Squatting in the UK

Post Reply New Topic

I don't think we should criminalise squatting but it does occasionally happen that the owner of the property struggles to get it back. In those cases, my sympathy is with the landowner, even if they've been absent for years.

However, I didn't think many aspies would squat because of the unpredictability of that kind of lifestyle. I couldn't do it, anyway,

Hmm - that may be how it appears but it doesn't work like that. As a single male - if push came to shove - I'd get absolutely nothing.
It depends on the specific homeless type. Parent(s) + child; excellent. Others - get to the back of the queue.
I don't doubt that the neighbours would have been tut-tutting about the state of the place for some time before it got squatted, and even more so once it was - but after 12 years the council loses all credibility.
If I was wandering the streets homeless and had a choice between being allowed a couple of nights in some grubby dormitory shared with meths drinkers and I don't know what else - or a safe house I knew had been unused for years, I know where I'd rather go.
So a "self-help" opportunistic element plays a part too.

Last edited by Cornflake on 09 Oct 2011, 8:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

If I were to squat, I would not go wrecking the place like lot of them do. Vacant homes here have a big problem with squatters so it makes it harder to sell the home because no one wants to buy a place that has been vandalized or damaged. Here in my neighborhood, the homes gets very secured and have a sign in the window about breaking in.

Your knowledge of my nation is astounding.

Astoundingly wrong that is.

Your two statements are not mutually exclusive.

In many countries 'Trespassing' is a Criminal Offence - which is simply legal recognition of the fundamental rights of use, access and enjoyment of property by their owner.

It is also a fact that there are many people less fortunate than people who own property that they neither occupy nor rent out to someone else under a legal leasing agreement.

It is perhaps a bit of a stretch to suggest that a person supporting a Law that recognizes property rights and gives further legitimate protection to property ownership - is uncaring.

Although I can empathise to some extent, I disagree with squatting, mainly because help is available in this country if you ask for it. There are literally hundreds of organisations and projects that can support you in finding a legal place to stay.
I know this from first-hand experience.

It may be worth clarifying that squatting is illegal in Scotland, so the property owner does have more power to evict squatters.

I too was completely astounded by that.

Must be the propaganda. After all, we in the UK live in the Socialist Workers Paradise. We are all serfs, nobody owns anything, our teeth are rotten, our health service kills babies, we all talk like either the Queen or (cor blimey) a cabbie born within spitting distance of Bow Bells and we are monitored 24/7 by cameras placed on every street corner by our fascist bully boys in blue. Did I miss anything?

Yes, it's all true.

^^
And we still send children up chimneys or down t' pits (depending on your location and poverty level) - when we've not all been shipped off to the hop-fields in Kent, of course.

Gor bless yer, Mary Poppins; stroik a light an' no mishtake. (adjusts cloth cap, kicks whippet, etc)

lol there's actually even something called 'adverse possession'- whereby a squatter can apply to become the owner in fee simple of a property if they prove they have lived there for a certain period of time (i think 10 or 12 years?). it's mad

Yes indeed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession
and http://www.legalcentre.co.uk/property/g ... n-of-land/

I agree with criminalizing squatting if it was ever to happen to a future house I owned would be furious. There needs to be more investment in getting people of the streets for those who need it and cheaper renting. It's those who mess up the house and refuse to leave that makes me want to break their legs.

Have so many actually forgotten what the purpose of allowing squatting was to begin with? Clearly, how the application of squatting actually plays out in reality is often in contrast with the purpose for allowing it, and I'm not arguing this is true. But, the intent of allowing squatting, lest some have forgotten, was originally to prevent land and property owners from simply buying said property, then doing nothing with it that benefits anyone, including the owner.

Squatting came about because some land and property owners would purchase properties, then allow the properties to deteriorate, not allowing anyone to use it and keep it up, to the point that said property was actually available to be used, but simply not allowed to be used by anyone. Such a situation is not a problem when there is plenty of property available for all to choose from, but becomes a serious problem when it all property is already owned by someone, yet there are those in need of it, yet not allowed to use it for whatever reason.

Does it make sense for a city or town to have homeless families, yet also have empty houses and apartments?

The problem is not squatting. The problem is squatting by people who ruin the property. Yet, if the owner is doing nothing to improve or keep up the property, is the owner any less at fault? I think not.

The real problem is when squatting laws aren't written and enforced properly with the original intent of squatting laws clearly spelled out in the law.

Criminalizing squatting doesn't address the original problem of landlords who do not take care of their properties, and also do not allow anyone else to.

Solving the problem just isn't that simple.

Squatting is not just allowed in the U.K. It is also still allowed in the U.S. with laws governing squatter's rights varying from state to state.

Read your history. Squatting laws have been around in the U.S. for many, many years. A lot of them began with the intent of preventing land barrons from purchasing large plots of land in the west, and/or simply taking possession of it by force or coercion, then refusing to sell any of it or allow any of it to be used, and not using it themselves, at times actually running people off of it violently, just to sit on it waiting for the value to rise so they could later sell it for huge profits.

The practice ran contrary to the idea of settlement of these lands by pioneers. Pioneers who's intention was to USE the land for farming and other enterprising activities. In some cases, if settlers could prove they had been living on a plot, farming or otherwise using it productively, regardless of who legally owned it, for a certain period of time with the land owner having no knowledge of their presence, that was proof enough to the government that the value of allowing the "squatter" to remain and take legal possession of the land was in the best interests of the public and society than to allow the legal owner to kick them off.

Criminalizing squatting isn't the answer. Fixing the problem with the laws and their enforcement is the answer.

Hmm - that may be how it appears but it doesn't work like that. As a single male - if push came to shove - I'd get absolutely nothing.

it is definitely harder for single males definitely. but your homelessness statistics point to that fact that very few people fall through the cracks in your system. only 500 homeless people a night means that your councils are in fact doing a very good job of caring for most of your population.

At best, it'd mean our councils are keeping people off the streets, but imply nothing further about their status. But where'd you get that 500 figure from, though?

Ah, Ambivalence beat me to it.
As he asks, really, and with the same suspicions about the actual status of these people.
But always believing that there are lies, damn lies and statistics - my first question might be: only 500 homeless a night where?