'Squatting' can be a criminal offence

[TeaFan 10]

I've never understood why those who "work hard" whine about it so much. So you've 'worked hard'- so what? You've clearly reaped the considerable benefits of it. So why not just enjoy your life? Why this obsessive need to portray 'hard work' as some awful ordeal, and demand that everyone lives their life like you have.

 

Some people don't want to 'work hard'. what's the problem, it's their choice, and means they won't reap the benefits that you have.

 

Given that so many of those who've 'worked hard' seem so bitter about it, is it any surprise that many just choose a more relaxed approach and just 'work a reasonable amount' and enjoy whatever comes from that.

 

If you think the other side have unreasonably got something you've not, then just do what they do and learn to deal with what they have to deal with- you've got that choice.

 

Although I'm not sure that that is what penistone999 is saying, you have described very well a particular type of person.

 

Similarly, I always laugh when people talk about the 'politics of envy' in response to a suggestion that rich people pay a bit more tax. I've met a lot of rich people and trust me, there's nothing to be envious of. Their money has by and large made them miserable, I wouldn't swap places.

[Halibut 12]

I can't agree with people squatting properties that someone is due to move into (the 'squatters moved into our house while we were on holiday' line is largely a myth peddled by the right wing press), but we now have a situation where investment properties owned by shadowy trusts and front companies as tax dodges, or by Libyan dictators, can stand empty for years on end while people sleep on the streets. I say that's wrong.

 

I agree with you

[woodmally 10]

I've never understood why those who "work hard" whine about it so much. So you've 'worked hard'- so what? You've clearly reaped the considerable benefits of it. So why not just enjoy your life? Why this obsessive need to portray 'hard work' as some awful ordeal, and demand that everyone lives their life like you have.

 

Some people don't want to 'work hard'. what's the problem, it's their choice, and means they won't reap the benefits that you have.

 

Given that so many of those who've 'worked hard' seem so bitter about it, is it any surprise that many just choose a more relaxed approach and just 'work a reasonable amount' and enjoy whatever comes from that.

 

If you think the other side have unreasonably got something you've not, then just do what they do and learn to deal with what they have to deal with- you've got that choice.

 

 

I enjoy hard work and I like to be in work paying my taxes and contributing to society. I would also like a country which is fair and just. Where people who shy away from work dont get rewarded. Many people on here work hard and have their own house. To have it taken away by some one who wants to live in it for free because its their god given right to do annoys those that do work.

[fruitisbad 10]

an interesting and well balanced arguement from a buy to let landlord no less

 

New Squatting Law Will Not Work and Will Not Deter Squatters

 

Judging by my mailbag, squatting is a major concern for home owners – whether they are landlords or residential occupiers. And rightly so.

 

Squatting is an area where the law has long been a bit of a mess and this is something I have commented on and written quite a bit about – both at our past blogs and at my “Articles” pages on the main part of our site.

 

And so, the government just had to be seen to be “doing something”. And so it has.

 

Illegal Occupation

 

From September 2012 squatting (or rather illegal occupation of a residential property) is criminalised. Previously it was usually just a civil offence.

 

But the new law will not work. We think all that a squatter now has to do under the new law, is the following*….

 

1. Go to the Land Registry website and find out who is the owner of the property. This costs £4 currently per enquiry and takes about 3 minutes to do.

 

2. Make up a plausible looking tenancy agreement with a false name for the tenant and the true name of the landlord. Blank up to date agreements can be found on line in a minute or so, and can be bought for a few pounds. (In fact they may not even need to do this much because you don’t actually need to have been issued with a tenancy agreement for a tenancy to have been “formed”.)

 

3. Show the agreement to the policeman or bailiff or owner.

 

4. If queried, the squatter will say they pay rent in cash to the landlord. Naturally there is no trail for cash and they can always say that the nasty landlord never issues a receipt. *

 

So, then it comes down to who the police believe. The landlord / homeowner will then have to go to the trouble to prove that no such implied or actual tenancy agreement was made and / or that they are the rightful owner. This could all take a few weeks or even a month.

 

Skip

 

Eventually, once they have proved this and just before the police come again, the illegal occupiers will then need to do a “skip” – which will probably in the middle of the night onto the next squat.

 

In time it will be obvious to everyone with some common sense that the new law does not work effectively – at which point the police will not want to get involved anyway. (They may not want to be involved even at the outset).

 

So, all in all, a good idea from the government, which plays out well in the Conservative supporting press, but we think a law that will likely prove a bit of a waste of time and hard to make work.

 

New Law Because the Police Did Not Enforce the Old Law

 

Tessa Shepperson, a respected landlord law expert has pointed out that if the police had enforced the old law properly there would be no need for this new law in the first place.

 

Like me, she goes on to question the point of making up new laws just because the police don’t enforce old laws effectively. She suggests the police will soon tire of trying to enforce this latest squatter law too.

 

Still, “something has been seen to be done” and that keeps some people happy.

 

Homelessness

 

Finally, a bit of politics on all this: There are squats and there are squats.

 

The law should certainly be made to work more effectively to deal with the case where someone squats a property that has been empty for a short period for a valid reason. This type of squatting is nearly always bad.

 

But many people will be uncomfortable with properties that are empty and abandoned for years on end. This is a different matter, is wrong and if the owners and / or the authorities cannot get the homes back into a liveable condition, then I have no objection to people coming in and taking them over to live in them.

 

Local authorities have powers to get long term abandoned, empty properties back into use. The real problem is they are not using them.

 

*Real squatters will not be learning anything from my guide here – they will already know more than I can ever know about how to get round the laws on squatting – both the old law and the new one.

 

http://www.lettingfocus.com/blogs/index.php/2012/08/new-squatting-law-will-not-work-and-will-not-deter-squatters/

[PeteMorris 10]

an interesting and well balanced arguement from a buy to let landlord no less

 

 

 

http://www.lettingfocus.com/blogs/index.php/2012/08/new-squatting-law-will-not-work-and-will-not-deter-squatters/

 

I'm slightly confused how your 'squatters instructions' might work. Ok, they make up a bogus tenancy agreement. Every agreement I've ever had, has to be signed by both parties.

 

Plod shows up, sees the 'bogus' agreement, with either a forged signature or no signature. Compares it to the owner/landlords 'real' signature, and the squatter hasn't got a leg to stand on. Out on their ear, and perhaps charged with forgery too!

[fruitisbad 10]

I'm slightly confused how your 'squatters instructions' might work. Ok, they make up a bogus tenancy agreement. Every agreement I've ever had, has to be signed by both parties.

 

Plod shows up, sees the 'bogus' agreement, with either a forged signature or no signature. Compares it to the owner/landlords 'real' signature, and the squatter hasn't got a leg to stand on. Out on their ear, and perhaps charged with forgery too!

 

i doubt the police will turn up first time round with a piece of paper with the landlords signature on it.

and forgery isn't a crime.

[fruitisbad 10]

There is also already a piece of paper to stick to the door which should prevent entry from the police to enforce this law similar to the section 63 that used to be put up on squats.

 

For me the issue here issn't the squatting, it's the fact that the old legislation should have worked it just wasn't enforced properly. People can't see that this is just the governement trying to be seen to be doing something rather than actually doing something. It's spending government money, our money, to try and buy back the votes of its core supporters.

[PeteMorris 10]

i doubt the police will turn up first time round with a piece of paper with the landlords signature on it.

and forgery isn't a crime.

 

Well..Put it this way. Based on (knowing) the deception that could be used that you mention. If I was a landlord/owner. It would be me that called the police, and I would say, "just incase they they have a bogus agreement which they might show you, here's a copy of my signature, if it's not on the agreement they show you it's a forgery"

 

Not sure that forgery isn't a crime, but even if it isn't, then I'm sure there's something akin to it, like deception, or something. But either way...squatting will be a crime!

[fruitisbad 10]

It may well be a crime but it won't get enforced as effectively as you would like to believe.

[PeteMorris 10]

It may well be a crime but it won't get enforced as effectively as you would like to believe.

 

Well to be honest, I'm not that well informed about the rights and wrongs of it all, and whether it will work or not, or if it's purely government posturing (which wouldn't surprise me). It just seemed that the scenario in your earlier post did have some holes in it...IMHO.

[eastbank 10]

Until your gang of violent yobs, because that's what you mean by "the friendly neighbourhood watch" rubs up against another gang of violent thugs, and you end up with...gang warfare, which has no winners whatsoever.

 

And following that, generations of back and forth violence and retaliation, until neither side remembers what started it off, and it gets to the level of your side killing their sides kids, cos they killed yours.

 

Fantastic way to deal with it, isn't it.

 

That's assuming the law doesn't get wind of your violence against the squatters. in which case you'll be locked up like other criminals.

 

squatting is no better than house breaking...let people crap on you..is not the motto....

that's why around our way we have no problem with squatters...safe neighbourhood...

and the old one's can go shopping...with the peace of mind..that when they return...no scuffs have taken over their property...happy days...

[onewheeldave 22]

I enjoy hard work and I like to be in work paying my taxes and contributing to society. I would also like a country which is fair and just. Where people who shy away from work dont get rewarded. Many people on here work hard and have their own house. To have it taken away by some one who wants to live in it for free because its their god given right to do annoys those that do work.

 

As several here have pointed out, that doesn't happen though.