Squatters Law

[giraffesCantGoBackToSchool]

In England and Wales is set to become clear so easier to get squatters out.

People on BBC opposing it - how can you oppose it when peoples houses are occupied by squatters and they can't get back in?

Not something I know a lot about - I am prepared to chance my veiws so feel free to educate me. I am in Scotland and we have different rules.

Very few squatters move in to buildings that are being used. The toleration of squatting came about because there was a lot of pressure on housing and a lot of unused buildings. It seemed outrageous to turf people out onto the street in order to have a building stand empty.

Now more people are property owners they are more concerned by the idea their property could become unusable, so that toleration is waning.

The squatter the Beeb got to defend it was awful imo - saying people would die if they couldn't squat as if that were the only two possible outcomes.

I think there's a lot to be said for squatting genuinely abandoned buildings, and the new law doesn't accommodate that. But I do agree that squatting properties which are clearly temporarily unused (e.g. Long holidays) should be a criminal offence, and there should be accountability for any damage to the building while squatters are there.

The new law was needed, but has gone too far in the other direction.

In my area there are loads of old buildings that have been empty for decades (literally)
Makes me when you go down town and see people sleeping in doorways in the rain
Why shouldn't they use these types of buildings?
(not people's houses that have just gone away for a few weeks obv.)

Does this only apply to buildings or does it apply to land too question entirely unconnected to neighbouring field having been taken over by travellers during the Bank Holiday

There have been cases in the papers (not the daily mail either) of squatters moving in when people were living in the house. One woman went out for the day and came back to find a family living in her house. They trashed the place for three days before the police managed to get them out. I suppose they are the cases of genuine need and cases of people just helping themselves because they can.

There aRe so many empty buildings around. I read about an agency that gets people to 'sit' empty property (not just residential - there was an old fire station in Marylebone that was 'sat') for owners to deter squatting. They didn't pay rent but had to secure the property and pay utility bills.

I wonder how much of a problem this is for ordinary people?

Housing minister Grant Shapps is desperate to make it appear that hordes of crusties are going to invade your home the minute you've popped down the shops.

He said, in a semi-literate statement:

What it means, the event of stepping over the threshold of your house, going into your house when you go away for the weekend or whatever?when they walk into your house, the moment they walk in with the intention of squatting, that is when they commit the criminal offence,?

However, the police have the power to forcibly eject people who are squatting in your main residence.

They will remove people squatting under those circumstances, though not many squatters will move in to such a house because they know the law too.

There was a case a couple of years ago where squatters got the wrong address. They were out of that house the minute they found out their mistake because it's a criminal offence.

If the police claim it is a civil offence and they can't do anything, they just need reminding of the law.

As Housing Minister, Shapps ought to know the law too. I suspect he does but enjoys stirring up panic and favourable headlines.

I hold no particular brief for squatters, it's just that cases like Dale Farm aside, they're not that much of a problem for most people.

Mostly, the highly-organised groups of squatters we hear about see are occupying property which lies empty for a long period of time.

It's wrong to do that. Someone owns it and they deserve to have it back. It's also harsh if it costs them a lot of time and money but it also occurs to me that if you're prepared to leave a property empty for months or years, time isn't your priority. Property speculation is and there is a remedy.

Lots of things are civil offences. It's because it's expensive to clutter up the criminal justice system with things that aren't a problem for most people.

Let's leave the criminal courts for things that are.

I think this is overdue. The argument that because something has been sat around unused by the owner for a long time means they have no rights over what happens to it is simply ridiculous. If a car is sat on a driveway for a long time unused, it's still theft if someone uses it without the owner's permission.

Squatters seem to love victim blaming in that because a property was vacant and not secured enough then they have a right to move in. NO regards to the turmoil they cause to innocent victims.

If people need housing then local authorities have an obligation to provide them at least B&B, so those who squat are just the, think they are hip to be cool bunch who all wear the same uniform and claim to have elected to drop out of society yet leach of it at every posibility.

Long overdue! Criminal offense in Scotland and people can be moved on asap.

'I wonder how much of a problem this is for ordinary people?' A big one if it happens to you.

It's not your property, you don't have permission to occupy it, so you should not!

I don't know whether you know expat but it's a criminal offence in England too if the property is your primary residence.

In those circumstances the police can remove squatters immediately. If for some reason they refer you to the civil courts you just have to remind them of the law.

It would be a better use of Government time and money if they reminded the English police of this - but I'm not sure many police forces and squatters are unaware. Hence the reason why it is quite rare for primary residences to be squatted.

The last time it got the papers' attention the squatters realised their mistake and cleared off. They'd got the wrong house.

I'm not saying they're nice people. I'm just saying the Government is scaremongering yet again when they ought to be concentrating on bigger problems that affect far more people like the dire state of the economy and what they're going to do about it, for instance.

It's not a big problem as most people have just the one residence and is a questionable use of the already overstretched police and criminal courts. That costs taxpayers' money and yet will benefit only a small number of those taxpayers.

I don't have any sympathy for people who do this no matter if it's someone's second property or not.

Long overdue IMO

I remember the squatted houses- huge empty Victorian villa's that had been compulsorily purchased by the DoT in the nineties along the then proposed M11 link in Wanstead. A whole group of artists got a special licence initially to squat them and stayed for quite some years. They had regular art exhibitions and events, formed a great community and used the houses as combined studio's and living. When the licence ran out and the MoT wanted to press on with demolition, that's when it got nasty, arms cemented into washing machines etc.

I was friendly with some of the squatters and whilst they did not want to leave, the people you saw causing the most 'issues' were activists who had never lived there, rather they acted as 'colonisers' of these kind of disputes and eventually their voices drowned out those of the people actually living there.

Why can we not press for more of these 'licences' to inhabit unoccupied premises? Disclaimers can be signed regarding liability.

Because the professionally outraged always would appear to think they were getting one over on the man. What do these folks do when they reach 30/35 if the guardian has not given them a job by then ??

Novack well I was a squatter when I was younger and I'm just the sort of person you are stereotyping. I live on a traveller site now. I'm self employed now thanks for asking and so is my partner. We work and pay tax. I still live an alternative lifestyle because I stand by my conviction that the mainstream of society isn't a perfect fit for everybody. There are loads of squats in nearby bristol mostly full of working people and artists. The kind of dog on a string crusty claiming sick benefit for their addictions that you characterize us all as is an endangered species. Living on site or in a squat nowadays is a lifestyle choice made for perfectly valid reasons. The 90s are over and its not an easy choice just a solution to the unavailability of decent housing for all. I will not raise my child on a sink estate full of crack heads.

The squatters who were my friends were all university or art school educated, some from overseas. They were bright, vibrant, creative people exploring different styles of living. None claimed benefits -they had a combination of part time jobs, earnings from their art and grants.

Good, about time to. My block of flats (Housing association, so not posh) are regularly squatted. It cost every tenant money. The caretaker spends alot of time dealing with them, and paying a share of the bills that they run up, electric, water etc. which ups our service charges. The squatters are usually very unsociable, loud music, parties, etc, safe in the knowledge that nothing can be done to them.
I will always hold a particular place of hatred in my heart as when my DS1 was 36 hours old the local squatters set their dog on my cat. She made it into the house barely alive, did you know a cat can rip their nails out when running for their life? They then brought another dog back a few hours later to 'Finish it off', she was safe inside by then. They where bragging to a friend on the phone, that's how we know what happened. DS1 was 6 months old when the squatters where finally evicted and I could finally bring my family back together.

Oh and by squatting my block of flats they are often stopping people who urgently need housing and have gone though the correct channels to get their newly refurbished home, but got squatted before completion.

Grants are benefits just by a different name

No grants/student loans are not benefits by another name when students are paying tax via earnings.

Student loans are not grants.

Maintenance grants come wrapped up in the application process for SLC support depending upon income. Not repayable but still not a benefit considering that universities are now means generating in themselves via research, student numbers and other economic activities. Students invest in their future and through that, the future of society. And, as already stated, most students these days work so are already NI/ tax payers and therefore paying their own way.

Don't be so jaundiced, Novack.

If they re working and having grants,couldn't they just rent a place like everyone else?

Not jaundiced in the slightest dear but if you want to use societies benefits like the healthcare system, schooling etc then abide by it's rules and theft is one of them whether that someone else's roof over your head or illegally on someone else's land.

Want to live an alternative lifestyle, fine. Pay for it yourself or get permission from the owner to do it.