wtf England?

[CorNokZ]

Man leaves home for a week so it can be decorated and 15 squatters move in | Mail Online

Seriously.. Wtf?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well even at the risk of it being a dailymail linjk, which i'v come to learn is as reliable as the writings in a highway gasstation bathroom(it is NOT a good time ), i agree; wtf?

Squatters rights sound like "free break in to owned property rights".

I thought squatters rights apply to abandoned government houses.

Surely breaking and entering is criminal enough, the whole "Police are powerless to intervene because squatting is a civil rather than criminal offence." is silly in any case

Then again, the man would be in his full right to fumicate his own property, with notices of fumication giving the needed 24 hour warning

 

[Ch3tan]

It's the daily mail. That article seems to be mainly bullshit, I'm fairly sure a property has to be empty a lot longer.

Squatters rights are complex. Basically it will be a criminal offence if they've broken in, which it seems that have.

 

[Tuthmes]

Call on the homeboys and pay the collage kids a visit.

 

[Moriath]

daily mail makes you lose brain cells m'kay

 

[BloodOmen]

iirc they can only claim squatters rights if they got in through an open window or open door if they force their way into a property they can't claim it because its then classed as breaking and entering... or so i was lead to believe.


moral of the story don't go out and leave your house unsecured.


p.s yes squatters rights are shit and should be abolished, whoever invented them was quite a silly person.

 

[Fafnir]

According to that article the door was open, so guess the workers forgot to lock up when they left.

 

[Access Denied]

According to that article the door was open, so guess the workers forgot to lock up when they left.

Every article I've read about this sort of thing the squatters claim the door or a window was open. It's breaking and entering but good luck proving that.

 

[Sparx]

i know people who are squatters and they tend to break the locks then come back a week later and say it was left open

 

[Raven]

We had this discussion the other day at work. The general consensus was that if there was nothing legally you could do to remove them and were essentially left homeless by these scum then the best option would be to pipe white noise into the property at random intervals during the night. Cut off the power, the water and the gas, board the windows up. If that doesn't work then enter the property by force and remove them. A few hundred quid to some heavy duty psychos is worth it to get your house back.

They wouldn't stay there long.

Before the bleating left start twitching. Yes, force is necessary when you would essentially be homeless.

 

[CorNokZ]

But if you have the deed for the house, then howcome police can't force them out? He obviously owns the house..

 

[fettoken]

I would obviously hire some thugs to do the job. But thats me.

 

[Ch3tan]

So I looked into it more.

The article is vaguely correct, but as usual has daily mail undertones about dirty foreigners in it.

Basically the police will act if the squatting is spotted quickly and they believe that the sqautters have committed a crime by breaking in or criminal damage. It's up to the owner to persuade the police. Lots of websites with advice for squatters, and after a quick read I would say these lot have not looked into it properly as the courts will evict them sharpish.

The court process is quick, and certainly less costly than trying to strong arm them out of the property -which is a criminal offence. It takes under 2 weeks to get an eviction notice served, and then the police will assist in removing them if required. It's a county court matter, so around £125 iirc. Your other option is to wait until all the squatters are out and force the locks and change them yourself (you'd have to claim that they left the door open in the same way they did), if you can re-claim the property without force then the law is back in your favour.

You'd have to be very silly to try and force squatters out with threats and force. They can cause a lot of damage to your property out of spite, and they will not hesitate to call the police on you.

Oh and the reason squatting is legal is because there are a hell of a lot or derelict properties around. Professional squatters will improve the condition of a property, pay bills and treat the place as their home. There are lots of property owners that welcome squatters as it makes the property more secure.

Of course there are nasty sqautters, and idiots like those in the article who have taken a house that is still lived in by the owner.

 

[Sparx]

i know people who have squatted in a house for years, the owner knows they are there and lets them stay, they pay bills and look after the place for her as she lives outside london so she knows even though they are squatting they are looking after the place

 

[Ezteq]

sorry but if I came back to HQ and there was some strange bunch of bastards sat here saying they had squatters rights I would not care about how they got in; screw passive agressive tactics like white noise, I would girlslap them and they'd get the full on D'Angeles Gob full of abuse until they pissed off.

Jesus, can you imagine anything that would annoy you more than some tosser claiming to now live in your house?

 

[Bahumat]

So I looked into it more.

The article is vaguely correct, but as usual has daily mail undertones about dirty foreigners in it.

Basically the police will act if the squatting is spotted quickly and they believe that the sqautters have committed a crime by breaking in or criminal damage. It's up to the owner to persuade the police. Lots of websites with advice for squatters, and after a quick read I would say these lot have not looked into it properly as the courts will evict them sharpish.

The court process is quick, and certainly less costly than trying to strong arm them out of the property -which is a criminal offence. It takes under 2 weeks to get an eviction notice served, and then the police will assist in removing them if required. It's a county court matter, so around £125 iirc. Your other option is to wait until all the squatters are out and force the locks and change them yourself (you'd have to claim that they left the door open in the same way they did), if you can re-claim the property without force then the law is back in your favour.

You'd have to be very silly to try and force squatters out with threats and force. They can cause a lot of damage to your property out of spite, and they will not hesitate to call the police on you.

Oh and the reason squatting is legal is because there are a hell of a lot or derelict properties around. Professional squatters will improve the condition of a property, pay bills and treat the place as their home. There are lots of property owners that welcome squatters as it makes the property more secure.

Of course there are nasty sqautters, and idiots like those in the article who have taken a house that is still lived in by the owner.

I assumed these derelict properties were places that were owned by someone, but no bills were paid, there was no gas, electric etc. Almost as if they had been abandoned.

So lets say I have my own house, and I go shopping for the day, but leave the back door open. Squatters move in, change the locks and I'm stuck unable to enter my house. The police will refuse to help me and I will have to get a court to evict them? If that's true its fucking stupid.

 

[Bahumat]

Does anyone know anything about this part?

Once again the police have not researched the law properly. If you look at Sections 1-7 theft Act 1968, these people have stolen this mans property within the meaning of the act. I suggest this is tested in the courts.

Also WTF with the neighbours saying it's been abandoned for 2 years.

 

[kiliarien]

Also WTF with the neighbours saying it's been abandoned for 2 years.

That bit got me too - some one is clearly telling fibs; squatters, owner or neighbours. It is from the Daily Fail though so it should be taken with a Dead Sea pinch of salt tbh.

Whilst he does the legal hooha I'd call up power/gas companies and have everything cut off just to spite them. If he's sensible then he has all his account information stored on secure email (that's what I do) and so could sort that. Then he could reconnect after seeming as reconnection is generally free, especially if you swap companies. Let the bastards live in the dark ages.

Locked or not - they're living in a place they don't own or have a moral right to live in. I'm sure we should be making some jokes about crap Italian occupations here but that's for a different thread methinks.

 

[BloodOmen]

if my house was infested by filthy squatters the first things i'd do is get electric, phone, gas and water turned off... then i'd get a few of my distant not so friendly family members to remove them in the dead of night I wouldn't even contact the police over it and give them a chance to claim squatters rights.

 

[Ctuchik]

Also WTF with the neighbours saying it's been abandoned for 2 years.

anyone want to bet against that said neighbours are in some way related to the squatters?

it wouldn't surprise me one bit if they knew each other

 

[tierk]

Baseball bats and balaclava's.

Works a treat and saves loads of money.

 

[Mey]

Does anyone know anything about this part?

Once again the police have not researched the law properly. If you look at Sections 1-7 theft Act 1968, these people have stolen this mans property within the meaning of the act. I suggest this is tested in the courts.

Also WTF with the neighbours saying it's been abandoned for 2 years.

1. Basic definition of theft
(1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to
another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and ‘theft’ and ‘steal’
shall be construed accordingly.
(2) It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made
for the thief’s own benefit.
(3) The five following sections of this Act shall have effect as regards the
interpretation and operation of this section (and, except as otherwise provided by this Act,
shall apply only for purposes of this section).
2. ‘Dishonestly’
(1) A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as
dishonest-
(a) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to
deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or
(b) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s
consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or
(c) (except where the property came to him as trustee or personal representative)
if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the
property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.
(2) A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest
notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property.
3. ‘Appropriates’
(1) Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation,
and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it,
any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner.
(2) Where property or a right or interest in property is or purports to be transferred for
value to a person acting in good faith, no later assumption by him of rights which he
believed himself to be acquiring shall, by reason of any defect in the transferor’s title,
amount to theft of the property.
4. ‘Property’
(1) ‘Property’ includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things
in action and other intangible property.
(2) A person cannot steal land, or things forming part of land and severed from it by
him or by his directions, except in the following cases, that is to say-
(a) when he is a trustee or personal representative, or is authorised by power
of attorney, or as liquidator of a company, or otherwise, to sell or dispose of land
belonging to another, and he appropriates the land or anything forming part of it
by dealing with it in breach of the confidence reposed in him; or
(b) when he is not in possession of the land and appropriates anything
forming part of the land by severing it or causing it to be severed, or after it has
been severed; or
(c) when, being in possession of the land under a tenancy, he appropriates
the whole or part of any fixture or structure let to be used with the land.
For purposes of this subsection ‘land’ does not include incorporeal hereditaments;
‘tenancy’ means a tenancy for years or less period and includes an agreement for such a
2
tenancy, but a person who after the end of a tenancy remains in possession as statutory
tenant or otherwise is to be treated as having possession under the tenancy, and ‘let’ shall
be construed accordingly.
(3) A person who picks mushrooms growing wild on any land, or who picks flowers,
fruit or foliage from a plant growing wild on any land, does not (although not in possession
of the land) steal what he picks, unless he does it for reward or for sale or other commercial
purpose.
For purposes of this subsection ‘mushroom’ includes any fungus, and ‘plant’ includes any
shrub or tree.
(4) Wild creatures, tamed or untamed, shall be regarded as property; but a person
cannot steal a wild creature not tamed nor ordinarily kept in captivity, or the carcase of any
such creature, unless either it has been reduced into possession by or on behalf of another
person and possession of it has not since been lost or abandoned, or another person is in
course of reducing it into possession.
5. ‘Belonging to another’
(1) Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control
of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising
only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest).
(2) Where property is subject to a trust, the persons to whom it belongs shall be
regarded as including any person having a right to enforce the trust, and an intention to
defeat the trust shall be regarded accordingly as an intention to deprive of the property any
person having that right.
(3) Where a person receives property from or on account of another, and is under an
obligation to the other to retain and deal with that property or its proceeds in a particular
way, the property or proceeds shall be regarded (as against him) as belonging to the other.
(4) Where a person gets property by another’s mistake, and is under an obligation to
make restoration (in whole or in part) of the property or its proceeds or of the value thereof,
then to the extent of that obligation the property or proceeds shall be regarded (as against
him) as belonging to the person entitled to restoration, and an intention not to make
restoration shall be regarded accordingly as an intention to deprive that person of the
property or proceeds.
(5) Property of a corporation sole shall be regarded as belonging to the corporation
notwithstanding a vacancy in the corporation.
6. ‘With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it’
(1) A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other
permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of
permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to
dispose of regardless of the other’s rights; and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to
so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances
making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, where a person,
having possession or control lawfully or not) of property belonging to another, parts with
the property under a condition as to its return which he may not be able to perform, this (if
done for purposes of his own and without the other’s authority) amounts to treating the
property as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights.
3
7. Theft
A person guilty of theft shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a
term not exceeding seven years.

The guy was basicly trying to asert that the squatters had prevented the man use of his property (i.e the stuff stored in the house).

 

[kirennia]

Just to get my facts right about this, you're still allowed to destroy your own property right? In which case you could break a window and enter? What about property that they break while squatting? If they broke your fridge or something as an example, would they be done for it?

This whole law is yet another horrible part of UK legislation that should have been wiped out decades ago. I know it's the daily mail and the story itself I don't believe but squatting still exists and it's despicable. I have genuinely no idea how I'd react if this happened to me...

 

[Billargh]

@Chet and Sparx, isn't the general idea of a squatter to not pay rent and just, as their name suggest, 'squat' in an unused property? If they're paying bills etc they're hardly squatters*.

(*feel free to prove me wrong, I'm no expert on the matter.)

 

[Ch3tan]

Nope, professional sqautters will pay bills, because they want power and utlities, they will respect the house because they want to live there as long as possible. What they can't afford or don't wish to pay is rent or a mortgage.

there is lots of information if you google quickly.

 

[Billargh]

Pah, Google you say?! Time and effort. I think I mistook you saying they pay 'bills' as including rent, just cottoned on you just mean gas/electricity and the likes.

 

[kiliarien]

That brings forward another odd thing - really I'd say you should prove that you own/rent a place to have utilities connected/put in your name. Weird that you don't have to.

 

[Access Denied]

Professional squatters are a boon to owners of vacant properties. It's already been said that they will pay utility bills and look after, even improve the building. They also tend to choose places that have been vacant for quite some time. What these bastards in the news are doing is nothing less than breaking and entering, criminal trespass and theft and they should all be shot like rabid dogs.

 

[Ch3tan]

So lets say I have my own house, and I go shopping for the day, but leave the back door open. Squatters move in, change the locks and I'm stuck unable to enter my house. The police will refuse to help me and I will have to get a court to evict them? If that's true its fucking stupid.

No, squatters rights do not work like that. The property has to be empty. Not just because you've gone on holiday, or popped out to the shops. The police would assist you if this happened. If you take 5 minutes to look at any of the squatting advice websites you'd learn all this.

The article in the OP is mis-leading as it's just a daily mail rant. I'd suggest the neighbours view that the house was un-lived in is probably accurate.

 

[Sparx]

Squatters just put up a Section 6 legal notice to protect them from people just barging in

Section 6 legal notice for squats | libcom.org