To not understand squatting laws?

[saadia]

How can it be legal to break into someone's home, change the locks, start living there using their stuff and their gas/electricity and trash their home. There have been lots of horrifying cases in the papers lately - am baffled at the sheer injustice.

[SansaLannister]

'In the case of a tenant refusing to move after eviction/end of tenancy, surely the landlord has a right to have them removed???'

Yes, the LL goes through a process of eviction as regards the tenant.

[abouttotaketheplunge]

In the case of a tenant refusing to move after eviction/end of tenancy, surely the landlord has a right to have them removed???

[Cocoflower]

"The motivation behind the squatting laws is a moral one - properties shouldn't be allowed to stand empty when people are in need of them. It's also economically inefficient (it reduces supply and pushes up prices)."

I can see where you are coming from. However from another side

1. You simply cannot take something that does not belong to you no matter if you need it or not. You cannot simply take someone else's food as you feel they have too much and might not eat it for example.If it is someone else's property they have paid for then it is their possession to do as they wish
   

1. How about people on long HA lists- is it fair they might have to wait years for a property whilst someone else just takes property?
   

1. For hardworking homeowners how is it fair they have to meet heavy mortgage payments when a squatter could simply move into the million pound property up the road?

[eurochick]

The law really must be changed.

The motivation behind the squatting laws is a moral one - properties shouldn't be allowed to stand empty when people are in need of them. It's also economically inefficient (it reduces supply and pushes up prices).

But it has been completely twisted so that squatters move into houses empty for renovations or while someone is on holiday. These are not properties that are "wasted".

Many of the comments on that Evening Standard article are along the lines of "get a bunch of nasty people to go in and get them out". The suggestion that you have to become a criminal to get your own house back is appalling.

[Cocoflower]

I was thinking the same Custard

Knowing someone had touched all our personal things would be horrific. What if they damaged things too?

I also think if it did happen to us, if we could not stay with family how could we afford to keep paying bills on that property and a hotel/ b&b?

Also what about people who work from home? They could also be losing income

I wish more people would care about this and some proper laws would come into place

[wishiwasholdingaachinegun]

Could anyone send me link go the program, please?

:)

[onagar]

It's theft. It's not cool or an alternative lifestyle. It's no better than snatching someone's bag and running. They have something you don't so you take it.

There's no need to make it complicated. IF someone steals your car because they 'need' it to get to work they will be arrested. There will be no nonsense about "but you have another car" or "lets give them time to save up for a car of their own"

If people think there should be laws about removing someone who was a tenant until recently that is entirely different and there is no difficulty at all in separating the two.

[Cocoflower]

Agreed Custardcake. There was another thread on here a few weeks ago where someone elderly parents had been renovating and had their new home squatted in- while still having to pay all the bills.

Here is someone's story who did literally go on holiday to find squatters;
www.independent.co.uk/life-style/house-and-home/property/squatters-rights--and-wrongs-2144131.html

Yes there were policies in place to protect the homeowner but it still did not stop squatters moving in and did not prevent a nightmare ensuing to remove them. As you say Custard all it really takes is no evidence of a break in and the police can categorise it as civil not criminal.

[sjuperwolef]

i thought this was about peeing

[tryingtoleave]

My cousin squatted in cape town for a while. He is a lawyer. A beautiful beachfront property that was empty. The owners found out but, as he was looking after the place, they came to an arrangement with him that he could stay on for a few months until they needed the property. They preferred to have someone responsible there than leave it empty.

My law professor suggested that if anyone knew of an empty property they should go and change the locks. If no one returned to the property for the 25 years, or whatever it was, they could claim it.

[tryingtoleave]

They would still be trespassers unless they had been in possession for a considerable amount of time. No one can get possession of your house while you have been on a fortnight's holiday. If you leave it empty for a decade it might be a different matter,

[Cocoflower]

Ths issue is the ambiguity with "property sitting empty" IMO

If someone living alone is away for a period of time for example they are hospitalised then technically the property is sitting empty. I would be surprised if anyone would find this situation fair that they are now vunreable to squatters taking their home.

However under current law this is perfectly legal and unless forced entry as found it would be a nightmare to remove them.

[tryingtoleave]

Cocoflowers article confirms what I remember. This is not new - the cases we studied were old.

[tryingtoleave]

English law has a prejudice against property sitting empty while other are homeless (as far as I remember from property law classes ten years ago). Therefore squatters have some rights if they move into a property that has been empty for a while and act as if they are the owners. However, the squatters case for ownership would be strengthened if they could show they had improved the property (rather than trashing it). It is the same in oz, except that it takes a lot longer to gain ownership by adverse possession - 25 years, I think.

[Cocoflower]

Hot of the press today

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8742631/Squatters-could-be-good-for-us-all-says-judge-in-empty-homes-ruling.html

Seems my respect, trust and faith in British law has now tumbled down well into the negatives.

I thought it couldn't get much worse.

[saadia]

So sorry to hear that ZonkedOut... this is what worries me, and it could happen to anyone while they are away for a weekend or on holiday.

[lachesis]

Bet they won't leave that couple's home nice and clean once they're finally evicted.

Band practice at 7AM and then meditating. No word of going to work and trying to find a place to rent.

FFS.

[Cocoflower]

This would be the bit which would get me most irriate

"THAT we live in this property, it is our home and we intend to stay here"

NO it bloody isn't

[Cocoflower]

If I ever found this notice on my front door I would be livid (Its the Squatters notice):

LEGAL WARNING

Section 6 Criminal Law Act 1977
As amended by Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994


TAKE NOTICE

THAT we live in this property, it is our home and we intend to stay here.

THAT at all times there is at least one person in this property.

THAT any entry or attempt to enter into this property without our permission is a criminal offence as any one of us who is in physical possession is opposed to entry without our permission.

THAT if you attempt to enter by violence or by threatening violence we will prosecute you. You may receive a sentence of up to six months imprisonment and/or a fine of up to £5,000.

THAT if you want to get us out you will have to issue a claim in the County Court or in the High Court, or produce to us a written statement or certificate in terms of S.12A Criminal Law Act, 1977 (as inserted by Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, 1994).

THAT it is an offence under S.12A (8) Criminal Law Act 1977 (as amended) to knowingly make a false statement to obtain a written statement for the purposes of S. 12A. A person guilty of such an offence may receive a sentence of up to six months imprisonment and/or a fine of up to £5,000.

[lachesis]

Again, squatting is a criminal offense in Scotland. It is not and should never be seen as an alternative source of accommodation and is not up here. Don't see why it's seen as such in England.

Pretty insulting to suggest that because someone can afford to own a home but not live in it for whatever reason deserves to have someone squat in their property for free (usually trashing it).

[tyler80]

Tenants who have a tenancy agreement but have defaulted on the rent are not squatters in the eyes of the law.

To say that squatters rights have to be protected to ensure tenants in financial trouble cannot be removed immediately is incorrect.

[ZonkedOut]

My in laws had a house in Kent, which they couldn't afford to run and couldn't sell, do they rented out while they lived in Spain for a while (cheaper and warmer for health reasons).

Earlier this year, their tenants moved out and while they were looking for new tenants, squatters moved in. "Fortunately" they caused damage while breaking in, so the police could act and arrest them. They also treated the place really badly, it needed a lot of repairs and cleaning up which my in laws struggled to afford. And they stole quite a bit of stuff too, which my ILs will never see again.

The police said that if the squatters had changed the locks and made good the breaking and entering damage, it would have been a lot harder to get rid of them.

I don't understand the law either. Squatting should be illegal, it should be easier to get rid of squatters but there should also be more provision for homeless people who need shelter.