Former estate agent and Conservative MP Kevin Hollinrake has accused the government of threatening property rights after ministers unveiled plans to make it easier for councils to take control of empty homes.
The government plans to cut the qualifying period for an Empty Dwelling Management Order (EDMO) from two years to six months.
An EDMO does not transfer ownership to the council. Instead, it allows a local authority to take over management of a qualifying property and return it to occupation for up to seven years.
Hollinrake, who founded estate agency Hunters before entering Parliament, strongly criticised the move.
Writing on X, he said: “The Loony Left are always keen to revoke our fundamental rights when it becomes convenient to do so; on this occasion, property rights.
“Seizing someone’s home because you disapprove of how they use it is classic socialist authoritarianism.”
Councils could intervene after six months
Under the reforms announced on Sunday, councils would no longer have to wait two years before seeking an EDMO.
Ministers also plan to remove requirements for councils to provide evidence relating to issues such as anti-social behaviour or community support when applying to the property tribunal.
The government is considering further changes to encourage councils to use the powers. These include measures aimed at protecting local authorities from costs incurred while managing properties subject to an EDMO.
However, reaching the six-month threshold would not mean a council could automatically take control of a property.
The EDMO regime contains exemptions covering a range of circumstances. These include certain homes temporarily vacant because an owner lives elsewhere, properties genuinely marketed for sale or rent and some probate cases.
More than 300,000 long-term empty homes
The government says the reforms will help councils bring more existing housing stock back into use.
Official figures show 303,185 homes in England were classed as long-term empty in 2025. That classification covers properties empty for more than six months.
Ministers argue that earlier intervention could also prevent vacant properties falling into serious disrepair.
The government said: “The changes will reduce the period a property must be empty before it becomes eligible for an EDMO from two years to six months, allowing councils to act sooner where homes have been left vacant.”
However, critics have questioned both the principle of the reforms and whether councils have the resources to use them.
Property commentator Kirstie Allsopp said: “Most councils can’t grant planning permission for a downstairs loo without six months’ notice; the idea that they’ll be seizing properties and renovating them is an absolute fantasy.”
The government says councils have not made an application for an EDMO since 2021.
The powers themselves are not new. The Housing Act 2004 introduced EDMOs, and the original regime used a six-month threshold. The government increased that qualifying period to two years in 2012.
The latest reforms would therefore return the qualifying period to six months while removing some of the additional evidential requirements introduced under the existing regime.
Comments (11)
It’s impossible to take anyone seriously when they use the phrase “loony left” a playground insult only used by the right wing equivalent the classic ‘swivel eyed loon’.
The Tory Party truly is at its lowest level of intelligence in centuries…
Most properties I know of that are long term empty are because they have been sitting on the sales market unsold for ages, and sellers don’t dare rent them out and get stuck for eternity with a tenant thanks to the renters rights act. Particularly, where the original owner has died and properties going through probate for sale. And ones with cladding problems that can’t sell till that sorted. The owners/estates are already getting stuffed with double council tax.
Loony left? It was a Tory idea a few years ago. I have to admit the six months is too early, and two years is enough, but these houses need to be returned back into the housing stock. Councils have hidden behind GDPR for too long, and it’s time this issue was dealt with. I’d rather these properties were refurbished and sold than new houses built on our green belt.
The point you are missing is the principle and the direction of travel! Why should someone’s property be sequestrated because the owner chooses to leave it empty!? What next? We are on a slippery slope where government steadily removes our rights and choices as to how we live our lives, based upon their myopic indoctrinated view of how they think we all SHOULD live our lives – be afraid, be very afraid
It was acceptable when the Tories were in charge, now it it’s “slippery slope”…
People should be ashamed for having empty properties for over two years and properties should be utilised not hoarded. Whether owners are forced to sell, or the council receive grants in order to purchase, is a good thing.
Why are you bringing party politics into this?
Because it’s an MP moaning about it..
But you said “it was acceptable when the Tories were in charge” … where does it say that it was ever an acceptable policy? My point refers to the principle of the policy, whichever political colour is in power, you decided to make it party political, nobody else here has.
It was an acceptable policy when the Tories were in charge, yet it’s a Tory MP now moaning about it. He’s a hypocrite.
That is your opinion that it was previously ‘acceptable’, however, doubling back to the my point, you quoted my words “it’s a slippery slope” and then aligned that with your repeated point that I was asserting it was “ok under the Tories”…. hence you are conflating my comment on
the policy (from whichever colour of Government!) with party politics.
Perhaps proof read before hitting the ‘post comment’ in future
Newks , you appear so determined to come out on top of the argument YOU missed the original point.
A Tory MP is criticising a policy that is also a policy of his own Party.
Futhermore he’s doing it in an insulting childish manner.