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.
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.
smash wrote: » I don't want to increase their site traffic.
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
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.
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".
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.
smash wrote: » Some people just have zero respect for other people's possessions.
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?
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
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?
asherbassad wrote: » Do you know of anyone who has had their place taken over by squatters and trashed?
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.
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?
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.
smash wrote: » You seem to be confused. You can't claim squatters right in your own property.
smash wrote: » If they have a legitimate job then they can afford rent to have a legitimate home!
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.
longhalloween wrote: » 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.
Biodegradable Bellend wrote: » smash wrote: » You seem to be confused. You can't claim squatters right in your own property. Try and get your head around this. If the banks are repossessing, or have repossessed the property, the bank has claimed ownership of said property. Therefore the person that previously owned the property is no longer the owner, and therefore can squat there (legally or otherwise, can't doesn't enter into it). I'll say it again. I'm not a squatters rights advocate. If the rights common man was at the heart of this law, why wasn't it done a long time ago? The reason is because this is primarily to protect the interests of the banks/institutions.
asherbassad wrote: » The bank owns it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You own it when you get the deeds.
Lantus wrote: » Just incarcerate a human being for seking out shelter.
Run_to_da_hills wrote: » derelict or abandoned building owned by greedy banks such as unfinished / liquidated ghost complexes
pickarooney wrote: » Most people will be more than happy with a solution that costs them ten times more in providing shelter (and food, and Xboxes) to these same people while occupying prison space that thieves and rapists should be filling. They won't really be able to explain to you why they feel this way but it will make them feel better on some level.
CruelCoin wrote: » I don't believe in hand-outs. Everybody should pay their own way. Besides, since when was jailing people for breaking the law such a taboo?
