[Closed] Squatters' Rights or Squatters' Wrongs?

its not fair to squat in someone elses property
its not fair to keep a residential property vacant while people are homeless
life is not fair

I always thought that the situation in Englandandwales was a bit odd.

Can I use your bike when your not using it ?

(without asking you and without lubing the chain after and without giving it back)

My reason is Im too poor to buy a bike and your rich so I will have yours.

Moving up onto second base Behind Nicholas Van Wotsisface.....

[img] [/img]

[img] http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSTtz1kk-nadt9KgD7RgmYw557lyYJF7mCY0iizQ9AWwbfeqr_E [/img]
Anybody?

[b]binners[/b] - Member
Moving up onto second base Behind Nicholas Van Wotsisface.....

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Didnt he get sent down for doing something bad to squatters?

one more thing for the police to deal with before they get round to your stolen bike.

[i]Two wrongs don't make a right.[/i]

I'm struggling to see the second wrong. Some people have more things than other people, but it's not a justification for those without those things to just take or make use of those thngs without the permission of the owner.

[i]Can I use your bike when your not using it ?

(without asking you and without lubing the chain after and without giving it back)

My reason is Im too poor to buy a bike and your rich so I will have yours. [/i]

Exactly.

Tune in head all day now!

Same here Higgo!

"The master butcher of Leigh-on-Sea"

I think it's morally wrong to have an empty property when there are homeless people.

And I know life isn't that simple, but there you are.

There are far far worse tunes to have stuck there 😀

Back on topic, I'm with Hels. We've got a housing crisis. Millions of people on waiting lists for homes, yet thousands of empty properties all over the place. I know, say the government... shall we look for a solution? No! lets not! lets do what we always do and protect our friends right to make massive amounts of money, while punishing the poorest and most desperate in society

Hey ho! Another day in Tory Utopia

Pigface - Member

Didnt he get sent down for doing something bad to squatters?

No.

Didnt he get sent down for doing something bad to [s]squatters[/s] tenants?

I'm struggling to see the second wrong. Some people have more things than other people, but it's not a justification for those without those things to just take or make use of those thngs without the permission of the owner.

true but is criminalising the homeless without helping them with other options a good way for a society to move forward?

is it true that if your house is empty you pay no council tax or did I imagine that?

[i]is it true that if your house is empty you pay no council tax or did I imagine that? [/i][i]

exempt for up to six months

Thing is, there are already laws that can be used - criminal damage if the squatters break stuff, public order offences in other situations.

I wonder if, while they are looking at the issue of unoccupied houses, the government is going to do something about the scam of getting a company to buy the house and lend it to the owner, to avoid taxes? Of course not - the people who benefit from that scam are Tory donors.

There was a six-month exemption on council tax applied to my parents property after they died. Give that it takes longer than that to settle the estate - during which time the house remains empty - it seemed reasonable.

is it true that if your house is empty you pay no council tax or did I imagine that? [i]

exempt for up to six months

well that would seem like a good place for the coalition to start. oh and if the people who own it have died it would be harsh to charge I agree.

The trick of using an offshore company to buy your house for you costs the taxpayer £750M per year:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/26/one-hyde-park-council-tax

I wonder if anyone will ever be prosecuted under this law?

The problem with this debate is that anyone for the bill ends up sounding like Nicholas Van Hoogestraaten and anyone against it sounds like they should be selling Socialist Worker.

I'm completely a lefty liberal, but I don't see why squatting should be some sort of special case of allowable 'theft'.

Yes, there are homeless people and, yes, there are empty properties. However, those homeless people are obviously poor and most of us here probably have more money than we actually need to live on. Should those without money be allowed to help themselves to the contents of our bank accounts?

Should those without money be allowed to help themselves to the contents of our bank accounts?

Morally yes.

In principle squatting should be illegal. That doesn't let the government off the hook with regard to making appropriate housing available (although what is appropriate and who should be eligible is another debate). Just because the government hasn't housed someone though doesn't give them the right to go and occupy someone elses property, you're not supposed to take the law into your own hands in this country, it's one of the basic aspects of our society. If everyone started to do it how do you think the most vulnerable would fare?

Morally yes.

The problem isn't with the short term council tax exemptions given to properties above, its with long term exemptions given to empty properties, held by mortgage companies etc. after repossession, that they are under no pressure to sell or rent out - limit that exemption to, say, six months as well, and it would solve the problem, as the mortgage companies would be losing money by leaving them gathering dust.

In my job I've got 50 empty homes that I'm bringing back into use but it has taken a long time due to changes in gov policy and funding. I deal with continual break ins, metals thefts, drug needles and squatters. Most squatters aren't the type that take on a house and occupy in a pleasant way - they $h!t in a room up against the wall when there is no toilet and leave needles where kids or anyone could get spiked. They cause thousands of pounds of damage to feed heroin habits.

Some people are homeless for a reason - they have screwed society over for their own pleasure and selfishness and are now on the margins existing hand to mouth taking risks most would not even consider.

The cost of sorting out this sort of a mess in a property is totally out of proportion with what the squatters cash in. The copper stripped out from a central heating system and wiring may get them £60-100 in scrap if they are lucky. To put right the damage and replace the heating and electrics can be £10K.

If people are homeless for other reasons then society should help them, and we could probably easily afford to if we weren't spending quite so much time and money dealing with thieving gits.

Am I immoral for having an empty house? No I don't think it has anything to do with morals. But it is wrong and from a social perspective I can say that there is a lot of focus on empty homes presently with gov policy. It is a very emotive issue but the fact is empty homes are only a small part of this countries housing shortage.

It's perhaps worth being reminded of Britain's shortage of affordable housing scandal.

[url= http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/ban-rich-from-buying-second-investment-homes-in-central-london-says-libdem-hughes-8099272.html ]Ban rich from buying second investment homes in central London, says Lib-Dem Hughes[/url]

[i]Simon Hughes, MP for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, wants the Mayor to be given new powers to make parts of the capital “off-limits” to wealthy people who purchase investment properties and leave them sitting empty.

According to the research by think tank the Smith Institute, 60 per cent of new-build homes in central London are bought by foreign investors, many with no intention of living in them. [/i]

The only squatter I have [i]personally[/i] known was a quite seriously mentally ill woman. She ended up sleeping in a derelict flat in appalling conditions without electricity or water because she constantly fell out with the owners of B&B which the LA had placed her in.

She needed help rather than simply labelled as a criminally. That has been my only personal experience of squatters. I don't know how untypical that might be although I do know that a very high percentage of rough sleepers have mental health issues, and rough sleepers seem the most likely to end up as squatters to me.

The ability for anyone to occupy a privately owned house, without permission and for which the owner receives absolutely no remuneration and can't boot you out seems, to me anyway, to be a crazy notion.

If you need a roof over your head, there are other steps in the process before wandering the back door of someone else's house.

Many people who squat are not people who, through unfortunate circumstances outwith their control, find themselves in need of a roof over their head without any other option.

Many people exploit this bizarre legal "right" to their benefit (choosing a lifesyle which encompasses squatting, rather it being a last resort).

At the moment, my grandparents' home sits empty having recently been refurbished ready to be sold. If a homeless person wants assistance, my family will happily donate an amount which is appropriate to our circumstances. That doesn't include allowing him/her to take up protected residence in my grandparents' home, the sole asset they left to their children.

If less "needy" people were to take up residence, I would be beside myself with anger.

Fortunately we live in Scotland, so it's not an issue.

For those who are advocating squatters rights, I think many are blinded by the moral issue (which I can understand and actually agree with in principle) and the reality of the situation and the burden it places on many property owners.

Not all those who are affected by squatters are property millionaires in pin stripe suits, and not all those who squat actually need to.

Reforms to drug law and addiction treatment, please.
Fine the homeless? Great idea. 😐

The copper stripped out from a central heating system and wiring may get them £60-100 in scrap if they are lucky. To put right the damage and replace the heating and electrics can be £10K.

So why on earth aren't the police prosecuting for theft or criminal damage? That's the big question - there are crimes being committed which aren't being tackled and instead of sorting this the government just introduces new legislation.

Wonder if this will be extended to land in the future and not just buildings - that would be a can of worms.

Wonder if this will be extended to land in the future and not just buildings - that would be a can of worms.

Trespass?

It seems odd that England has a well established law of trespass existing alongside squatters rights, and in Scotland you have a right to roam but no ability to squat.

I know which sounds more sensible to me...

Tresspassing isn't a criminal offence though, is it?

Stayed in a squat when Ive been down to manchester before (cos I wanted to see how real people live!)

It was a decent enough house, it was fairly well kept and the people living in it seemed to look after it. It would have gone to waste otherwise. Cant see the problem really.

I made sure I daubed the walls with my shit before I left though.

Tresspassing isn't a criminal offence though, is it?

It is in some, limited, circumstances.

However the point was more about a remedy in law being available for unauthorised access to someone's land, yet no remedy if someone decides to live in your house 🙂

If I was fortunate enough to own another property and squatters moved in, I would not be relying on any law, civil or criminal, to get them out. We would have a very short conversation then they would leave whether they wanted to or not. 👿

I couldn't care less about morals. What is mine is mine, nobody else has a right to touch it without my permission.

So why on earth aren't the police prosecuting for theft or criminal damage?

Unless someone is seen causing damage then proving beyond reasonable doubt who did it is difficult.

If someone is squatting it is easy to prove. The sensible use of the new law though would be for a warning to be given to squatters and arrest and charge only to be used for anyone who refused to leave the property. Can't see a problem with that.

The problem with this debate is that anyone for the bill ends up sounding like Nicholas Van Hoogestraaten and anyone against it sounds like they should be selling Socialist Worker.

Only in the mind of a complete imbecile.

In principle squatting should be illegal. That doesn't let the government off the hook with regard to making appropriate housing available (although what is appropriate and who should be eligible is another debate). Just because the government hasn't housed someone though doesn't give them the right to go and occupy someone elses property, you're not supposed to take the law into your own hands in this country, it's one of the basic aspects of our society. If everyone started to do it how do you think the most vulnerable would fare?

indeed well put.

Franksinatra, swoon your so manly I think I love you xxx

Only in the mind of a complete imbecile.

Who, me?

Admittedly, despite early indications that it may turn into a pin-striped bankers vs hemp-smoking vegans rantfest, this thread had turned out far more moderate than I anticipated

The sensible use of the new law though would be for a warning to be given to squatters and arrest and charge only to be used for anyone who refused to leave the property. Can't see a problem with that.

I've read/heard a lot of press quotes from pro-squatters groups who are using examples of families who have resided in the same building for 8 years being thrown onto the street.

However, I think the reality of this new law is that those squatters will be largely unaffected. If someone has been peacefully residing in an empty building for years, it seems unlikely that the owner will be phoning the police today so that the squatters are fined.

This new law will be more useful where there is an imbalance in the situation (e.g. the home owner and squatters aren't both content) and the home owner wants the squatters moved on (which, in any sane world, they should be entitled to request).

Even if you wholeheartedly believe that people should have the right to squat, you must surely also believe that those who own the homes should have the right to request that the squatters leave a property?

The law as it was prior to today, did not adequately protect home owners.

this thread had turned out far more moderate than I anticipated

Its the New STWorld Order 🙂

Nice to have a discussion about a emotive topic and not have a handful of people swing their arms around wildly and shouting non stop!

franksinatra - Member

We would have a very short conversation then they would leave whether they wanted to or not.

Whether they wanted to or not ?

I bet they would want to - after having "a very short conversation" with you.

I can just tell.

I actually think the whole situation is a bit unfortunate.

I'm sure in many circumstance, more considerate squatters will occupy a building which is truly vacant (in that no one has any desire to inhabit it or sell it) and is not being properly maintained. In those circumstances, a squatter who looks after the building is probably doing the owner a favour and both parties benefit.

However, media coverage in recent years of middle class hippies in London who decided to exploit the right to inhabit buildings which most certainly couldn't be described as abandoned, brought attention to the whole squatting issue.

Britain (or the voting majority in the Daily Mail loon house anyway) became fixated on the notion that all squatters seemed to be taking over £10m houses and having bohemian parties.

So the new law is a "one size fits all" and will no doubt have some "unjust" consequences in the eyes of some. I'd have thought a fast-track court procedure for eviction would have been more appropriate so that people who really didn't want squatters had the abiltiy to regain use of their property.

What is mine is mine, nobody else has a right to touch it without my permissioin

Can I touch your winky? I can even paint my nails if it helps?

When I was a young un plastering away in "that London" I worked in a house that a family had squatted in and renovated until the council had given it to them.They had squatted as they had a young un and the emergency housing in South London at that point was apparently a wee bit red of tooth and claw to raise a child in.Really nice couple,other than pooing on their own walls.
If it becomes against the law, how on earth are the courts going to track down the evicted squatters? "Case 10878, Tooting council v Scrumpy Pete." Damn; he's not turned up!
Much more civilised up here as PF said.

If it becomes against the law, how on earth are the courts going to track down the evicted squatters? "Case 10878, Tooting council v Scrumpy Pete." Damn; he's not turned up!

exactly

A-A; Now the Welsh are in it; are you going to start a Premiership thread? Or will you wait for loverboy to recover? 😈

If it becomes against the law, how on earth are the courts going to track down the evicted squatters? "Case 10878, Tooting council v Scrumpy Pete." Damn; he's not turned up!

Doesn't really matter. The owner is back in their house. As for prosecuting someone with no fixed abode? Only needed if someone chooses to be arrested rather than leave a house. If arrested and if no address is available to serve paperwork they would need to be taken to court the next day where they would likely be bailed to appear at a future date. If they failed to appear the court could issue a warrant.

What was wrong with eviction?

"criminalising the homeless"

Indeed. Tory idea of fairness that is.

What was wrong with eviction?

Very costly and time consuming process for the home owner.

"criminalising the homeless"

Indeed. Tory idea of fairness that is.

That's like saying laws against prostitution criminalise women. They don't, only those women who choose to engage in prostitution.

The homeless are not forced to take up residency in someone's private home. This law offers a protection to home owners which was not previously afforded to them.

Depends on your definition of 'choice', also it's not against the law to be a prostitute.

lets say someone occupies a house that has been empty for years,
where the owner has died leaving no heirs or debt,
lets say its a semi or a terraced house and the roof is leaking,
the walls are beginning to have structural damage and said person fixes and maintains the property,
gets rid of the rats living there and generally makes it presentable- to the point where the property prices of the neighbours houses are no longer affected detrimentally by the derelict house on the street.
how would this law sit with them?
what happens to the property after they have been removed?
this may sound far fetched but i know of two similar examples of this locally to me.
genuinely interested what you lot think as i am a bearded freak who once owned a kaftan 🙂

-going out now but will check back in later while drunk 😉

I was listening to a discussion on Radio 2 about this earlier.
The lady who was argueing on behlf of squatters claimed she couldn't afford the rent on a central London pad as her work as a 'self employed performance poet' paid inconsistant wages, so she had no choice but to squat, well fancy that. Get a proper job then you sponging hippy!!!!

The law as it was prior to today, did not adequately protect home owners.

Something needed to change to help the homeowners/occupiers that had lost their homes to squatters whilst out, on holiday, or in hospital, or similar.
But some perspective needs to be retained - those high profile cases in the news are shocking but are a tiny minority. In London alone, there's 40,000 long-term (6 months plus) empty homes, and the majority of squatting involves these sort of properties.
The law change criminalises the homeless, when what was really needed was a cheap, effective, fast-track eviction process through the civil courts.

its very telling that everyone is talking about london. wales is governed by these laws too. but then if we are too far from london to host the mtb in the BRITISH Olympics (London 2012?) i guess we just dont matter......maybe its time for broken ENGLAND to stop including us in their equations... (told you i would come back when i was drunk ha ha)

Jonah, I think London has dropped a few big hints, are you only just getting it? It wouldn't be British to chuck you out, we are just being a bit off with you until you decide to leave..

Looks like they are offering up to 6 months transitional accommodation if they prosecute.....

Like most laws it will probably be applied with a fair bit of common sense. Warnings, Cautions Promise of a trip to court, Police Taxi to Court.

Yes unoccupied property is a problem. Council tax exemption is generally only for 6 months if completely empty and trying to sell.

Perhaps this money that will be raised selling off expensive council houses when people move on could be used to buy the empty houses from people semi comp purchase - empty for 6 months local authority can buy at market rate less 10%??

I'm sure some people squat and look after the place would be nice if they paid rent.

More attacks on those who've got nowt----- suppose the rich just looking after 'their' interests, ----

i know , lets have all the 'nice' council houses for the needy rich, and the unwanted/unfit/unsold can be used for the poor!

This stuff about someone going on holiday and coming back to find squatters is a massive red herring IMO - not saying it never happens but i bet its comparitively very rare. This is pretty obviously for the benefit of property investors. And yes having huge portfolios of empty properties while people struggle to find housing is immoral, however you want to dress it up or rationalise it.

Standard Tory policy of picking on the poor for the benefit of the rich (see cutting benefits for the poor and disabled and blaming them for the deficit, while cutting taxes for the highest earners and doing nothing about tax evasion.)

Does anyone really believe the provision for homeless people in London is in any way sufficient?

This thread was going so well until these last two posts, looks like those wanting a proper discussion need to move away from the thread and let the holier than thou brigade rant 🙄

So you start insulting people for offering their honest opinion (which you don't like because you don't agree), but it's other people lowering the tone of the thread? Hmmmmm.....

Sorry but stuff like this is going to help a limited number of people, and make life miserable/difficult for a whole lot more. I don't think that's a good thing. There's some stuff in this thread that's pretty offensive TBH, but I haven't called anyone out on it or started talking about 'The Daily Mail brigade' (which would possibly be quite apt for some in here).

Stumpyjon - wasnt it you a while ago admitting you voted Tory but felt uncomfortable with many of their policies targeting the poor/vulnerable? Could be thinking of someone else.

Provide a safe and legal alternative to squatting first.

So you start insulting people for offering their honest opinion (which you don't like because you don't agree), but it's other people lowering the tone of the thread? Hmmmmm.....

+1

stumpyjon - Member
This thread was going so well until these last two posts, looks like those wanting a proper discussion need to move away from the thread and let the holier than thou brigade rant

--so discerning voices are not to be heard then, lest they spoil the consensus of smugness that pervades this thread

Would you be happy if you found somebody squatting in your property?

And why would somebody leave a property empty? Surely you need rent coming in to make money?

AIUI here in Denmark if you leave a property unoccupied beyond a certain period of time the local council have the right to let it out to someone. Something along those lines seems a better idea than just getting Plod to stick the boot in on homeless people to the benefit of property speculators.