[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.