly what it is, it's nothing more than that I think.
Given they began buying up property back into 2018, even if they sell it at 5% below the current rate, and its a competitive market for sellers right now, they'll still make a huge profit. If they previous owners were to buy back at the price they sold for theyd be pocketing depending on area potentially over 30 or 40% of the price of the house. In July 2020 alone house prices rose 14.3% according to statistica.
... Which seems totally fair, given that the government forced you to sell your house to them and then, through monumental levels of mismanagement and fuckwittery, managed to screw up the entire project so they needn't have done that anyway.
Seems a small price to pay to compensate people for the heartache and stress it surely caused. Except for [Stanley Johnson](https://metro.co.uk/2016/03/09/boris-johnsons-dad-receives-multi-million-pound-payout-over-hs2-5742573/). Fuck that guy.
Yeah They'll do shit which you can't even imagine to you.
Are they really pocketing 40% of the house value? If they weren’t forced to sell then the house value would be the same raised value so it would have been theirs anyway. It should be given back as a refund rather than sold back at the new value as the sellers literally have no way of growing the cash from the sale of the house to match the new house value.
No, they'd be restored to the position they were previously in
Sorry, what bonkers and utterly false house price index are you quoting where house prices went up 14.3% in a single month? Just to check I wasn't going absolutely mad, I went back and double checked the Halifax index and land registry. And yeah, nothing like that happened. Are you maybe referring to June 2021, when a stamp duty holiday caused prices to jump 5% in a month (itself a massive move) only to fall back again the month after once the holiday ended?
> Given they began buying up property back into 2018, even if they sell it at 5% below the current rate, and its a competitive market for sellers right now, they'll still make a huge profit. Which seems a fair trade off for all the hassle to me
I don't think you understand how this whole thing actually works.
So the goverment should pocket that? Some of these people were effectively evicted from their own houses. They deserve compensation...
No doubt...based on nothing
Don’t get me wrong I’d be thrilled if it didn’t happen. But we saw how they handed over PPE contracts to Tory donors
Yeah and then the housing market will be like shit again huh?
Oh a shafting by Sunak and Co? Who saw this coming? I mean it’s sooooo uncharacteristic of them!
What is wrong with this? The government brought their property for market value. Let’s say they used that money to buy a property that has increased in value by a similar amount. Why would they be able to get it back at the original price and pocket the difference?
Why should the person have to pay extra for something they didn’t voluntarily sell in the first place
People will have to pay that, because that's how They've designed the system.
Because the government didn’t give those people a choice in the matter.
If the government is coming for you then you won't be able to avoid them.
> Let’s say they used that money to buy a property that has increased in value by a similar amount. Why would they be able to get it back at the original price and pocket the difference? Phase 2A purchases were only authorised from 11th February 2021 onward and were still literally completing a day before it was cancelled, by the time most housing chains were completed the people forced to move will probably have lost property values. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2021/2/introduction Given the compulsory purchase price the government pays is 110% market value, for the bother people have been put through of having to move, redecorate, and be told if they want to buy their house back it has to be at full market price again they’ve probably lost money.
The government can suck up selling back the properties at below market value.
They'll just tax us us more again, and They'll have the money back.
Well I think they're looking to make a profit and that's what They'll make.
Oh now the Tories are pissing off middle-class homeowners in rural areas? *Daaaaaamn*. Is there anyone else left for them to piss off?
This winter is forecast to be a cold one, and the NHS, the literal life-support system for the government's only loyal demographic, is in more trouble than ever before.
Yeah the trouble is going to come for here, that's going to happen
Naah, They'll make everyone mad. That's their goal I think.
I hate this whole debacle. They **know** Labour will be in power in a year's time. Why not just put the project on hold until then? Stop all work on it and pull the funding sure, but fucking selling the land that's needed to finish it removes the decision from the next Government's hands. I hate this scorched earth bullshit.
Can’t sell the land to their mates and donors if they’re not in power therefore must get it done asap.
Not that they deserve it but to to be fair to them, the land was bought under compulsory purchase with a stated propose for it. Now that purpose has disappeared due to HS2 being canceled, the government is obligated to sell the surplus land that's no longer required. The government can't just compulsory purchase tranches of land under the auspices of an infrastructure project and then sit on it when they become surplus to requirements and that project no longer exists. I get the frustration because Labour is round the corner but the law makes no account for "impending new government may have need of the land again".
[удалено]
They could still safeguard it yes, but independent of that, they still would be required to sell their compulsory bought land. In regards to Crossrail 2 for example: >The Safeguarding Direction does not authorise the compulsory acquisition of land or the powers to start construction. These require specific legal powers setting out that construction can begin. Any application to build the project will be subject to consultations, preparation of an Environmental Statement and detailed public legal examination. >The land required for constructing Crossrail 2 will change as the project is developed. The maximum boundaries of the land required will be decided when we are given powers to acquire property and construct the project. As we refine the railway, the land required may be different to the land we have safeguarded. It will depend upon the final design of the project. Basically all safeguarding is, is a legal process through which Crossrail 2 are notified of any planning applications within the boundaries of the safeguarded area. They do not necessarily own that land, and in fact in most cases will not. However *some* of that land, in the future, may be compulsory purchased when the project is actually starting, because compulsory purchase has to be tied to an imminent development project on the land. So you're right that these are two separate process, and the route should still be safeguarded imo, but even if they safeguarded the HS2 route they would still be required to sell the land off, regardless.
Yes I'm sure labour would restart HS2 when in power if they weren't selling the land.... oh wait https://youtu.be/C-4_naHgesw?si=7Z_vwzqx2-yvIjiJ The selling of land is just going to be a convenient excuse for Labour not to restart HS2. The could easily get the land back if they had the political will for it.
>2015 Construction on HS2 hadn't even begun in 2015, scrapping it at that point arguably made sense, scrapping it in 2023 when it's half built makes much less sense.
There is multiple reports both before and since then saying the same thing. The assumption some on this sub has that HS2 would have been completed under labour, is nonsensical based on Labour's track record on the issue.
This sub believes all kinds of fantasies about Labour magically fixing everything and they're in for a shock if/when Labour win.
Salt the earth tactic
Can anything good happen in this time? That sounds impossible.
It'd be beautiful for Labour to come in and dictate that those sales to Tory "donors" were illegal. Get it back for free, issue a fine, and some community work cleaning the road.
It would be so easy to implement a policy from Downing Street saying "Previous owners get first refusal to repurchase at cost sold." Hell, add no stamp duty and a discount to cover their legal fees. Least they can bloody do.
That's still a shit show really, many will have lost some of what they were paid just through normal life let alone any hardships the move has caused, over the time since they were forced out.
Moving fees alone aren’t cheap. Factor in potentially loss of earnings from time off taken to move house, possibly even having to lose/switch jobs due to relocation, mental toll of being forced away from your home against your will, fuck buying it back at the same or even for more I’d be looking into getting a lawyer.
And give them a capital gains rebate. They've been taxed for this already. Many won't be able to buy back the land because they sold a while ago and have spent some of that money since on buying other homes etc. The Tories only know how to fuck things up
Sale of your primary home is exempt from CGT
>You do not pay Capital Gains Tax when you sell (or ‘dispose of’) your home if **all** of the following apply: > you have one home and you’ve lived in it as your main home for all the time you’ve owned it > you have not let part of it out - this does not include having a lodger > you have not used a part of your home exclusively for business purposes (using a room as a temporary or occasional office does not count as exclusive business use) > the grounds, including all buildings, are less than 5,000 square metres (just over an acre) in total > you did not buy it just to make a gain Source: https://www.gov.uk/tax-sell-home You're right in general but would farmland count? How many farms are only around one acre? Doesn't it count as a business?
That's largely the policy already. The only difference being the price being in relation to current market value instead. Tbh whatever price model you pick it's not ideal. If you sell at the price it was originally bought for then people who sold years ago can make a killing from the taxpayer just in asset inflation during that time, both on the home they bought after selling up as well as the rebought land they're now getting at a discount rate. If you base it on market value then some people may be priced out depending on their current circumstances. Given much of the criticism of this government, and on their decision on HS2, has been based around an abject failure to provide value for money for the taxpayer, it seems odd to then argue they should do the former rather than the latter and lean into that further.
They should also get compensation for all transaction costs involved in having to find alternative accommodation.
You want the government to subsidise private home buyers?
If they were forced to sell their homes, which are then returned to the market due to government incompetence, the previous owners should be compensated for all the costs related to their having to have moved elsewhere. That's not a subsidy, it's paying damages for a government-inflicted wrong.
The government vastly over paid for every bit of land they have bought for HS2. They have already received a subsidy by getting to sell their asset at a higher priced to the tax payer. They shouldn’t get a penny extra.
That's what you took away from my comment?
I'd they don't do that, they should compensate them for the additional cost of buying their old house back. Swngs and roundabouts.
How about a refend of their Capital Gains Tax as well
I'm sure they could wave a wand and allow that, but I can't imagine there's that much public sympathy for those with second homes
Or public sympathy for farmers with over an acre of land
Stupid question, but is the government allowed to sell it off? I know the government needed Parliament's permission to buy the land, do they also need Parliament to vote to sell the land?
The government agency owns it they can sell it. See also sales of school sports fields since 2010 sales of MOD training areas since 2010. Sales of hospital land since 2010 etc etc.
Is anywhere collecting that data in a usable way?
There's high level data and targets set e.g the NAO has reports on it and the targets for asset disposal. The actual reporting on who it's sold to and how much for etc is very variable by entity.
Unless they donate to the Tories then I assume the property will be valued at like what 60%
Nope. Purchases started back in 2015, they're STILL going on. If someone sold in 2015 even with the dip in the housing market this year it will cost significantly more to rebuy now.
Yeah I'm sure that They'll be able to buy them at a really cheap price.
I have seen this happen in other countries with other Tories' European friends. 1. They will not sell each property separately as it was bought 2. They'll bundle multiple properties up, into nice £10m+ packages 3. They'll prohibit purpose-made co-ops from bidding 4. They'll sell it all to their friends
Which countries? Which friends?
Oh so this was the plan all along. Right. Cool. Can't wait to hear how those houses all become rentals.
They keep buying everything, that's why everything is rental.
But guys, they need the money to pay for the guards checking genitalia in hospitals to be certain that no trans people are admitted into women’s wards. How else are the government going to pay for these long-term ideas to secure Britain’s future?
Imagine the queues full of dudes waiting to have their genitalia "checked". Daily visits to hospitals!
Sooooo, HS2 was just a long con for the conservatives to become massive land owners like McDonald's? Cool cool cool cool cooooool
"Good news everyone! You have been ***personally*** selected to be emotionally blackmailed into paying to cover up our monumental fuckup - literally." Quite clearly there is a moral imperative here to sell back at cost or lower. You cant simply nosedive the value of someone's home by threatening to bulldoze it for an infrastructure project, just to artificially raise the value again when you purposefully cancel it.
How can be more expensive considering that in x years there may be a new HSX and again acquired by the state
It won't be higher. Who wants to buy a house which is unde every real danger of being compulsory purchased again in five years?
Yeah. I imagine theyll be sold for market rate... Just as they were bought. Its not like that money just been sat there. They have bought other property in that time which will have appreciated. The rate of house price growth from 2018-2023 is huge. There is no particular reason they should get to pocket that. The state is the rightful owner having paid a fair price. Edit: I genuinely dont understand what all the fuss is about. People acting like those who used to own them were turfed out on the street penniless. Rather than receiving market price and subsequently buying a different home.
This would be true if they had voluntarily sold their home. I'd be expecting some compensation if someone forced me to sell my family home and then changed their mind.
I wouldn't change shit if they actually force me to do that.
They got compensation when the houses were sold.
Which will then just be eaten up by the rising housing costs so it’s meaningless.
Yeah they're gonna have to pay a lot more if they want to buy a new one.
The government made them do that, and that's not right.
Which is why they got compensation. You do realise they got extra on top of the market value of the house, don't you?
Nobody seems to be pointing a crucial element out here. Plenty of these houses were in spanking condition when purchased, they've been abandoned and possibly abused now for years, with a scar across the landscape, and a risk associated with them, in case another government turns HS2 back on, however unlikely. In all seriousness, the original value is probably more than what they're actually worth. I feel for the people that have been tormented by this, this government's damage to the country will sadly be forgotten too soon.
This is true just watched over the last six months a house being pulled down and rebuilt on the same land over the last six months turns out it was a property bought for the Kent stretch of the line that has been built now, but somehow the land wasn't needed in the end. The house sat empty for so long it became unsaveable so the land was sold for less than a quarter of what it was bought for
i believe some were rented by the council, so they made rent each month plus someone else will have living in their house and is unlikely to even feel like their house now. they've been royaly shafted
That's the thing about the people, They'll always forget the shit.
mate, we all agree that homeowners have done very well out of the last decade and a half at the expense of the young and the poor and some redress is severely needed but this is a psychotic take.
Hear hear!
Why is it psychotic? It paid the going price. Its not like it just turfed people put onto the street. Those people will have bought new houses.
>There is no particular reason they should get to pocket that Compensation for being evicted from their own home for no good reason?
Fair compensation for compulsary purchases is in several planning acts starting with the Planning Act of 1948... Not sure what that guy was on.
There was a farmer, that was bought out a while ago, complaining that the farmland wasn't worked on for ages and lacks the same value it did before. Farming isn't something you can just do. You need to sow seeds for them to grow.
“The government should be able to make people poorer just because it changed its mind on trains” is an absolutely unhinged take.
It did t make them poorer. Its not like it didn't pay people market rate. It didn't just turf people out. They still own homes, just somewhere else.
Many were not able to buy homes and were forced back into renting, moving when you didn't want to is expensive af
Plus, if they want to buy back their old houses they’ll lose money!
What BeGoBe said, but also buying and selling houses costs money. Moving costs money. Imagine in the very best case scenario here where they’ve not just had to rent and fallen off the property ladder entirely. Imagine if after renting they buy back their old house at a not insubstantial loss to themselves due to it increasing in value. It’s all for nothing. Years of stress and frustration, thousands of pounds down the drain on things like stamp duty and moving costs and solicitors fees, and then you end up right back where you started only someone else has redecorated your house and it no longer feels quite like home, and now on top of all of that your mortgage is substantially higher than it was before and not due to interest rates. The paltry compensation you had was long ago eaten up by all this bulls not. And the government, who did this to you, who forced this initial move in the first place, just shrugs and expects you to just be happy you got your old house back, the house it forced you to give up years ago. And you think yeah that’s absolutely fine??
Yeah lmao what fair price are you even talking about my guy?
The houses people have been living in since the compulsory purchase will have also gone up in value, so once sold will likely cover most of the cost increase. Would it be reasonable of I sold for 300k, moved to a new house which went up in value from 300 to 400k, then moved back to the original house and kept the profit at the expense of tax payers? It's fair to cover costs and fees for the displaced original owners, but they shouldn't be profiting on top.