Squatting verses renting

MLM

With the downturn in the property market most sensible commentators are advising people to rent rather than buy, and to put the money they save towards a deposit, with the intention of purchasing a property once prices have reached reasonable levels. The obvious downside to renting is you have to pay out a considerable amount of "dead money".

Would a better alternative be to squat rather than rent? While at first such a suggestion would appear subversive and anti social, in the current climate it might be a beneficial arrangement for potential squatters, investors, and landlords.

Take the rise of the ghost estate/apartment complex. Having empty buildings that can't be sold or let, creates opportunities for lawlessness and dereliction. If they are occupied by responsible citizens, the potential for this happening is reduced. The property is maintained and the value of the property will not fall as fast.

The benefits for the squatters are obvious. They save on rent and can save for a deposit faster. This in turn increases potential buyers, and will benefit developers.

With up to 13% of property lying vacant in Ireland, is there a chance that squatting could become a viable alternative to renting?

preilly79

An interesting idea. However I just can't see property owners allowing people to live rent free in their properties no matter what the circumstances. Help the economy be-damned, they want their money.

Nice idea, would be nice if it could work!

murphym7

Nice idea comradski, don't think the capitalist pigs will let us though.

To move the idea along a bit, why couldn't the developers rent out these properties at a hugely discounted rate like €400 for a 3 bed house?

DamoKen

couldn't see it working to be honest. People tend to value something more if they own or are paying for it. If it's free then it's going to be valued less, lot more potential for damage, carelessness etc imho.
Even renting out a house runs the risk of damage by tenants (I should know, made that mistake once when I had to head off for a bit), however this is generally offset to a degree by rent paid plus deposit.

Maybe paying something like a 3 month deposit in advance with regular inspections of the property? Iron clad contract that sees money minus any wear and tear costs refunded?

dats_right

I think most property owners would rather let jimmy and jack live on the streets than to live rent free in their property. I don't accept that most property owners would view the risks of having "squatters" as outweighing any potential benefits, particularly as many landlord's don't even particularly like having paying tenants.

Squatters are unlikely to take any reasonable care of the property as they can upsticks at any time without any consequences, so if Jimmy and Jack after inviting some 'friends' around for some drinks and decided it was a little bit too chilly for their liking, and notwithstanding that there is no fireplace in the 1 year old apartment in some commuter town, decided to buy some briquettes in order to have a nice fire in the middle of the floor what could the landlord do? Answer very little becuase Jimmy and Jack have done a runner and left the property with thousands worth of damage and very little possibility of locating them.

OP's original idea, whilst not without any merit, will simply never catch on because a locked door and an alarm offer far more security than a couple of squatters ever will..

MLM

murphym7 wrote: »

To move the idea along a bit, why couldn't the developers rent out these properties at a hugely discounted rate like €400 for a 3 bed house?

Thats probably what eventually will happen.

DamoKen wrote: »

Maybe paying something like a 3 month deposit in advance with regular inspections of the property? Iron clad contract that sees money minus any wear and tear costs refunded?

This would be the most sensible way forward. Possibly some type of government scheme.

There are two factors that could cause squatting to become popular in the years ahead. The tenancy laws in this country offer little protection to tenants in comparison to other countries. Take for example the situation of a Licensee. A Licensee has no security of tenure whatsoever. The landlord does not have to maintain the Licensee's accommodation to a respectable standard.

Although I am not familiar with Irish law regarding squatting, it wouldn't surprise me if squatters have superior rights to Licensees and possibly other private tenants. AFAIK squatting is a civil matter and not a criminal matter as long as the property isn't damaged.

Secondly the amount of vacant property in the State is far higher than private rented accommodation. There is a serious oversupply of available potential accommodation. The prices we pay for rent are completely unsustainable. If the above factors are true, and were to become common knowledge, it would only take a small number of people thinking outside the box to completely decimate the Irish rental market.

loyatemu

a lot of the houses in these ghost estates are likely to be unfinished though - no flooring, curtains, possibly not plumbed. The developer is hardly likely to spend money fitting them out just to let someone live in them for nowt.

SkepticOne

Private property laws are much stronger here than in other countries like Britain. There has never been much of a squatting scene in Ireland for this reason.

I don't know what the situation is now in Britain, but in the past the owner of a property would have to show he had someone to move either to rent or sell or have some other use for a property before he could get a court order to have you evicted. Mere ownership would not be enough.

Some informal information here:
http://ireland.indymedia.org/article/69180

Obviously proper legal advice should be sought if you are planning to do anything like this in Ireland.

gurramok

The OP will start an avalanche , its a squatters paradise out there with the reputed 250,000+ empties.
Absentee landlords\owners better watch out

They need to squat in a property for 12 years to gain ownership of the property.

antoinolachtnai

Well there are two theories.

1. Marxist. The workers will take over these assets and make proper use of them by giving them to people who need them.

2. Market. The market will force owners to drop the prices until they can make a bargain with people who need to live in them ('the market').

Either way, the poor guy should win, right?

Wrong. The tragedy is that the houses for which there is the least demand are in the wrong places. They are not suitable for your average homeless person. There are no services in the area to meet their needs.

vibe666

murphym7 wrote: »

To move the idea along a bit, why couldn't the developers rent out these properties at a hugely discounted rate like €400 for a 3 bed house?

give it time and the rental value will drop enough that they might just have to do that anyway and call it 'market value'

The_Conductor

murphym7 wrote: »

Nice idea comradski, don't think the capitalist pigs will let us though.

To move the idea along a bit, why couldn't the developers rent out these properties at a hugely discounted rate like €400 for a 3 bed house?

Because it would no longer be considered a new house and any non-ftb purchasers would likely be subject to stamp duty. The property, further, becomes less attractive to a ftb- as its no longer got new appliances etc (unless they did a refit prior to selling)?

Victor

I don't t hink what you are describing properly fits the description of squatting. I really don't think it would work.

A property tax skewed in favour of households would though.