Squatting becomes a criminal offence in UK tomorrow, "Immediate crackdown"

Run_to_da_hills

Police are being urged to take advantage of new laws that will allow them to move in and arrest squatters.

I could see both sides to this, genuine homeless people move into a derelict or abandoned building owned by greedy banks such as unfinished / liquidated ghost complexes or people scrounging around looking for any opportunity to occupy vacant houses while their owners are off guard.

The latter no harm.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9510071/Police-must-move-in-and-arrest-squatters-says-Minister.html

Mr.Crinklewood

Will have to stand up when I poo.

Yeah, owning a house is greedy if it's a bank and a normal human right if it's a person

westendgirlie

About time the law was changed from Civil to Criminal. Squatters don't give a damn about damaging a house.

Many moons ago I went to a house party in an art student area of South London. This beautiful 4 storey Georgian house was completely trashed. Original fireplaces ripped out, graffiti/art everywhere. But the worst thing I saw was walking up the stairs to the 2nd floor......They had knocked an entrance through the wall into the adjacent 4 storey Georgian house :eek:

I wonder how the squatters I encountered would feel now, 20+ yrs on about their own properties being trashed like above.

Lollipops23

westendgirlie wrote: »

About time the law was changed from Civil to Criminal. Squatters don't give a damn about damaging a house.

How anyone could do that is beyond me. I've never understand how squatters have rights, if you don't own a property you can't go in, simples.

BillyMitchel

Quickly glanced at that the title and read it as squirting has .... I was like WTF is this

smash

westendgirlie wrote: »

I wonder how the squatters I encountered would feel now, 20+ yrs on about their own properties being trashed like above.

They're probably still squatting somewhere else if they were art students.

Biodegradable Bellend

This is a change in the law to facilitate the interests of banks ie. repossessed properties. Now the banks don't have to pay private security to mind their "investments" the state takes on the role, taxpayer foots the bill. If this was being done with the common interest of all property owners, it would have been done long ago.

Eventually anything which conflicts with the interests of big business will be criminalized.

smash

Biodegradable Bellend wrote: »

This is a change in the law to facilitate the interests of banks

I would be of the opinion that it's a change in the law so free loaders can't free load any more!

Run_to_da_hills

Biodegradable Bellend wrote: »

This is a change in the law to facilitate the interests of banks ie. repossessed properties. Now the banks don't have to pay private security to mind their "investments" the state takes on the role, taxpayer foots the bill. If this was being done with the common interest of all property owners, it would have been done long ago.

Eventually anything which conflicts with the interests of big business will be criminalized.

That's the way I see it.

They are preparing for the big financial crash.

Biodegradable Bellend

smash wrote: »

I would be of the opinion that it's a change in the law so free loaders can't free load any more!

Biodegradable Bellend wrote: »

If this was being done with the common interest of all property owners, it would have been done long ago.

If you really believe that this change in the law isn't at the behest of the banks, whose directors probably frequent the same gentlemen's clubs as government ministers, that's fair enough.

smash

Biodegradable Bellend wrote: »

If you really believe that this change in the law isn't at the behest of the banks, whose directors probably frequent the same gentlemen's clubs as government ministers, that's fair enough.

Bank owns a property, squatters trash that property... Of course they shouldn't be allowed stay there and have rights.

If it was your property and not the banks, would you have a problem with them trashing it and having rights to stay there?

vard

Derelict buildings cost huge amounts of money to maintain. They are still liable to multitudes of costs and taxes; just because they're derelict doesn't mean they are owned by banks.

Squatters move in and essentially have their accommodation paid for. They cause damage and the owner has to pay the upkeep as enforced by councils.

A family member has been run into the ground because of damage and theft caused by squatters to a property he had bought. He went bust and couldn't keep up with the costs. The squatters remain and now the property is owned by a bank, so I guess you think they should still be allowed to stay there free of charge?

westendgirlie

Biodegradable Bellend wrote: »

This is a change in the law to facilitate the interests of banks ie. repossessed properties. Now the banks don't have to pay private security to mind their "investments" the state takes on the role, taxpayer foots the bill. If this was being done with the common interest of all property owners, it would have been done long ago.

Eventually anything which conflicts with the interests of big business will be criminalized.

Are you saying that Mr Joe Public's home is not covered by this new law?

Sykk

Squatters rights is about a ridiculous a law as not being able to defend your property using lethal force if necessary

Biodegradable Bellend

smash wrote: »

Bank owns a property, squatters trash that property... Of course they shouldn't be allowed stay there and have rights.

If it was your property and not the banks, would you have a problem with them trashing it and having rights to stay there?

Sorry, I didn't point out that I am not if favour of squatters taking over properties. Squatting is wrong....but, if someone is losing their home to a bank or financial institution, and are about to be thrown out on the street, decides to squat. I'd say they were right. I mean what's the worst can happen to them at that stage? Oh yeah, now they'd be branded as criminals. F*ck the banks.

pickarooney

westendgirlie wrote: »

Are you saying that Mr Joe Public's home is not covered by this new law?

If someone tries to move into Mr. Joe Public's home it's breaking and entering which is already a serious criminal offence.

Sykk

Biodegradable Bellend wrote: »

Sorry, I didn't point out that I am not if favour of squatters taking over properties. Squatting is wrong....but, if someone is losing their home to a bank or financial institution, and are about to be thrown out on the street, decides to squat. I'd say they were right. I mean what's the worst can happen to them at that stage? Oh yeah, now they'd be branded as criminals. F*ck the banks.

Fitting username :pac:

partyatmygaff

I never understood squatter's rights. Why should some freeloader who invaded and occupied a property have any rights? It's akin to stealing someone's car and saying "I've had the car for a year now, I have more right to it than the person who paid for it".

Whether a bank or private individual owns the property shouldn't make a difference. A bank is a business like any other and their assets are their own, not the general public's.

gurramok

Does it include land ownership? If I bring my caravan onto someone's land and camp there for x amount of years, will I have squatter rights? In Ireland you do, but in the UK?

Biodegradable Bellend

vard wrote: »

so I guess you think they should still be allowed to stay there free of charge?

My later post makes it clear that I'm not defending squatters.

westendgirlie wrote: »

Are you saying that Mr Joe Public's home is not covered by this new law?

Maybe you could highlight and quote the part of my post that gave you that impression.

Mr. Joe Public's home is going to be covered of course. Couldn't do it for the banks and not look after Joe. Just happens that Joe (for once) will benefit from something that was primarily designed in the interests of the banks. That is of course, unless Joe's house is the one being repossessed.

pickarooney

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I never understood squatter's rights. Why should some freeloader who invaded and occupied a property have any rights? It's akin to stealing someone's car and saying "I've had the car for a year now, I have more right to it than the person who paid for it".

I don't know much about squatter's rights in the UK but presumably the property has to be unoccupied for a certain length of time and not have planning permission approved for redevelopment for them to apply? It would be more like you abandoning a car for a couple of years and someone using it until you sold it and took it back (although imagine the state of it).

In Holland (although again the laws might have changed since I lived there) there was a more pragmatic approach to ownership and residency, as there is to most things there, in that it's less onerous to the general public to allow people who would be otherwise homeless to squat in unused buildings than to supply accommodation on the public penny.

Whether a bank or private individual owns the property shouldn't make a difference. A bank is a business like any other and their assets are their own, not the general public's.

A lot of people would argue that since the public is forced to subsidise the banks that the reverse should apply.

Biodegradable Bellend

Sykk wrote: »

Fitting username :pac:

I'm disappointed that the only time you chose to engage with me was to be abusive.

cloud493

I think the squatter only has rights if they entered the house without forcing entry./ There was an issue a few years ago on my estate when I was in Liverpool, family up the road went on holiday and apparently, left their backdoor unlocked, when they came back 3 weeks later, their were people squatting in the house.

westendgirlie

pickarooney wrote: »

If someone tries to move into Mr. Joe Public's home it's breaking and entering which is already a serious criminal offence.

Not in the UK. If you leave your window just a little bit open, a squatter can go in and claim squatters rights. If they climbed through the window, ransacked the place then left again, that could be deemed breaking and entering.

You could head to Tesco for an hour and come back to find your house occupied and until now, it would be a civil matter. I doubt it would happen often but it does happen. These guys were only away 3 days http://www.standard.co.uk/news/squatters-demand-3000-from-family-to-leave-home-6473774.html

Fratton Fred

Biodegradable Bellend wrote: »

smash wrote: »

Bank owns a property, squatters trash that property... Of course they shouldn't be allowed stay there and have rights.
If it was your property and not the banks, would you have a problem with them trashing it and having rights to stay there?

Sorry, I didn't point out that I am not if favour of squatters taking over properties. Squatting is wrong....but, if someone is losing their home to a bank or financial institution, and are about to be thrown out on the street, decides to squat. I'd say they were right. I mean what's the worst can happen to them at that stage? Oh yeah, now they'd be branded as criminals. F*ck the banks.

So a wealthy oap couple in, for example, Killiney should be allowed to squat in the house they have been evicted from, regardless of whether or not they own dozens of other properties?

westendgirlie

westendgirlie wrote: »

Not in the UK. If you leave your window just a little bit open, a squatter can go in and claim squatters rights. If they climbed through the window, ransacked the place then left again, that could be deemed breaking and entering.

You could head to Tesco for an hour and come back to find your house occupied and until now, it would be a civil matter. I doubt it would happen often but it does happen. These guys were only away 3 days http://www.standard.co.uk/news/squatters-demand-3000-from-family-to-leave-home-6473774.html

And here I thought that simpsons episode was far fetched

Boombastic

New neighbours are squatting beside me for the last week. Ok I thought at first, give them the benefit of the doubt. In the last 4 days they have knocked in and asked for the following:

Charge their laptop x2
Chardge their phones x5
Do 3 loads of washing (I refused on the 4th)
Water
washing up liquid
Hoodies/boots
Screws
Candles
Knife
a country music CD
to write a letter to social welfare for them stating they're living there (I refused)
body lotion..that's all I can remember but there was more.


This morning I was asked again to charge mobile phones. I refused and told them that if they were going to be living in a caravan, they need to figure out a way of doing it themselves and being self sufficient. I was told 'oh we have a house and we'll be moving along in a few days, we'll be going back to the house can you not just do x,y,z',................ (I am sitting here waiting for the repercussions)

Why do some people think that they can use others property and invade their space?

smash

Biodegradable Bellend wrote: »

Sorry, I didn't point out that I am not if favour of squatters taking over properties. Squatting is wrong....but, if someone is losing their home to a bank or financial institution, and are about to be thrown out on the street, decides to squat.

You seem to be confused. You can't claim squatters right in your own property.

BBDBB

this is an interesting read, the whole site I mean, when you have a while to browse, how the squatters see things

http://www.squatter.org.uk/

smash

BBDBB wrote: »

this is an interesting read, the whole site I mean, when you have a while to browse, how the squatters see things

http://www.squatter.org.uk/

I don't want to increase their site traffic.

later12

westendgirlie wrote: »

Not in the UK. If you leave your window just a little bit open, a squatter can go in and claim squatters rights. If they climbed through the window, ransacked the place then left again, that could be deemed breaking and entering.

You could head to Tesco for an hour and come back to find your house occupied and until now, it would be a civil matter.

I don't think so.

Not according to legislation on the adverse occupation of residential premises under the the Criminal Law Act 1977.

The above might apply where a property was disused, but not where the owners had gone to the shops; it would be a criminal offence. I think it'smisleading to say that squatting was not a criminal offence prior to now. It depends how you're defining squatting.

Walking (peacefully) into someone's house when you know that they clearly had just left for a brief period has very much been a criminal offence in the UK.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/45/section/7

asherbassad

Lollipops23 wrote: »

How anyone could do that is beyond me. I've never understand how squatters have rights, if you don't own a property you can't go in, simples.

Therein lies the rub. Some people have a difficulty with agreeing with the concept of land ownership (the entire Native American peoples springs to mind, to them the concept of land ownership is as alien as owning the sky or the sun, but I digress).
Don't get me wrong as a property owner I'd be livid if I came home one day only to find a huge steel door had been installed at my apartment and there were squatters inside. I'd want the heavies around immediately. But you have to remember that squatters aren't crack-heads or thieves or drug dealers. They don't "target" peoples' homes for invasion. They move into what they deem legitimately abandoned properties. In Amsterdam I knew of a rundown canal-side warehouse that was rat infested and a regular shoot-up haunt for addicts. Squatters moved in and cleaned the place up and took up residence there. I went to an amateur play that they put on and was well impressed with what they had done to the place. The play was dull but that's besides the point. They had the upper section all painted and turned into little mini flats and they had plants and ornaments everywhere. There was about 15 of them living there. The neighbours preferred this than rats and junkies I can assure you.
People rail against squatters rights but they have no problem with Traveller's rights. I don't see the difference.
I hope I never have to squat but I think it's a very sacred and historical right of free people and abolishing it is one more step towards dismantling fundamental protections that the government and the rich wish to strip away in order to strengthen their position over the populace.

Incidentally, stripping away the rights we all have but few of us exercise is an ideal way of testing the waters for further restrictions that will affect more and more of us.

Don't be so quick to support the abolition of certain rights just because it doesn't affect you personally. And don't be so quick to lambaste and denigrate squatters out of misplaced fear that hoards of them are waiting in the wings for the right moment to come round and dispossess you of your Tupperware.

asherbassad

smash wrote: »

I don't want to increase their site traffic.

Thanks for that gem of wisdom.

BBDBB

smash wrote: »

I don't want to increase their site traffic.

fair enough, I just thought it was a remarkable sign of our times that squatters now have their own website offering advice on what to do and how to do it to stay within the law and stay in the squat

smash

BBDBB wrote: »

fair enough, I just thought it was a remarkable sign of our times that squatters now have their own website offering advice on what to do and how to do it to stay within the law and stay in the squat

Some people just have zero respect for other people's possessions.

asherbassad

westendgirlie wrote: »

About time the law was changed from Civil to Criminal. Squatters don't give a damn about damaging a house.

Many moons ago I went to a house party in an art student area of South London. This beautiful 4 storey Georgian house was completely trashed. Original fireplaces ripped out, graffiti/art everywhere. But the worst thing I saw was walking up the stairs to the 2nd floor......They had knocked an entrance through the wall into the adjacent 4 storey Georgian house :eek:

I wonder how the squatters I encountered would feel now, 20+ yrs on about their own properties being trashed like above.

Is this any different to you leaving your car for days on end in a rough neighbourhood? It would be wrecked or stolen and you'd be called the fool. The owners of these properties abandoned them, or maybe they just died. Now I can't say that I agree with the places being wrecked. But who would wreck a place where they are going to live? Only scumbags do that. I've known squatters in the past and many of them have had legitimate jobs that they go to and then come back "home". They don't want to live in filth and squalor.
Do you know if it was the squatters in these Georgian houses that tore out the fireplaces? I'm guessing it was some wide-boy who knows the value of such things.

smash

asherbassad wrote: »

I've known squatters in the past and many of them have had legitimate jobs that they go to and then come back "home".

If they have a legitimate job then they can afford rent to have a legitimate home!

asherbassad

Biodegradable Bellend wrote: »

This is a change in the law to facilitate the interests of banks ie. repossessed properties. Now the banks don't have to pay private security to mind their "investments" the state takes on the role, taxpayer foots the bill. If this was being done with the common interest of all property owners, it would have been done long ago.

Eventually anything which conflicts with the interests of big business will be criminalized.

EXACTLY

Are all you "smash the squatters" bubbleheads so happy now to have the state act as the banks' bouncers and you foot the bill?

BBDBB

smash wrote: »

Some people just have zero respect for other people's possessions.

indeed, just as some people have zero respect for other peoples views

smash

asherbassad wrote: »

EXACTLY

Are all you "smash the squatters" bubbleheads so happy now to have the state act as the banks' bouncers and you foot the bill?

The state is stepping in to help people/organisations regain proper ownership of their goods that others have recklessly and selfishly taken possession of.

longhalloween

there was a story a while ago about a man on SW (or whatever his country's equivalent was) who was squatting in a vacant derelict house. He spent all his extra money repairing and refurnishing the house and making it livable.

When he was found out the owners decided to rent it to him at an absurdly low rate on the condition that he continued his work.

That's the kind of squatting I would encourage.

Unfortunately most squatters aren't this industrious and prefer to wreck the place, leave graffiti and dirt everywhere and move on when the place gets too trashed.

westendgirlie

later12 wrote: »

I don't think so.

Not according to legislation on the adverse occupation of residential premises under the the Criminal Law Act 1977.

The above might apply where a property was disused, but not where the owners had gone to the shops; it would be a criminal offence. I think it'smisleading to say that squatting was not a criminal offence prior to now. It depends how you're defining squatting.

Walking (peacefully) into someone's house when you know that they clearly had just left for a brief period has very much been a criminal offence in the UK.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/45/section/7

I've just read up a little bit more. https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/q718.htm

A displaced residential occupier, a protected intending occupier or a person acting on their behalf can use reasonable force to secure entry to the property. Otherwise, they have to get a court order. Either way, there will be costs involved

I doubt squatters would normally enter a persons home and would rather an unoccupied property.

asherbassad

smash wrote: »

Bank owns a property, squatters trash that property... Of course they shouldn't be allowed stay there and have rights.

If it was your property and not the banks, would you have a problem with them trashing it and having rights to stay there?

Do you know of anyone who has had their place taken over by squatters and trashed?
You've fallen for the classic trick of being terrified into supporting legislation that benefits big business. I can almost sense your trembling.

smash

asherbassad wrote: »

Do you know of anyone who has had their place taken over by squatters and trashed?

No, because squatting is not allowed in Ireland!

asherbassad wrote: »

You've fallen for the classic trick of being terrified into supporting legislation that benefits big business. I can almost sense your trembling.

Sorry, but it supports the rightful owner... it's not about big business.

asherbassad

vard wrote: »

Derelict buildings cost huge amounts of money to maintain. They are still liable to multitudes of costs and taxes; just because they're derelict doesn't mean they are owned by banks.

Squatters move in and essentially have their accommodation paid for. They cause damage and the owner has to pay the upkeep as enforced by councils.

A family member has been run into the ground because of damage and theft caused by squatters to a property he had bought. He went bust and couldn't keep up with the costs. The squatters remain and now the property is owned by a bank, so I guess you think they should still be allowed to stay there free of charge?

Why wasn't the property being lived in by non-squatters?

later12

Thread reminds me of this quote I like, if a little idealistic, by Rousseau:

"The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society.
From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: "Beware of listening to this imposter; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody"."

asherbassad

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I never understood squatter's rights. Why should some freeloader who invaded and occupied a property have any rights? It's akin to stealing someone's car and saying "I've had the car for a year now, I have more right to it than the person who paid for it".

Whether a bank or private individual owns the property shouldn't make a difference. A bank is a business like any other and their assets are their own, not the general public's.

You've kind hit the nail on the head there.
This whole thing started when some fcuker yonks ago put a fence around a piece of land and just stated "this is mine!"

asherbassad

smash wrote: »

You seem to be confused. You can't claim squatters right in your own property.

The bank owns it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You own it when you get the deeds.

asherbassad

smash wrote: »

If they have a legitimate job then they can afford rent to have a legitimate home!

Well you just know everything, don't you!
Go to any homeless shelter in the US, many of the families in them have two jobs and still can't afford what you call a "legitimate" home.
Check out many of the working poor who live with their kids in their car.

But don't let these facts get in the way of your "I know everything" worldview"

asherbassad

smash wrote: »

The state is stepping in to help people/organisations regain proper ownership of their goods that others have recklessly and selfishly taken possession of.

No they are NOT.

This law could have been effected decades ago. Why? Because back then people enjoyed certain rights and protections from the government and from large corporations. As we enter the new Gilded Age and as banks consolidate more and more of the world's resources and assets, it becomes more and more important for them to protect those asset from the proles and that includes you, pal.