Squatting. Is the coming law right?
Personally I don't see much of a problem with this law, squatting should be an offence, like stealing. And the squatters that are in abandoned buildings are unlikely to be kicked out if the owners of the buildings don't try/know. They'll become criminals, it's true, but will only face jail if someone finds them or complains. Am I seeing this in a very one-sided way? I'd like to hear some other points before I make up my mind fully.
What do people think?
What do people think?
Scroll to see replies
I think I am going to be in the TSR minority when I say I support the action of squatting where appropriate.
I know a fair few people who squat and many more my parents age (including my parents) who used to squat.
Most of the time, they arnt just drug addicts who choose to give people grief, but people who litrally cannot afford to be housed otherwise.
The houses that are being squatted are NOT ones where the occupants have left for a holiday, or where building work is about to take place, but places that have been left stagnent, to rot.
A good example. Three houses were brought up by TESCO a few years ago, and left without tennents, so the houses would be vandalised and run down, becoming an eyesaw.
This would force the council to grant TESCO the right to destroy the buildings and build a new store.
The locals were outraged. Firstly they had three years of empty houses where there is a housing shortage, and secondly, there is a highstreet worth of shops that will cloase because of TESCO.
As such, squatters have moved in and done up the buildings. The gardens are tidy, DIY has repaired the broken windows and now the highstreetshops have new employees. TESCO cant do much now
Squat the Earth.
I know a fair few people who squat and many more my parents age (including my parents) who used to squat.
Most of the time, they arnt just drug addicts who choose to give people grief, but people who litrally cannot afford to be housed otherwise.
The houses that are being squatted are NOT ones where the occupants have left for a holiday, or where building work is about to take place, but places that have been left stagnent, to rot.
A good example. Three houses were brought up by TESCO a few years ago, and left without tennents, so the houses would be vandalised and run down, becoming an eyesaw.
This would force the council to grant TESCO the right to destroy the buildings and build a new store.
The locals were outraged. Firstly they had three years of empty houses where there is a housing shortage, and secondly, there is a highstreet worth of shops that will cloase because of TESCO.
As such, squatters have moved in and done up the buildings. The gardens are tidy, DIY has repaired the broken windows and now the highstreetshops have new employees. TESCO cant do much now
Squat the Earth.
(edited 11 years ago)
How is it right that someone/a group of people can enter someones home/property, take over it and decide to live there? Especially when you hear stories of people going away on holiday or coming out of hospital after a few weeks, they get home to find other people living there. Breaking and entering is illegal & so should squatting.
Original post by blahblahblah1
How is it right that someone/a group of people can enter someones home/property, take over it and decide to live there? Especially when you hear stories of people going away on holiday or coming out of hospital after a few weeks, they get home to find other people living there. Breaking and entering is illegal & so should squatting.
I think its more long-term unoccupied buildings that we're talking about where homeless people shelter to avoid dying of exposure, not people who have popped down the shops and come home to find a load of dossers camped in the living room.
The law seems a bit crude- there should be a difference if you leave when asked, and if the building is unoccupied. Still an improvement over the need to take expensive court action and serve notice that could take a couple of weeks.
They don't only squat in long-term unoccupied homes, how can you tell anyway unless you've been staking the place out for months if anyone lives there or not. My friends family went to America for a month, came back and found squatters had moved in because they thought no one lived there as the lights were off and no car in the drive.
Terrible.
Original post by GottaLovePhysics! :)
Three houses were brought up by TESCO a few years ago, and left without tennents, so the houses would be vandalised and run down, becoming an eyesaw.
Three houses were brought up by TESCO a few years ago, and left without tennents, so the houses would be vandalised and run down, becoming an eyesaw.
Terrible.
With regards to the unoccupied buildings, surely long-term unoccupied, are far less likely to be noticed or reported? this law helps home owners evict people who move in when on holiday or away or otherwise. That's the minority but it's still a problem.
For abandoned places, if the owner of the property does nothing, then there's no change, and I doubt police will go round checking all the squats. As far as I can tell the new law says a claim must be made to the police, that people have tresspassed, before action is taken. If this doesn't happen then you're safe!
I think if someone wants to evict unlawful squatters from their home, then they should be able to. Currently it's a long and tedious process. This law just cuts the wait time down to size.
For abandoned places, if the owner of the property does nothing, then there's no change, and I doubt police will go round checking all the squats. As far as I can tell the new law says a claim must be made to the police, that people have tresspassed, before action is taken. If this doesn't happen then you're safe!
I think if someone wants to evict unlawful squatters from their home, then they should be able to. Currently it's a long and tedious process. This law just cuts the wait time down to size.
(edited 11 years ago)
In my opinion squatting is only OK in an unused property, and that means one which is empty of furniture and personal belongings. If someone finds a building that is not being used by anyone for anything (including storage), i.e. an empty shell, then they do not harm by living in it. Well, assuming that they actually do no harm and do not damage anything in the building. However, when the owners turn up and want to make use of the property, then the squatters should leave immediately and if they don't they should be considered criminals.
This means that squatting in the house of someone who has gone away for some weeks is illegal but squatting in an abandoned empty warehouse, for example, is fine so long as you do not damage to the building and leave as soon as asked.
This means that squatting in the house of someone who has gone away for some weeks is illegal but squatting in an abandoned empty warehouse, for example, is fine so long as you do not damage to the building and leave as soon as asked.
I'm surprised we haven't got into a Lockean debate about what can be morally justified as being designated as one man's private property from a teleological point of view yet... I have a feeling we'll be there some time this afternoon.
Private property is violence... some people will argue.
Any input?
Private property is violence... some people will argue.
Oswy
...
Any input?
When it comes to long term unoccupied buildings, and situations that the second poster mentioned... I'm honestly not so sure.
But in events that you sometimes (albeit hardly ever) hear about, where people come back from holiday and find others living in their house, then of course, the law should be brought in to remove them and punish them - what right do they have to simply take someone else's home?
But in events that you sometimes (albeit hardly ever) hear about, where people come back from holiday and find others living in their house, then of course, the law should be brought in to remove them and punish them - what right do they have to simply take someone else's home?
Squatting shouldn't be a criminal offence. It doesn't really harm anyone. If they damage the property, then that should be treated as criminal damage. Sure, it's distressing if you find a squatter in your house, but I never heard a story of a squatter turning aggressive onto the owners. Squatting also saves the taxpayer a lot of money, because they will be living in disused property for the most part, which avoids us having to fork out in housing benefit. The estimated savings from legal aid will be completely wiped out by criminalizing squatting.
Also, the government must not get rid of adverse possession in the process! Adverse possession is probably the only fun part of property law I (there's also a lot of benefits of it, and very few negatives thanks to land registration)
Also, the government must not get rid of adverse possession in the process! Adverse possession is probably the only fun part of property law I (there's also a lot of benefits of it, and very few negatives thanks to land registration)
It's a difficult issue. In cases where some corporation/landlord is deliberately or thoughtlessly keeping a property empty for many months or years (something which I view as wrong), I don't see why squatters shouldn't be able to move in and have their rights protected. Some squatters may have no where else to stay, and if squatting is punishable - it might involve punishing people who have done no more than try to preserve themselves, who have little other choice. Squatting gives power to those who have no material goods, over those with enough cash to squander on empty housing (when there is such desperate need for housing).
In cases where a house is empty because someone is on holiday, or people have left (or died) and genuine, reasonable efforts are being to sell the house, then squatting seems very unfair to the owners - at the very least it should be quick and simple for them to evict the squatters. Squatters also shouldn't damage or litter property. But aside from perhaps needing changes to quicken the process of eviction, isn't that sort of already the law?
??? Don't really know much about it other than to draw those conclusions.
In cases where a house is empty because someone is on holiday, or people have left (or died) and genuine, reasonable efforts are being to sell the house, then squatting seems very unfair to the owners - at the very least it should be quick and simple for them to evict the squatters. Squatters also shouldn't damage or litter property. But aside from perhaps needing changes to quicken the process of eviction, isn't that sort of already the law?
??? Don't really know much about it other than to draw those conclusions.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by GottaLovePhysics! :)
I think I am going to be in the TSR minority when I say I support the action of squatting where appropriate.
Most of the time, they arnt just drug addicts who choose to give people grief, but people who litrally cannot afford to be housed otherwise.
As such, squatters have moved in and done up the buildings. The gardens are tidy, DIY has repaired the broken windows and now the highstreetshops have new employees. TESCO cant do much now
Squat the Earth.
Most of the time, they arnt just drug addicts who choose to give people grief, but people who litrally cannot afford to be housed otherwise.
As such, squatters have moved in and done up the buildings. The gardens are tidy, DIY has repaired the broken windows and now the highstreetshops have new employees. TESCO cant do much now
Squat the Earth.
Regardless of whether they are drug addicts or law abiding citizens (which they're not either) they're still invading somebody else's property. If I leave my house abandoned, that is my choice. I pay council tax, I've paid for my house outright, so why can't I do this? These squatters don't pay rent, don't pay tax, and are simply stealing somebody else's hard work.
It can't be put simpler than this, I don't see why there's such a debate over this, squatters don't have the right to do what they do.
Original post by Tokyoround
Terrible.
Terrible.
Dyslexia sucks ass.If a building has been abandoned or not used in years I don't see the problem with squatters being there.
Properties which remain unoccupied for months even years on end are a waste and an eyesore. There's a house a few minutes walk from me which has been unoccupied for nearly 3 years because the owner decided to swan off to South Africa after a warrant for his arrest was issued, it's just been left to decay. The grass and trees were overgrown and everything looked unsightly, plus it was beginning to attract vandals and copper thieves. Now a few local artists/squatters have moved in and it actually looks decent again, windows have been fixed, the gardens properly tended to, etc.
I have absolutely no problem with people who squat in disused buildings, better they be put to good use rather than being left to decay. Entering a building which is in use however such as the tiny minority of cases where people go on holiday and come back to find a family of Romanians or whatever camped in their living room should be illegal, and I fully support such cases being dealt with by the police. However when a building has clearly been left to rot for years on end there are no valid reasons as to why others shouldn't be allowed to move in and make proper use of it so long as they're not causing trouble through antisocial behaviour or drug use.
I have absolutely no problem with people who squat in disused buildings, better they be put to good use rather than being left to decay. Entering a building which is in use however such as the tiny minority of cases where people go on holiday and come back to find a family of Romanians or whatever camped in their living room should be illegal, and I fully support such cases being dealt with by the police. However when a building has clearly been left to rot for years on end there are no valid reasons as to why others shouldn't be allowed to move in and make proper use of it so long as they're not causing trouble through antisocial behaviour or drug use.
people seem to be focussing on whichever aspect of squatting they agree with most.
For example many have said that squatters moving into used property that's only been vacant for a short time is a minor occurence and then moved on to say that because the vast majority of squatting is in reasonable circumstances (long term abandonment, the TESCO case earlier, warehouses etc) this law is unreasonable.
I would go on to say, that it is the same act whatever the circumstances, if it is misused by some (short term problems), then the whole thing will be penalised because those events are unacceptable.
For example if there was a new painkiller was released onto the market, it was perfectly fine in 90% cases, but resulted in death 10% of the time, it would be pulled IMMEDIATELY, regardless of whether it does just fine in most cases, that 10% is enough to get it pulled.
For example many have said that squatters moving into used property that's only been vacant for a short time is a minor occurence and then moved on to say that because the vast majority of squatting is in reasonable circumstances (long term abandonment, the TESCO case earlier, warehouses etc) this law is unreasonable.
I would go on to say, that it is the same act whatever the circumstances, if it is misused by some (short term problems), then the whole thing will be penalised because those events are unacceptable.
For example if there was a new painkiller was released onto the market, it was perfectly fine in 90% cases, but resulted in death 10% of the time, it would be pulled IMMEDIATELY, regardless of whether it does just fine in most cases, that 10% is enough to get it pulled.
Original post by UniOfLife
In my opinion squatting is only OK in an unused property, and that means one which is empty of furniture and personal belongings. If someone finds a building that is not being used by anyone for anything (including storage), i.e. an empty shell, then they do not harm by living in it. Well, assuming that they actually do no harm and do not damage anything in the building. However, when the owners turn up and want to make use of the property, then the squatters should leave immediately and if they don't they should be considered criminals.
This means that squatting in the house of someone who has gone away for some weeks is illegal but squatting in an abandoned empty warehouse, for example, is fine so long as you do not damage to the building and leave as soon as asked.
This means that squatting in the house of someone who has gone away for some weeks is illegal but squatting in an abandoned empty warehouse, for example, is fine so long as you do not damage to the building and leave as soon as asked.
This. It is so simple any other response seem illogical.
Basically, if nobody minds someone being in a property because it's abandoned, it's fine. If someone wants the property - even if they've abandoned it for 10 years, and have only just returned - it's their property and the squatters need to vacate the place. If someone isn't using the property, but do not want squatters (unused, but not abandoned), then it's their property and their right.
This law, to my knowledge, seems to serve that purpose. No problem until the owner tries to evict the squatters. At that point, the squatters must move. All sorted.
This law, to my knowledge, seems to serve that purpose. No problem until the owner tries to evict the squatters. At that point, the squatters must move. All sorted.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Taj Lifts
- Do I need to be supervised to use a squat rack?
- New Year, New Me
- OMG not another Rippetoes blog!
- Best shoes for the gym?
- Which is more prestigeous Bristol or Exeter?
- Gym workout and Advice
- i hate how my behind looks
- Karma
- how long will it take?
- Anyone worked for Orridge (stock taking company)
- Would this routine be fine for maintaining muscle/physique
- What is Digital Marketing like at uni?
- Fitness
- Trampoline Exercises That Will Challenge Your Body
- Spliced and diced - perhaps one day, a little shredded!
- Would this be good enough to maintain muscle mass?
- Computer Science course not accredited by the BCS (British Computer Society)
- Help on DofE about toilets?
- Are home workouts much effective as GYM workouts?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
