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.

expat you are not entitled to break into someone's property and live there rent-free.

HTH just in case you were thinking of it. I wouldn't want you to get into trouble.

'HTH just in case you were thinking of it. I wouldn't want you to get into trouble.'

How would I get into trouble?

I agree with the new laws and think they're long overdue.

If you have permission from the owner to live there rent free then you're not squatting.

I'd not consider living someplace rent-free without permission from the owner because I think that's wrong and apparently, the law now agrees when it comes to residences.

I'm also in Scotland. Hence, the name.

Because you indicated you thought you were entitled to break in somewhere and live there rent-free and I was pointing out that it would be risky to do that as it's been a criminal offence in most circumstances in England and Wales since 1977 and against civil law in all other cases since I don't know when.

I'm worried whenever someone seems to misunderstand the law even though it's been clearly explained to them a number of times. Don't you also feel obliged to explain when someone is verging on a silly mistake?

You're on your own with the law in Scotland, but I take it that it's illegal there too.

Thanks for your definition of squatting. It's a bit redundant because as I understand it if someone gives you permission to do something to their own property it's okay to go ahead and do it.

But since you undoubtedly offered that explanation in the spirit of helpfulness I'm going to take it as such.

How on Earth did you jump to such a ridiculous conclusion? I wrote, 'I've been working poor most of my adult life and never thought that entitled me to break into someone's property and live there rent free,' and several other posts stating that I agree with the change in the law and from this you assumed I was going to squat somewhere? How odd.

Presumably the new law will act as a deterrent though? If it takes weeks to go through the courts, then it's still worth squatters breaking in. Not so much if they know they'll most likely be moved on in a couple of days. Plus end up with a criminal record.

Completely agree with those who say if you work/get grants, you should pay your way in the same way as anyone else. If the main plank of your alternative lifestyle is taking things for free that other people have to pay for, that's not much of a moral basis for your brave new world? (And hazel's comment about not wanting to bring up her family on a crack addled sink estate speaks volumes to me ...)

I know what you wrote expat. I was concerned that, whether you wanted to do it or not, you were under the impression that some people were legally entitled to break into other people's property.

That would be ridiculous because it's been against criminal and civil law for a number of years and for the most part people are breaking those laws intentionally.

That's why we don't need to extend criminal offences unless you enjoy spending taxpayers' money on things that already have a adequate remedies under either criminal and civil laws.

I think it's a long overdue change in the law. No one should have the right to break into an empty building and occupy it - even for one night. So what if it's empty? It's not theirs and therefore they shouldn't be living there. Their homelessness is not the fault of the building's owners.

And as for the 'performance poet' squatter who was on the radio this morning. I'm just sorry there isn't a 'snort of derision' icon available. Get a proper job FFS and be a performance poet in your spare time!

Oh, yes, BigRed, I've lived in such 'sink estates', working and paying rent! What an embarrassment to my inner artist and musician.

LOL at your patronising the pleb here, limited. I needed a laugh, here in my council flat.

I don't think you're a pleb expat. I grew up on a council estate, though I don't live on one any more. I don't think that's relevant btw but as you brought it up, those are my pleb credentials.

What I'm concerned about is that many people, you included, think this is a new law.

It's not. It's an extension of criminal offences that will turn out to be expensive and to the detriment of people who need the police and criminal courts to do more pressing things than taking care of the interests of absentee landlords who are already covered under civil law.

All occupied residential properties, whether owner-occupied or rented, are covered by the criminal law even if you leave them to go on holiday, a hospital stay or are waiting to move into them. That's just about every residential property in the UK.

Squatting in those properties has been a criminal offence since 1977 in England and Wales and the police can and will remove squatters.

If they need reminding of their legal obligations then that is the job of the Government and the only job that needs doing.

That leaves properties that aren't under permanent residential occupation. I have a great deal of sympathy for landlords in the event that unauthorised people move in, but the police and courts have enough to do, and their redress is in the civil courts.

We don't send the police round when people park illegally, walk, pitch a tent and a million-and-one other transgressions on private land because it's not a good use of resources.

I've no idea why this was trumpeted as a great leap forward today.

With my charitable hat on I'd think it was the Government searching for something sure to look good on the front of the papers.

With my cynical hat on I suspect they're softening us up for something that will help their friends and donors and divert scarce resources to it.

Resources to prosecute the anti-social bastards who infest streets whether council-owned or not...

'What I'm concerned about is that many people, you included, think this is a new law.'

I don't, please stop assuming we're all a bunch of ignoramuses who need to be instructed and shown the error of our ways and ways of thinking.

I completely agree with the change, and I have said 'change' over and over again in my posts, that criminalises squatting in unoccupied residenial properties regardless if they are primary, secondary or otherwise. I think it is wrong to inhabit any property without the consent of its owner. Ever.

It is the law up here already and there's no huge problem with the courts getting blocked up with such cases.

I did say 'new', once.

expat If you think it's a desperately-needed change that duplicates existing laws and you don't mind the diversion of resources to benefit relatively few people, then who am I to try to change your mind?

I also think it's wrong to squat in any property, residential or otherwise.

I don't understand why a lot of people here think it's okay to squat on commercial premises. That could lead to people losing their business and jobs and ultimately losing their homes. Squatting on occupied commercial premises is not that common though and generally has other motivations.

But we have different priorities when it comes to the use of resources when there are already legal remedies.

Expat, do you not think absentee landlords leaving perfectly habitable properties empty for years is any kind of a social issue? (genuine question, I'm not being inflammatory).

I lived in various squats in S. London in the 1980s when I left home aged 17 and had no money to pay commercial rent. Most of the people I shared with were medical students whose parents either couldn't afford to or wouldn't pay to support them. We lived in a couple of big houses in S. London that were owned by some kind of offshore company and left empty for years, and then in various (empty) council flats on the late-lamented Heygate Estate.

We never trashed them, we probably prevented them from decaying further than they would have done if empty. The cost of housing in the SE and in London is truly not manageable for many, many people, including many of those on benefits and the working poor. I don't have a problem with people who are in genuine need squatting properties that are empty because it's cheaper for some big company to leave them uninhabited than going to the trouble of renting them out. Obviously professional exploiters taking over houses that are being renovated and illegally renting them on to vulnerable people who have no idea what they're getting into is a whole different thing.

There have been some initiatives whereby empty properties can be reported to the local authority so they can put pressure on the landlord to bring them back into use, which seems like a good middle path to me. I do accept there are squatters who shamelessly take the piss, but the fact that there are habitable houses deliberately being kept empty while whole families are living in one room of a B&B is also a scandal, IMO.

That's beside the point, Ada. The solution is not to allow people to squat, IMO.

Again, in Scotland, it's a criminal matter and always has been, and the courts aren't overloaded because of it.

AuntAda my friend lived in a squat in Dalston in about 1985. Hackney Council turned a blind eye because they weren't interested or more accurately couldn't afford to repair and renovate a dilapidated five-storey house but didn't want to let it rot and be vandalised by junkies, drunks and bored teenagers.

I haven't been back there in 20 years but I imagine it's now probably in private hands and has been renovated at a value of roughly £2 million as a whole house or about £200,000 as flats per floor.

It was a beautiful house and worth saving. It would be nice to think that money went into social housing in one way or another.

My other friend was a junior doctor who lived in a HA flat off Jamaica Road. She was a model tenant too. Lots of people are. Can't remember the name of the estate. Was the Heygate near there?

in Scotland, it's a criminal matter and always has been, and the courts aren't overloaded because of it

Do you think the police and the Scottish equivalent of the CPS might be choosing not to prosecute because they have other things on their hands?

I don't think it is beside the point.

I think there is a strong moral dimension to allowing habitable homes to remain empty while people are homeless or in overcrowded accommodation. Pretty much the same principle as think it's scandalous that supermarkets destroy unsold but perfectly edible food when people are going hungry. Criminalising squatting is IMO not that different to criminalising people who take unwanted items from skips.

The merits of squatting a debate worth having, albeit probably terminally confused by the fact that some squatters are honest people in genuine need of accommodation and working to preserve the buildings they inhabit, whereas others are clearly chancers and vandals. But the principle remains that rich people/companies should not be allowed to perpetrate such blatant waste of planetary resources while other people are in need.

It's a long overdue change.

secretnutella in what way is it overdue?

Amen to that, AuntAda.

For instance, Tesco have spent more than a decade trying to build a supermarket in the nearest big city to me. Locals spent years fighting them off. Tesco bought a huge patch of the town and failed to get permission. There's a whole street full of houses that have been lying empty, getting increasingly dilapidated, for over ten years. This is in a city with extremely high house prices and high rents (fast commute to London and good schools). Those houses could have been homes for people in need of housing. Yet Tesco was happy to let them go to rack and ruin - they actually thought the worse they made the area, the more likely people would stop fighting against their applications.

In what world is this sensible? It's an outrage that good homes have gone to waste while people have been desperately waiting for accommodation.

they actually thought the worse they made the area, the more likely people would stop fighting against their applications

A friend who works for Disney, one of the most aggressive corporations in the world, admitted with awe and disgust that they got spanked in negotiations with Tesco.

Some people think having a Tesco is wonderful as opposed to having local shops.

I think they are more comfortable with the idea that anonymous large companies make money as opposed to small and medium-sized traders.