Squatters

I felt sorry for the teacher who was on the programme, but I agree squatting is wrong.
The fault lies with the authorities who don't have enough available accommodation. Some of them spend money on 'political' issues like gay black rights instead of on basic necessitys!

I agree jeni I remember some years back Bristol City Council withdrew funding for the local Scouts group because of cut-backs but did give a grant to a lesbian/gay/transexual group! I sometimes think when someone is elected either to local council or parliament they have their common sense gene removed!

Whilst it is true there are not enough council properties for rent - most squatters would not get a council property anyway, also the ones I have encountered want free accommodation and they don't care what they have to do and what distress they cause in order to get it.

I have experienced the problems squatters can cause and eventually had to resort to breaking the law myself by having a number of large male friends "have a word".

barrow Bristol was I had in mind.

It depends how it is done. Leaving whole buildings empty for years in order to speculate is just not acceptable imho. Here in Switzerland there are groups of squatters that actually do UP the properties, repairing and improving the property, turning rubbish strewn areas in vegetable gardens, etc. and I say thumbs up to them.

I agree, granjura - in this country a lot of the outrage against squatters in empty buildings is directed towards the damage they do and the filth they leave behind when the eventually do leave.

What is wrong in giving a grant to a gay group?
There are numerous properties which are left empty for years simply to give someone a bigger profit - I would rather see people living in them than sleeping rough, with all the dangers that brings.
Of course more 'affordable' housing should be built, but property developers are hanging fire because they hope to get planning consent to build expensive properties without having the obligation to include cheaper properties included. Actually, 'affordable' is a joke, when many lenders are demanding a 30% deposit. Investment in buy-to-rent property is very low in the UK.

Good points Barrow

Nothing so long as its not at yhe expense of more basic needs!

There are two sides to the squatter law. Obviously it is good that squatters can't take over someone's home without the law turfing them out. But is it so very bad for them to squat in empty derelict buildings?

There is homelessness around for various reasons, but high rents and high prices for houses have to be the main reasons. Other reasons are family breakdown, fleeing abuse, dug abuse, and mental illness. Funding for homeless shelters should be increased so that no-one has to sleep rough unless they choose to do so.

Funding can be a controversial issue, but I don't think comparisons are helpful. Does it really matter whether one group or another is more worthy of finance, for instance? Often there are unknown elements to funding decisions, when funds are taken from one group and funds are given to another. Perhaps one lot is suffering local persecution, but the other has plenty of money to be going on with. Generally speaking, the press keep us in the dark about such things.

One thing is certain though - homelessness is a dreadful thing, and if the government is going to take one solution away, they should replace it with another.

Squatting in an empty derelict building is one thing, and if the squatters don't damage or leave a mess, I don't have too much of a problem with it. However, when I read about squatters moving into anyone's home, whilst they aren't there, and particularly when they damage it or dump the home owners possessions outside it makes my blood boil. It also seems really wrong when the poor owners have previously been told by the police they will have to spend their own money in getting the squatters evicted and presumably don't get that money back. In the meantime the squatters are running up bills at the householders' expense and in the worst case scenarios damaging their property. Eviction should be immediate and I hope that is now the case.

I think there should be two levels of squatting.

The first should get immediate eviction and if damage has been done lead to criminal damage cases.

When squatters simply move into someone's home. There was a case not long ago where someone went on holiday and came back to find their house had been taken over.

When squatters move into a property that is obviously in the process of being renovated.

When squatters move into a propery that is about to be renovated.

When squatters move into a property that is in the process of being sold or let.

When squatters move onto land that belongs to someone else (private or council) without permission.

When squatters buy a piece of land and move onto it without planning permission.

Any situation where squatters cause a nuisance to the local community.

The second still needs to lead to eviction but not so quickly. Needs and situations should be taken into account and help given if necessary. However criminal damage should lead to immediate eviction and prosecution.

When squatters move into a property that has been left empty in order for it to simply increase in value or to become derelict in an attempt to bypass planning laws by making it so dangerous that it has to be demolished.

Excellent post, VQ - I think you have summed up my feelings exactly.

If a property has been left empty purely waiting for it to increase in value then there is a case for squatters to move in, although I don't know anyone who does this - if they buy a property that needs work then they usually want to get the work done as quickly as possible in order that they can either move in themselves or they can rent it out so they can start to get a return on their investment.

This new law does not apply to commercial properties so perhaps we will begin to see all those empty office blocks and shops occupied

The worst case I read about was that of an elderly lady, who temporarily had to either go into hospital or was recovering from an illness in a residential home. In the meantime her property had been taken over by squatters. I think the squatters maintained that she had left the house unlocked and their argument was that they therefore weren't breaking and entering so it was all quite legal. Whether or not she secured the property properly should have been immaterial they were in her house and she couldn't return to it when she needed to. I hate this argument that possession is 9/10ths of the law and that anyone can roll up and take over someone else's home if they haven't locked it up properly.

Vampirequeen - if squatters move onto land which isn't theirs without permission or live on their own land without planning permission doesn't that make them gypsies with all the problems of Dale Farm?

Oh dear this is where I have to confess that I was once a squatter but actually [proud]. It was in the 1970s - the days of the GLC and their disgraceful tactics of leaving properties empty, cutting off utilities in the road, pouring concrete down toilets and ripping up floorboards to stop squatters. These properties stood empty for years. We found one they hadn't got to and occupied it until we were evicted - that was another story in itself.

Respect, nightowl!

Thank you anno, I like to remember that I was once young and rebellious. I also like to make my children understand the same . But even then, we would never have occupied privately owned homes.

I am surprised that owners/landlords leave properties empty while waiting for the value to increase. Doesn't that give them cashflow problems? Houses tend to start falling apart when left empty so that would reduce the value. I know it happens with commercial buildings though.

Local authorities have the right to take over empty properties when they have been empty for a substantial time. If they did so then there would be less homelessness and less opportunity for squatters.

nightowl...you come into my second catagory and your special circumstances of bringing such a scandal into the public domain come under public service....although you'd still have to be evicted eventually

NfkDumpling....squatters, travellers, gipsies...call them what you will. They're breaking the law and should be evicted. If I buy a patch of land I can't just put a caravan on it and live in it. We have planning regulations for a reason.

I remember a famous squat in the 1970's. A group of people wanted to highlight the shortage of housing for low paid people. They squatted in a large house in Knightsbridge owned by a rich Arab prince [is there any other kind] who used the property less then once a year. It was kept clean and warm by visiting cleaners but rarely used. So this group squatted in the house, hanging banners outside and of course it ended up as a debacle as rent-a-crowd then turned up to joining in.
When my son was born in 1976 I met a woman who lived in a squat near Muswell Hill. It had been empty for 3 years so they moved in - the electric and gas was turned on and they proceeded to decorate and also to tidy up the garden. After about 5 years and a really nice home and many entreaties to the local council, they were given the option to buy.

It is sometimes more profitable to leave an old house in serious need of renovation to become derelict, especially in the current market. It can later be demolished and a new build erected that will attract a much higher price than the original building. This is not often a practice among small time private landlords who own less than a dozen houses; companies and individuals with a large property portfolio, however, may follow this practice.

I have assisted homeless people who have decided to squat as their way of attempting to live cheaply, find a job and share with others. They would follow the (then) current guidelines about moving into an empty property, usually a boarded up council flat or house, and they were clear about tidying up, keeping the property clean and not being a nuisance neighbour. Some lived like this for several years and the council left them to it because the rooms weren't being vandalised and no-one else wanted those particular properties at the time.

I think there is a big difference between squatting in a home that is already wanted/needed, and choosing a neglected property that would otherwise remain empty.

I agree which is why I have two catagories.

Squatting can be a political tool to draw attention to the plight of the homeless or a way of having somewhere to live.

My problem is with those who squat, damage and destroy properties that are not being left to rot or move in and create chaos.