Scrapping of squatters' rights.

As someone who owns proeprty that is let I think the new law would make it easier to get people out who had occupied the property illegally if it was empty between tenants and that is a good thing, I don't believe anyone can make an argument against criminalising the illegal occupation of a property that is let out etc. It's simply not good enough to say people want it and no one was using it at that moment..otherwise you may as well make it legal for these people to steal your car if you leave it on the drive for 2 weeks when you go on holiday. After all you were not making good use of the car at the time. It should have been a criminal offence a long time ago.

There is an underlying issues with people needing places to live however and that does need to be addressed. That cannot be confused with this law which is really tidying up a problem that is a result of another problem. You can't address an underlying social problem by papering over it.

I also have some concerns about bad landlords trying to use this law to get people who are in dispute with them arrested by the Police and I hope there is proper protection for people from that.
 
Collider said:
I also have some concerns about bad landlords trying to use this law to get people who are in dispute with them arrested by the Police and I hope there is proper protection for people from that.
Click to expand...

I think I heard on the news that the new law protects against all that and that loser-landlords wont be able to use it as a lever to kick someone out.

Im just glad the new law has been passed. The incredulous looks I got while travelling around the world when I told people about this squatting thing!
 
KatanaDV20 said:
"So tell me <<persons name>>, you and your wife save up to have your house redone. Its a huge project that will take close to a year. During that time you move into an apartment. 70% through the refurb you get a call from the fitters saying they cant get in your house because theres about 6 people in there who wont come out. The fitters cant open the doors with their keysets - locks have been changed. Now tell me ...honestly...how would you feel about that?"

And heres the problem - Ive never gotten an answer to this from the squatter-supporters.
Click to expand...
Here's your answer: Home-owners could already forcibly enter their homes and tell everyone inside to leave; anyone who didn't was committing a crime and liable to arrest. 'Home invasions' were rare, and the notion that they happened regularly (and home-owners were powerless to do anything about them) was nothing more than tabloid scaremongering.
 
TJM said:
Here's your answer: Home-owners could already forcibly enter their homes and tell everyone inside to leave; anyone who didn't was committing a crime and liable to arrest. 'Home invasions' were rare, and the notion that they happened regularly (and home-owners were powerless to do anything about them) was nothing more than tabloid scaremongering.
Click to expand...

So how come that wasn't done in this case?

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/your...-risk-mothertobe-tells-squatters-6440076.html
 
This is most excellent news, but it is only one small step in overhauling the national embarrassment that is the UK legal system. As has already been said, prolonged trespass also needs to become a criminal offence, there's a difference between accidentally stumbling onto private when out walking in the countryside and setting up a campsite on someones property. The latter should be immediately dealt with by controlled explosion.

TJM said:
Great, what a victory for common sense.
Click to expand...

TJM in "law enforcement costs money" shocker. Should we abandon every law on the basis it's expensive?

The idea of not going ahead with a law because 2,126 squatters complained in a consultation would also be absurd. As is the idea of consulting the general public on laws in general in all honesty.
 
Last edited:
Energize said:
TJM in "law enforcement costs money" shocker. Should we abandon every law on the basis it's expensive?
Click to expand...
Creating a law that will cost almost a billion pounds to enforce is idiotic unless it can be justified by some pressing need, which it can't. The Metropolitan Police, Law Society and homeless charities think it is unnecessary.

The idea of not going ahead with a law because 2,126 squatters complained in a consultation would also be absurd.
Click to expand...
Everyone who disagrees with this law must be a squatter. Brilliant deduction.

robgmun said:
So how come that wasn't done in this case?

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/your...-risk-mothertobe-tells-squatters-6440076.html
Click to expand...
Because they don't know the law and spent more time crying to journalists than getting legal advice? The previous law was perfectly clear:

Adverse occupation of residential premises.

...any person who is on any premises as a trespasser after having entered as such is guilty of an offence if he fails to leave those premises on being required to do so by or on behalf of—

(a)a displaced residential occupier of the premises; or

(b)an individual who is a protected intending occupier of the premises.
Click to expand...
It's also worth noting that article doesn't give a timescale for the occupation and eviction - the squatters could have been ejected within hours and liable to prosecution afterwards.
 
It's interesting to note that the Daily Wail et al always concentrate on the nice middle-class families who have left the house for three days and found the squatters in type cases. They ignore two minor issues:

1) The vast majority of such squatters are quickly evicted by court order. Yes it's annoying, but it's no worse than a major flood or fire.

2) Such squatters make up only a tiny proportion of squatters. The vast majority of squatter live in properties which have be left empty for years, and sometimes even decades.

In many cases the reason they've squatted for so long is because the police can't actually find the owners. The owners themselves don't know that there are squatters in, because they never visit the premises. The country has hundreds of thousands of properties which have not been legitimately occupied in years. Most are bought and sold as part of investment portfolios, and change hands a couple of times a year without any of the owners looking at the site - they just have an address and a picture. In some cases the owners plan to develop the site, but the council won't allow the use that the owner wants. So the owner sits on ownership, and even sometimes allows squatters, to put pressure on the local council to change usage so they can develop it. Sometimes the council itself owns the land but doesn't have the money to develop the site. But mostly it's the first: the owner has no plans for the site beyond ownership as an investment.


M
 
TJM said:
Creating a law that will cost almost a billion pounds to enforce is idiotic unless it can be justified by some pressing need, which it can't. The Metropolitan Police, Law Society and homeless charities think it is unnecessary.
Click to expand...

It's hardly a surprise that a squatting charity and police organisation which has to use rescources to enforce a law is going to complain about it. Criticism coming from a group without a vested interested in the law would have more credibility.

Everyone who disagrees with this law must be a squatter. Brilliant deduction.
Click to expand...

Now, now, I never said that. Call me cynical but I can't help thinking those that bothered to find the consultation and "express their concerns" (whatever that means) had certain interests that extended beyond economic ones.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom