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.

Am impressed by your Disney v. Tesco knowledge. It's like one of those discussions boys have about who would win in a fight.

I always think, fondly, of Walt turning in his grave at Disney now producing stuff such as Pirates of the Caribbean where the hero is a coward who swears...

I went for a job at Tesco a few years ago. Our tongues were hanging out at the deal even if it was in fucking Cheshunt. She told me all she knew. Pfft.

TBH I've never really forgiven her.

Disney are scary in many ways, but one of the perks of my job is being offered press screenings so I tend not to go into a rant about McCarthyism...

Ooh. perhaps we can meet?

limited, are you by any chance going to a screening of the new Tim Burton Frankenweenie at the end of Sept? (That sounds like an attack on his masculinity...)

Have a vague idea we may have met previously - were you there at the Willetts interview?

PM me if you'd like to catch up!

Because broadly speaking, squatting is theft. The law as it stood permitted theft on a large scale with no legal protection for the owner of the property.

Narrowly speaking, squatting is not theft. That's not my opinion, that's the law.

To prove theft you have to prove an intention to permanently deprive someone of their property.

You cannot prove that.

You can, however, remove the squatter from the premises on the grounds that their occupation of the property is unlawful.

That's called legal protection for the owner and it's been happening for years.

Interestng that theft is permanently deprive someone of their property. Does this mean that if I borrow my neighbur's car for the , intending to give it back at some point, it is not theft? Or if a child takes my son's Ipod on a school trip, and when caught, explaine that he intended t give backa few days later , that is not theft?

The woman brought in by the beeb to speak for squatters claimed to be a teacher, escaping from an abusive relationship. How about getting a room in a shared house- there are plenty available and at a cost low enough to afford on a teacher's salary - unless she prefers to spend her money on something other than rent, of course...

mrsGuy if you could give a plausible explanation that you intended to give the car or the ipod back, then it's not theft. It's up the police whether to believe you and the CPS to decide whether there's a reasonable chance of a conviction or whether a prosecution is in the public interest.

I don't know exactly why the police don't charge squatters with theft. I suppose it's impossible to prove that was their intention. They haven't hidden the property and as long as they don't pose as the owner and try to sell it or raise money with it I guess they're not guilty of fraud either. But I don't know for sure.

But I can see why the police don't want to go there unless they have solid proof that the squatter is committing the criminal offence of depriving you of your primary residence or they have a court order.

The teacher's excuse for squatting isn't relevant to the question of removing her from someone else's property though it may be relevant to an argument for providing cheaper housing.

I was thinking about this last night and it occurred to me that lots of people park on private land and try to wriggle out of fines if they get caught. The same papers that get angry about squatters actually campaign for selfish parkers to be let off.

Obviously if a clamper threatens you or breaks the law in some other way he should be stopped.

But there's no difference between someone's car squatting on private land or people occupying someone else's house without their permission.

So long overdue. To the poster who asked whether this was actually a problem for ordinary people - yes it is! We currently live abroad but have kept our house in UK which we rent out to pay the mortgage - we're not career landlords but those are the circumstances we find ourselves in. Well we had about 2 weeks between tenant and we got squatted. I can't tell you how invaded and vulnerable this made us feel. We were very lucky that they didn't do too much damage (though they did some) and that they were discovered reasonably quickly and they made the mistake of leaving the property so we were able to get them out but without that luck we could have had a really long protracted fight to get them out and we would have lost our new tenants.

Squatters would have you believe that they are only squatting in places that are unused - this is just not true, and while I don't like buildings sitting empty, the fact remains that the squatters have no right to be there - if you own a property and you want to leave it to rot, well that is your right! I am so happy they have finally done something about this antiquated law.

Watching some of the interviews in the media, I am staggered by how poorly the squatters come across anyway. They really are something else; with their attempts to 'justify' invading someone elses property.
They are always part of some really vibrant and creative collective, they are always a really lovely people, they are always just "caretaking" some unloved old building... Yeah right. Like there aren't other interesting creative people out there who just get on and pay their own rent or mortgage!

Its really quite hilarious. If you genuinely think you shouldn't have to abide by the usual rules of respect for others and their property, at least have the intelligence to try to put together a better argument as to why.

The extension of this law will serve only to protect the interests of the individuals or companies who own, and fail to use, unoccupied empty residential properties, often as investments, and often in expensive areas, such as most of London. These people are speculators. They are pushing up the price of property to the point where normal people cannot afford to either rent or buy in these areas. The fear of having these empty properties squatted must have been some kind of disincentive to this kind of property speculation, but now even that has been removed by their Tory chums.

As for the clever propaganda that people are in danger of having their homes squatted while out at the shops, I think that's already been exploded by posters upthread, but I'll reiterate: It's already illegal.

And, FWIW, I used to squat while a teenager / at university, and we would never ever have dreamed of squatting a property with someone living in it! Morals aside, we'd have been out in 5 minutes!

I think I'm past the age of squatting now, but I really worry about young people, especially those in a vulnerable situation. I knew so many kids who'd "slipped through the cracks" who had found a safe haven in squats.

i think it is a good thing the law is being changed. i have read stories of people moving into someone's house and then you cannot get them out easily. the police won't help

i read one story a while back where an elderly bloke (think he lived in brighton) may have been away overnight (hospital?) and people did squat. pretty awful

if you broke into your own hous to reclaim it back, you would be breaking the law. how can this be right?

shanger that was me. I don't believe that people have the right to squat or use any property without the owner's permission.

But I believe cases like yours are a civil, not a criminal matter. It's not an emergency and it's not a threat to public order or a major threat to society's values like some non-violent crimes involving property or the course of justice.

Neither should someone be able to call the police every time someone owes them money, parks on their land, or has a picnic or sunbathes or stages a peaceful vigil or demonstration, builds an extension next door without permission etc.

Maybe you do think all those should be police matters or just some of them. But if you do how do you propose to pay for them? The Government is in the process of restricting legal aid to cut the deficit. Do you think your wish to get squatters out of your property is more valid else's desire to get free legal representation in a divorce when her husband might have hidden all their money or someone who wants to dispute a will but can't afford to pay for a lawyer to get what's rightfully theirs?

In the event of a divorce I'd want to Government to come down on my side not yours because I don't have another house to rent out. It's very selfish of me, isn't it?

Luckily for you, the Government do think your case is worthy for reasons I've already guessed at upthread. I still don't think it's a sensible and equitable way of cutting the deficit and managing expensive police and court time.

'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? '

They move people on very quickly. People know it's illegal and if they don't move on they'll be lifted.

stubborn I thought I was on my own there

I've never squatted. I own my house but am not afraid of squatters because if they did come here while I was out I could call the police to eject them the same day because as I keep saying it's been a criminal offence to squat in a primary residence since 1977.

However, I live in Central London and I agree with you that the biggest menace to my local area are property speculators especially those from abroad looking to get their money out of their countries.

They inflate property prices beyond the reach of ordinary people (there are still some of us about) and leave places empty so some streets are soulless and becoming unsafe.

They are the ones shitting on their neighbours.

There are at least four properties in my street that are empty either some or all of the time. That's not my idea of a community.

I would prefer squatters next door, as long as they were peaceable, rather than an empty house that's damaging mine through being unheated all year. The burglar alarm wouldn't go off all night either. Plus when the nights start drawing in it'll get a bit threatening living in a street that's so deserted.

I agree with you that this law has been altered to take care of these people while being trumpeted as a victory for little people most of whom enjoyed protection from squatters all along.

Yes indeed, limited. I squatted for several years, and can't recall an instance of squatting a property belonging to a private individual. They all belonged to either councils (and I do actually really hope there aren't any empty council houses still around- FGS are they ever needed!!), or to government bodies or corporations, often quite shady ones (the Bank of Credit and Commerce International at Marble Arch was quite a feather in our caps!).

Some rather clueless sounding Tory on the radio today said that he thought there were 12- 50,000 squatters in the UK but "wasn't sure". Well, that'll bump the housing benefit bill up a bit when they all get turfed out won't it?

I think it's wrong to enter someone else's property, occupied or not, and live there without their permission. And I don't agree with the notion that squatting should be allowed because housing's too expensive.

I do however think that government / local councils should take more steps to bring empty unused homes back into circulation. I saw a programme called Britains Empty Homes a while back ? they showed council employed empty property officers working on getting empty properties back into use. Councils putting more effort into this kind of thing would hopefully ease the housing shortages that make squatting seem attractive.

And while I'm aware that squatting in someone else's primary residence was already a criminal offence, alarmist stories I've read (the "I came back from corner shop / holiday / hospital and someone was squatting in my home" type) would suggest that this was poorly understood by a lot of people, including the police in some cases - perhaps because just about everyone's heard of all the claims by squatters stating that squatting was a civil, not a criminal, matter.

I breathed a sigh of relief when I heard this yesterday. At LAST the law is on the landowners side. Must be a first!

Limited I do take your point that not everything can be a police matter. But having someone trespassing and blocking you out of your property is very different from a contract dispute, divorce or an unauthorised extension. The process to get the squatters out previous to this law change was massively long winded and basically seemed to err on the side of the squatters until you got an eviction order and then you might have got some police help to get them out if they didn't comply. There is never any question of who is right and who is wrong - the squatters have no right to be there - so it's crazy to have to go through the long winded process - much more efficient to have a bit of police help up front and then not have to go through the whole legal process.

I think there is a fine line between criminal and civil but in a case where there is so clearly a right and wrong, as opposed to eg a divorce, which is very personal and not so clean cut, I personally think it should be criminal and am very happy that it now is!

As for it being the big bag corporations pushing property prices up by having buildings lie empty - well firstly, that's their right if they want to (because the UK is not a communist country - thank goodness!) but also completely unfounded - an empty house is doing noone any good so who would gain by leaving them empty deliberately? Also, it's not just faceless corporations leaving whole streets empty for decades who are affected by squatters - ours was/is our family home but not our primary residence at the moment. It was empty for less than two weeks while we waited for the new tenants to move in. There are already other incentives for property not to be left empty (I can't find the refs now but I believe that each council has their own scheme from the encouraging to the ability to forcibly tenant) nevermind the fact that it's not making them any money. squatters shouldn't have the right to live free of charge for long periods of time when everyone else has to pay rent IMHO.

totally agree with you Shangers. it seemed that the law was on the squatters side and the police wouldn't help get them out, even though they were trespassing.

plus if you can't get in your own home, it must be very difficult to lay your hands on paperwork etc but even if you prove you own it, it still seems like you have to go to court.

i would have more sympathy if the squatters didn't vandalise peoples' homes but when they start ripping out things and putting peoples' stuff out in the garden then it is absolutely awful.

Thank you, Limited and Stubborn (and others on this thread) who have made your cases so clearly.

I heard a man on the radio yesterday say that in 1949 (I think) the government made people pay a weekly fine (? - I wasn't listening very carefully) if they owned empty houses for more than a couple of weeks at a time when so many people were homeless due to the bombs.

I think that's a good idea.

Btw I squatted in Cambridge in the late 1970s, along with a lot of other people. We were protesting at the proposed demolition of whole streets of perfectly habitable houses in order to build a shopping centre. We lost. If local councils had not done that in the 70s, we'd have more housing now, and we mustn't keep repeating the mistakes of the past.

And I had my daughter with me. Under the proposed new law, I would have been put in prison, I suppose. Ridiculous! What would have happened of course is that I wouldn't have felt able to protest against the development. I wonder if the govt just doesn't like the politically subversive nature of squatting? You can't keep tabs on squatters - but then they are not likely to be registered to vote, either.

Joins hands with solo and stubborn at the utter waste of public money and cynical manipulation of public interests for minority interests of this move.