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

Run_to_da_hills · 31-08-2012 10:47AM #1

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 · 31-08-2012 10:48AM

Will have to stand up when I poo.

31-08-2012 10:49AM

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

westendgirlie · 31-08-2012 11:16AM

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 · 31-08-2012 11:19AM

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 · 31-08-2012 11:23AM

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

smash · 31-08-2012 11:25AM

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 · 31-08-2012 11:29AM

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 · 31-08-2012 11:30AM

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 · 31-08-2012 11:37AM

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 · 31-08-2012 11:39AM

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 · 31-08-2012 11:41AM

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 · 31-08-2012 11:45AM

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 · 31-08-2012 11:46AM

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 · 31-08-2012 11:50AM

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

Biodegradable Bellend · 31-08-2012 11:50AM

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 · 31-08-2012 11:51AM

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 · 31-08-2012 11:51AM

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 · 31-08-2012 11:54AM

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 · 31-08-2012 11:58AM

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 · 31-08-2012 12:01PM

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 · 31-08-2012 12:03PM

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 · 31-08-2012 12:09PM

Sykk wrote: »

Fitting username :pac:

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

cloud493 · 31-08-2012 12:11PM

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 · 31-08-2012 12:11PM

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 · 31-08-2012 12:15PM

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?

31-08-2012 12:16PM

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 · 31-08-2012 12:22PM

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 · 31-08-2012 12:27PM

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 · 31-08-2012 12:36PM

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 · 31-08-2012 12:39PM

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.

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

Comments