Should councils requisition empty homes?

KENSINGTON and Chelsea council has yet to re-house a lot of the families who were left homeless after the Grenfell Tower fire. Many are still in temporary accommodation, including in hotels, which is hardly satisfactory. However, it is not surprising given the dearth of council-owned houses and flats. There are lots of unoccupied properties in the area, which the owners seem content to regard as an investment, rather than a place to live. Rather than go down the route of requisitioning homes, why can’t the council use its cash reserves to buy some of those properties at market value, compulsorily if necessary. The longer people are left in temporary accommodation, the angrier they will be and rightly so.

ROBERt McKENZIE, Gosport, Hants. IF IT weren’t for the Grenfell fire, the owners of empty properties in Kensington and Chelsea wouldn’t be castigated. I’m sure the huge council taxes these rich folk pay help to subsidise social housing in the area. Do we really want to live in a society where people’s homes can be seized? That’s no way to treat those who have worked hard and been law-abiding.

Mrs IRIS DAINtON, louth, lincs. MUCH of our nation’s land is owned by a small number of billionaires who merely inherited it. To solve the housing crisis, the Government would be justified in requisitioning a proportion of it. The owners could be offered part of the commercial value or pay a swingeing land tax if they refused to sell.

DAVID GIBBS, Prestbury, Cheshire. WHY do some people think they are entitled to live in someone else’s empty home? No matter who owns it, they paid for it and it is their property — just as my humble home, bought through blood, sweat and tears, is mine.

INGRID BERWICK, Northants.