stage.money.aol.co.uk/2012/09/01/new-law-shuts-door-on-squatters/
Well thats all sorted then!
Is it as big a problem as the Government appear to be suggesting, or is Squatting in peoples homes a "rare incidence" as claimed?
Anybody on here ever been affected?
Why can they now not use this new law against Gypsy-camps, after all they are "Squatting" on somebody`s land.
|
It's about time. It is ludicrous that someone can walk into your home and you're not legally allowed just to bundle them out the door with a kick up the bum.
I've seen a few people on tv telling all sorts of stories of squatters ruining their homes and thumbing their nose at them when they try and get them out.
At the same time it is also unacceptable to leave perfectly good homes empty for ages. Councils need to be cracking down on this and finding out why there are so many empty houses in some areas that could be put to better use.
Any of those that stick up for squatters rights should be invaded by them and then see if they feel the same when they're essentially excluded from their own home.
|
>>it is also unacceptable to leave perfectly good homes empty for ages
Why? Bought and paid for and all that. My house is empty right now, and its too large for us really as well.
But surely its my choice?
And the council cracking down? On what basis?
|
Given that there is talk of major parts of the green belt being razed to build swathes of housing (Ok a little bit Daily Mail that in prose), it could be considered a little antisocial to own an unused pile.
I think however the target is landbanking and property speculation, rather than slightly potty ex-pats who cant remember where they live. We still have enough brownfield sites to exploit yet i think.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 2 Sep 12 at 14:24
|
>>a little antisocial
Clearly I've improved if now I'm only a *little* antisocial.
|
I am not sure if it is anti social but there is a massive housing crisis out there and homes shouldn't be empty for this reason. The UK is now big enough for empty houses. I am sure how they could legally crack down in this though. Maybe they need to introduce an empty house tax? E.g a tax you pay on all property unless it is lived in, but how do you even enforce that?
One of my customers leaves his £500,000 house empty and it staggers me that people can have that much money.
|
>> One of my customers leaves his £500,000 house empty and it staggers me that people
>> can have that much money.
>>
It would stagger a Kenyan peasant that you eat every day. Wealth is relative, and in the grand scheme of things you, me and the poorest people in this country are very near the top of the tree.
|
Bought & paid for = it's mine: I can do what I want about living there or not.
No-one has the right to interfere unless the property is a physical danger to others.
|
>>Maybe they need to introduce an empty house tax?
For a Forum that wets its knickers everytime the subject of tax on petrol comes up, we do seem to love the idea of new taxes that will affect other people.
How about doubling the tax on fuel, and funding everything the country needs from that.
I think that would be perfect, because;
It would driver down the number of cars freeing up space otherwise used by carparks and roads
Cause dealers to close freeing up land
Free up money since roads would need less maintenance
Reduce polution dramatically
Reduce road deaths
And do you know why that would not be popular? (and I mean not popular, not what are the economic reasons you should not do it)
Because taxation is not so much fun when you realise that it will affect oneself.
|
>> Because taxation is not so much fun when you realise that it will affect oneself.
>>
But its perfectly acceptable when it affects someone else.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 2 Sep 12 at 15:50
|
>> >>it is also unacceptable to leave perfectly good homes empty for ages
>>
>> Why? Bought and paid for and all that. My house is empty right now, and
>> its too large for us really as well.
>>
>> But surely its my choice?
>>
>> And the council cracking down? On what basis?
>>
It's inefficient to have homeless people stuck in B & Bs at great expense when there are lots of empty homes locally that could be put to use for a start.
Empty homes also tend to attract petty crime and vandalism. They also de-value other properties nearby and make them harder to sell. Your decision to leave a home empty can have consequences for others so it is a selfish act if that property isn't kept up to scratch.
|
Ahh, so you'd tax a fully occupied house as well if it wasn't kept up top scratch?
Also, will you be defining how long a holiday may be, just so that we know how long we may be absent from our own home before you decide we're being "inefficient"? Could you tell me how many bedrooms and bathrooms you have deemed efficient please. Perhaps also a square footage per inhabitant?
And what about you could we tax as inefficient? Do you use a car on a public transport route/ Do you take holidays abroad when you could be in Blackpool? I trust all your clothes are made from recyclable and recycled material? How often do you mow your lawn, if you have one? I trust you keep your car clean? I hope you don't go out drinking? Because all of these things have consequences for others.
What you mean is, you think *other* people should be taxed for things that won't impact you.
Its actually one of the biggest flaws in communism/socialism. Its all very well sharing other people's stuff, its just not so good when they want to share yours.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 2 Sep 12 at 16:54
|
Some of my oldest friends are long-term squatters who have never caused anyone any inconvenience and kept buildings warm and occupied, like caretakers. But I have also had cause to notice others of a more unprincipled sort, quite often well-educated but cynical individuals; and a large crazed student-druggie squatter subculture which can trash buildings.
The house next door to our gaff in the Grove belonged to a local big housing trust and was usually used for quite well-run low-key institutional stuff - recovering junkie single mothers, that sort of thing. But between these episodes it was empty and squatted both times by large groups of anarchist types. They were quite all right as people and no threat to us, but they did play extremely loud music at, say, 4 am, a bit annoying sometimes even when the music is interesting, as it quite often was. And the second lot all got stoned on something and beat each other up and moaned in the garden and had to be taken away by the emergency services.
Never a dull moment down de Grove man.
|
but they did play extremely loud music at, say, 4
>> am, a bit annoying sometimes even when the music is interesting,
>>
You must be one tolerant human being.
I couldn't stick that at 4pm, yet alone 4 am.
One lads holiday I went on in the past, a mate defied my explicit instructions and booked a night flight, because he was a cheapskate.
Upon arrival at our Greek island apartments, somewhat grumpy and tired, I went for a snooze .... and the four South London lads who'd arrived on the same flight and had the apartment below let rip with a boogie box. I strolled down there, walked in to their apartment, turned it off and said to the now incredulous four "if I hear this thing again, it'll go straight in the swiming pool...and if you don't believe me, give it a go".
I obviously took a degree of verbal abuse on the way out...but...never heard the stereo.
I would have done it as well.
|
|
Has the 'Job' calmed you down a bit or not? (0:/:0)
|
>> Has the 'Job' calmed you down a bit or not? (0:/:0)
>>
No. I'd been in it about 14 years then. Just after my divorce. I was the only one in my 30's. Not that age made so much of a difference, I hated night clubs and loud noise in my teens.
I'm getting worse of course. It's quite common for me to ask a pub to turn the music down. Some do, some don't
|
>> One lads holiday I went on in the past, a mate defied my explicit instructions
>> and booked a night flight, because he was a cheapskate.
He may well have been a cheapskate but IIRC in early eighties pretty much all flights to Corfu were overnight. Asthmatic first generation jetliners like the BAC 1-11 or 727 struggled to haul a full load off the restrictive runway in the heat of the day. Overnight from UK and a return in the cool of dawn avoided a tech stop to refuel.
|
>> You must be one tolerant human being.
>> I couldn't stick that at 4pm, yet alone 4 am.
No one could call me tolerant Westpig. But I like some music and think it should be loud. I remember you saying you wouldn't like the clamour of Carnival. I did like it. It was only a couple of days a year anyway.
4am was pretty inconsiderate. But there isn't much to be said for an authoritarian approach with such people. Anyway I certainly couldn't get a convincing one together at that time of the night. Go with the flow. The really mad second lot used to play stuff that sounded like a machine shop or shipyard. Industrial? Factory? Something like that. I quite liked it but herself didn't.
|
|
Actually when the gaff was sold two or three years ago I worried that if it stood empty for a few days it might be broken into - God knows it wasn't that damn difficult despite some reinforced doors and so on. But it turned out the purchaser had the same worry, so there was an instantaneous changeover.
|
Mark's quite right. Taxing empty or under occupied property looks great in theory. When you try and implement it you generate a lot of hard cases and not much sympathy.
Not many empty family houses round here anyway. Lady over the road (a an early retired divorcee) lives on her own in a four bed identical to ours. Bought it new 14yrs ago Should we have stopped her?
|
>> Mark's quite right. Taxing empty or under occupied property looks great in theory. When you
>> try and implement it you generate a lot of hard cases and not much sympathy.
>>
Most authorities already charge full council tax after a 6 month exemption. Legislation may be coming into force which will allow councils to charge higher council taxes.
This will be introduced as councils will have to fund the shortfall in central government funding due to the changes being introduced from April 2013 to council tax benefits which has to be funded by local councils.
|
|
If the Government wern`t too quick and keen to send money abroad at the drop of a hat, (how do they manage to find that "Spare" cash so fast anyway?) and used it to aid our own homeless and poor, this problem would never have existed in the first place! ... but, there`s no propaganda value in helping your own, other Countries can`t see how kind and humanitarian Britain really is that way! - No wonder Immigrants aren`t just queuing politely at the door, asking nicely if they may come in. Funny how "newly arrived" Immmigrants seem never to be the ones spending cold Winter nights in shop doorways and cardboard boxes though don`t you think?.
|
|
5k fine for squatters eh! Oh! yeah!
|
So let me get this straight, if you're away from your home you're meant to let strangers live in there? And what happens to those living in your home when you get back to the UK? And who will put right any damage etc.
Of course if we went to live overseas we'd consider renting out our house so we had somewhere to come back to if it didn't work out. It would also generate some income too. But if I was going for a shorter term, then I'd probably leave it empty as I'd want it to be as I left it.
|
>>as I'd want it to be as I left it.
Exactly.
There are a number of places in this world where if I live a book open on page 32 with a half eaten marathon bar next to it, when I return 6 months later I will find them the same way. (and if you think i won't eat a 6 month old, open marthan bar, then we obviously haven't met !!).
I pay money for that privilege. No doubt money that some of you would regard as either ridiculous or excessive or both. But spending my money is my right.
Why should I do it your way because it makes you more comfortable?
|
>There are a number of places in this world where if I live a book open on page 32 with a
>half eaten marathon bar next to it, when I return 6 months later I will find them the same
>way.
Snickers!
|
>>Snickers!
No need to laugh.
|
|
There is nowhere in the world where an in the open unwrapped snickers bar will be the same as you left after 6 months. The intervention may not be human, but I guarantee something will have at least some of it away.
|
>>The intervention may not be human
Nothing that would stop me eating the rest of it!!
|
+1 here (As no doubt expected!)
How come my reply to Devonite ended up here?
Last edited by: Roger on Sun 2 Sep 12 at 22:18
|
You're makng a straw man. I said no such thing. It's about making use of long term empty houses that the owners have little intention of returning to.
|
>It's about making use of long term empty houses that the owners have little intention of returning to.
Oh, I'm sorry. Just to help me further grasp the principle, at what point does it become "long term". Currently I'm away for about 6 months, although it might be as much as a year, perhaps even longer. Where does that lie?
Also, how would you measure "little intention of returning to"? Since I do reasonably intend to return, but my life is littered with changed plans, some of them delaying me a year or two. And there are at least two houses that I have never returned to, despite planning to, other than to sell them a couple of years after the realisation dawned. How does that fit?
At one point I owned a 4 bedroom house in San Francisco bought with the absolute intention of living full time in. As it happens I spent about 6 months there over the ensuing 5 years. Where does that fit?
Or do you just want to tax a life style that you neither follow nor approve of? And will you still strongly support such taxes if your lifestyle should change to one closer to mine?
Have you noticed how rarely someone gets on their soapbox about how they should pay more tax than someone else, about how their lifestyle should be suffering greater taxation, or about how someone else should get an advantage? I wonder how many times I've seen someone promote a tax wholeheartedly, purely from principle, when it would substantially impact them as well.
I repeat - its the ancient Biritsh religion of tax everybody else, outlaw stuff you don't want to do yourself, and generally whinge about everybody else.
As was said, we want more housing, but not next to me. It should be next to someone else, and they are anti-social and selfish if they object.
|
>>
>> At the same time it is also unacceptable to leave perfectly good homes empty for
>> ages. Councils need to be cracking down on this and finding out why there are
>> so many empty houses in some areas that could be put to better use.
>>
Legislation in this regard already exists
www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/emptydwellingmanagement
|
TEABELLY:>>It is ludicrous that someone can walk into your home and you're not legally
>>allowed just to bundle them out the door with a kick up the bum.
This is absolute rubbish.
It has ALWAYS (or for many years at least) been a criminal offence to squat in somebody's own HOME. If it's your home, you are a 'protected occupier' and the advice on direct.gov is to call the police and tell them to arrest the squatters.
It doesn't mean the police know this, though. My own house was (very briefly) occupied by squatters once whilst I was on holiday. They broke in, stuck their 'legal notice' up on the front door - it means nothing, it's all fake law and is designed purely to impress. And then they realised (as there was milk in the 'fridge) that it was my home, and beggared straight off again. Leaving the notice on the front door, and therefore I came home from holiday. The police said 'Squatters, tough, not our problem.' A barrister friend (though admittedly not a squatting expert) I spoke to likewise. My INSURANCE COMPANY WITH WHOM I HAD LEGAL COVER said 'not worth doing anything.' This before I had understood the law.
The irony was that the squatters knew the law and so didn't hang around. The law was not known by (1) the police; (2) a very bright barrister; (3) my insurance company - who were exposed to the potential loss of at the very least the entirety of my not inconsiderable contents.
I spoke to the insurance company (a widely-advertised high-end expensive specialist insurance company) the moment I found out, in the interests of mitigating their loss assuming their own lawyers would know exactly how to deal with the problem. I cannot believe, even to this date, that their claims department didn't care. I was instead (my broker was) referred to the legal insurance team who wanted a week to consider the case as they didn't think there was any point in bothering.
|
>> wanted a week to consider the case as they didn't think there was any point in bothering.
Unless I have misunderstood, Mapmaker, there wasn't anything much to bother about. The house had been broken into, squatters had left immediately presumably without doing much damage or stealing anything. Break-in damage to be sorted out at leisure surely, if worth claiming over?
|
You have! It was assumed - since their notice was on the front door and the locks were unable to be opened (a terraced house, so you could not see round the back and the front curtains were all shut) that they were in residence.
This needed action 'NOW!' ('THEN!' obviously).
I shall be interested to see what NFM2R thinks as I know he has (had) the inside knowledge on the insurance industry.
|
Mapmakers post is very interesting (and bears out my own thinking). There was previous legislation which permitted Police action when somebody's home was occupied. For whatever reason, perhaps ignorance or fear of civil liability to the squatters if they got it wrong, the police were reluctant to the point of refusal to use their powers.
Rather than modifying that provision to remove the problems the coalition have enacted new legislation with extended criminal sanction against alleged squatters.
If it's only used as intended when a family home or intended family home is squatted then it's probably a good thing. OTOH there are good reasons why trespass is a matter of civil law with matters requiring to be properly tested in court before force is used.
The proof will be in the reported cases two/three years on. If the law turns out to be drafted badly or malevolently in the interest of landowners (for example allowing the removal of disputed legitimate tenants) then I'd not be surprised.
|
Brompton>>If the law turns out to be drafted malevolently... in the interest of landowners (for
>>example allowing the removal of disputed legitimate tenants) then I'd not be surprised.
Spoken like the true lefty you are. All property is theft, innit.
Better that one rightful homeowner should be kept out of his property than that there might be an unknown risk of one mickey-taking tenant (who is depriving a property-owning man of that which is rightly his) should lose his home.
Yeah right. What planet is your sort on.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Sun 2 Sep 12 at 22:47
|
>>What planet is your sort on.
The planet of I want a share of what others have got, but I don't want to share in the effort of earning it.
|
>>The planet of I want a share of what others have got, but I don't want to share in the effort of earning it.
An excessively rash comment because I'd just come straight from a thread where my life is going to be taxed.
Do forgive my occasionally large mouth. Sorry.
|
|
If I reported squatters invading my property the cops would be there with an armed response team within minutes.
|
>> Brompton>>
>>
>> Yeah right. What planet is your sort on.
>>
FFS I was to a large extent agreeing with your own post.
The planet I live on is partially inhabited by clerks, research assistants etc. Most are under 30 single or in relationships of varying endurance and live in shared rented houses. Some of them get in disputes with Lessors. Not because they're mickey taking but because there are people riding the buy to let wave with little knowledge of or interest in their responsibilities as a Landlord.
If presenting an assertive tenant as as squatter gives then an advantage they'll use it.
|
...If presenting an assertive tenant as as squatter gives then an advantage they'll use it...
I agree with your portrayal of what we call up here scum landlords, but the above statement is surely reading something into the legislation which just isn't there.
|
>>The planet I live on is partially inhabited by clerks, research assistants etc. Most are under
>>30 single or in relationships of varying endurance and live in shared rented houses. Some of
>>them get in disputes with Lessors.
You'd be amazed how many friends I have in exactly this situation. It's a depressing world, or can be. But the great thing about that world is that you can abandon your landlord very easily. Why would you want to hang around long enough for an eviction process to go on around you. Move!
|
>> The proof will be in the reported cases two/three years on. If the law turns
>> out to be drafted badly or malevolently in the interest of landowners (for example allowing
>> the removal of disputed legitimate tenants) then I'd not be surprised.
Its not drafted badly and has provision to exclude tenancy disputes. It also has very good guidance issued to the CPS and police. The key point in the legislation is the method and reason of first entry has to be known trespass. Even people who are scammed into false tenancies are protected.
|
B,
Perhaps you ought to consider the landlord/tenant relationship in its entirety, not just from the tenant's perpsective.
When I met my wife 7 years ago, we kept her house going and rented it out. It still has a mortgage and we were a cop and a primary school teacher, so not exactly rich landlords.
The first tenants were utters shysters. Two months rent paid, then nothing. No phone calls answered, no letters answered, nothing paid at all.
Do you know how much it costs to evict people?
When i found out they had two horses in livery and two unemployed adult children contributing sod all, 3 cars and a works van...and had a long history of debt...my sense of humour was truly
shot.
You need to remember there are two sides to every story.
|
My cousin rented out their house (which was immaculately decorated by her father who had a decorating business) when they were away due to her being married to someone in the RAF. The tenants trashed the place in the end. The house was getting in a state so they eventually had to get them evicted. But they went to town and ruined the house which needed gutting before it was habitable.
You live and learn.
|
>> Do you know how much it costs to evict people?
Yes. You have to stop accepting rent, the eviction process is slow and they leave bills.
Happened to me in the late sixties. People who were friends of friends, renting my Highbury house informally at a low rent, started whining that it was 'their home' when we decided to sell the place and told them they would have to move in about six weeks, under the informal arrangement. Turned out they wanted to be paid for moving; since we were going to get the money for the house it was only fair! Property is theft, see?
Well, that wasn't going to happen. Damn carphounds... haven't deigned to speak to any of them since. Cost us a couple of thousand.
|
That's quite a lot of money now. Must have been a small fortune in the late '60s?
Edit - I think I remember my dad paying about £2000 for a new Volvo 144 around 1972 for example. might be wrong. But if I'm close to being right that's a wedge of money.
Last edited by: Humph D'Bout on Mon 3 Sep 12 at 17:29
|
It was actually around 1973. Perhaps it was only a thousand or so, but it hurt a bit. Even though the house had quintupled in value in the six or seven years we had owned it. I was still very lefty at the time and felt quite guilty about that. I was a capitalist, almost! Ooo-er! But I still didn't buy the property-is-theft, it's our home piffle. I may be soppy sometimes but I'm not thick.
My first instinct was to use force and subterfuge, write them a rubber cheque, bust into the house and give some of them a kicking. But my real squatter friends deterred me, pointing out that that would just get me into trouble. Very sensible of them I now think. Especially as I'm not much good at violence.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Mon 3 Sep 12 at 17:40
|
I heard a story about RAF regiment turned up at an officer's house that was being occupied by squatters to warn them the owner was being targeted by IRA.
They left, promptly!
|
|
Ungutted mackerel secreted in the hollow of the curtain pole. Shift anyone that will.
|
|
... a bit like the lingering scent of Camembert in the car...
|
Someone I know, hid a punctured bag of frozen prawns in the spare wheel well of a car belonging to someone they didn't like at that moment... In July.
:-)
|
>> Someone I know, hid a punctured bag of frozen prawns in the spare wheel well
>> of a car belonging to someone they didn't like at that moment... In July. :-)
>>
Someone I know had a bag of prawns in the boot , in July on the Florida Keys.
After having introduced his son to fishing off the jetty with prawns as bait , all was forgotten for a few days until the boot was again accessed and then. - PHEEEEEW!
|
>> Someone I know had a bag of prawns in the boot , in July on
>> the Florida Keys.
>> After having introduced his son to fishing off the jetty with prawns as bait ,
>> all was forgotten for a few days until the boot was again accessed and then.
>> - PHEEEEEW!
>>
similar story - squid and other assorted bait left in a corrugated iron boatshed in december/january.
the boat had to be effectively gutted and rebuilt afterwards.
|
>> punctured bag of frozen prawns in the spare wheel well
Dead cat or rat in the floor or roof space... old Rachmanite soft winkling technique. If that failed, noisy violent neighbours; and if that failed too, a visit from a Chevrolet-load of real sweeties with samurai swords and baseball bats...
Notting Hill in the old days, no kidding. But it was all right if you weren't a contender and kept your head down.
|
I used to collect overdue car HP payments there - or I should say, WE - our office of the finance co. was nicknamed rent-a-thug as we were all big lads and there, you needed to be.
A very little after the "heyday" of Rachmann - 1966 on, but it was still grim in parts.
|
|
So you a real honorary Rastaman then innit?
|
Remember 'keyfinders'? Those things that beep when you whistled?
I bought a few and planted them around the office before I retired. It took them a few hours to retrieve them all I understand, the one in the A/C ducting was particularly troublesome.
My ex-manager asked if I'd planted anything else. He was relieved when I assured him there was nothing 'fishy' around.
|
|
I believe spilt milk in a boot space is very effective too.
|
>>Spilt Milk
Used to be a favorite "revenge" trick of the "Common or Garden Scrote" around these parts at one time!
Whenever a "friend" went away for a while (holidays etc) they would pour a couple pints of Milk through the letter box, and a couple of handfulls of grass seeds.
The Occupiers had a lovely stinky Vestibule lawn to come home to after a couple of weeks!
This practice has now mainly died out, due I suppose to the price of both Milk and Seed, the new "trick" is a rock through the living room window during the night. The window cleanersw on certain streets in the town use Sanders instead of Squeegees!
|
Squatters - teabelly
