16 Comments

For the home of the Magna Carta and English Common Law, the UK certainly seems to have chronic profound weaknesses in civil liberties.

You’d think that at least someone could conclude for this fellow’s sake that changing the locks constituted damage in the sense that their original structure and function was rendered non-operational.
What a bunch of pansies the Brits have become. They should have been left to the Germans in WWII so that someone with backbone would be presently running the country.

Like many legal stories, there are some truth and some lies around the facts.

Yes, the law needs changing, it is more than a little odd. But the story your quote is plain incorrect, if it were true the owner would be a displaced residential occupier (google it), and could gain entry without any problem. We have to judge that whatever the real story is, it isn’t what was written in the press. The only people affected by squatters are the mega rich, who buy a house in London then never use it.

Steve, like the mega rich pensioner whose family tried to sell her house to fund her stay in an end-of-life care facility but were stopped by a family of squatters? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-311064/Squatters-seize-home-ill-pensioner.html

Or the filthy rich pensioner wh0 took the dog out for a walk and is now the victim of scammers and squatters?
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2010/09/pensioner_takes.php

crabtree, I’m not sure where you live, but quoting the daily mail is like quoting fox news. Whatever the story is, it’s very unlikely you will find the truth at the DM. (For fun , see the list of everything the DM says will cause/cure cancer http://kill-or-cure.heroku.com/)

I’m afraid I cannot read the amren article, its blocked at work due to being in the blocklist “The Websense category “Racism and Hate” “.

As I said, the law needs changing, but you’re not going to find much rational debate in the press about the subject. Hasty law is seldom good law (though most foreign commenter’s don’t know that a EDM is unlikely to become law anyway)

Squatting and difficulty evicting tenants has been a feature of British law for decades. It was a problem when I lived there in the 80s. Ironically, it made it relatively easy for us expats to find housing. We were safer tenants. We go home.

Steve, your link does not work; it “may not exist or may have moved….”
And as for that list of things that cause/ cure cancer: Nearly every network, magazine, newspaper, etc. continues to report on a near-daily or near-weekly basis that something is either good for you, bad for you, causes “x” bad thing to happen to you, or cures “x”; it ain’t just the Daily Mail, Fox News, etc.! (I.e. Saccahrin, trans-fats, butter, coffee, sunlight, eggs, certain medications, certain medical procedures, etc.)

Steve,

One is forced to notice that you never really addressed Crabtree’s claim, or offered proof that the article he cited was incorrect. Instead, you offered an ad hominen attack on the Daily Mail, got in a shot against Fox news, and linked to a list of articles that doesn’t support what you or the list say it does.

Through all this the central point remains and your initial attack on the “mega rich” is without support.

It is amazing to see people such as yourself say the “law needs to be changed” and then in the same breath dismiss those people who the current law affects.

There is no excuse for squatting. None. You cannot justify taking another person’s property without their permission. You cannot justify using their property without their consent. You cannot rationalize depriving anyone be benefits of a legal purchase.

It doesn’t matter whether the houses in question are bought by a person who scraped by for years, someone who is wealthy or the queen herself. The property or permission to use the property does not belong to the squatters and any attempt to justify their use of the property is misguided.

Melvin H.,

Remove the last closing parenthesis in the link and it works.

http://kill-or-cure.heroku.com/

In the US, states that allow home owners to shoot people who unlawfully invade their homes seem not to have a squatting problem. This is a simple solution that I would endorse.

I guess this last statement shows the animosity this matter provokes. To shoot the trespassers on sight or to bring back a fascist regime (as written before by gasman) is, in my view, pathetic. Let’s be clear. It will not solve anything. It is not the law who allows squatting, the law regulates a situation that will always exist as long as people found themselves in poverty. Every country in the world have squatters. When it is not regulated, slums appears and the situation becomes worse. That is why there are squatter’s rights in the first place. People need a place to live and that is still the main cause for squatting. To choose to take only a few examples like “the owner who turns his back for a minute and found squatters in his property” is politically motivated and is not representative of the thousands of people from all background, sex and ages who are going through the experience of homelessness. We will always have to deal with that. Fascist regime or not. And if you want to shoot them, then start digging.

“Sorry but Sometimes”, you haven’t addressed the issue, except thru meaningless platitudes. The law only regulates the problem cause people need a place to live? What about the displaced homeowner? he is homeless now and still has to pay the mortgage! The fact these “only a few examples” are mentioned are cause for alarm. I am pleased I don’t live in merry old England.

Doug, I was mainly replying to those saying that we should kill them or bring back Hitler. I agree with you that I did not address the issue, I really wish I could. Just to rectify though, always and in every cases discussed here, the owners have got their house back. Never the trespassers got ownership of their properties, this would be crazy. The problem is that it forces the owners to engage in a law-suit to get their properties back and that, once it is done (and it is always done), the trespassers are left to find another place to occupy. Once again, let’s be clear. The government did not wake up yesterday to this reality. We will not be able to solve the issue here simply because we do not have the necessary knowledges to do so. My advice is that you get properly informed if you feel strongly about this very interesting issue. It is also a big part of your culture and history.
Yours, wherever you are.

Even when the owners get their homes back, it is a matter of eventually….. and even if it’s a week’s delay, that’s a terrifying situation.

Bob

Absolutely. To have your home taken over in this manner is against basic principals of human rights. No question about it. The matter is not as clear though, when the premises are truly unoccupied, empty or derelict for a long period of time. It is always surprising to me, to see people sleeping rough in towns like London, Paris or New York, when there are millions of people in homes around them. People never see further than their own rights. You cannot, in my opinion, expect to have your rights respected if you are not ready to respect the rights of others. Homelessness is terrifying for everyone. It is not squatters who make people homeless. There has been many abuses of the so-called “squatter’s rights” but there would be no squatters at the first place if we were not so selfish and individualist. Homeless are people like you and me. They are not criminals, everything but that. The law needs to protect everyone. Don’t you agree?

Kevin

Thanks for clarifying.