Squatters

The cap on housing benefit will affect me in a few months and I can't be the only one in this situation. I have worked since I was 15 and my husband has worked since 11 if you take into account the weekends he spent at the mill 'playing'. In all that time we've paid our dues. December is the last month I will technically be employed (I haven't actually been to work since last November). At this point my income will disappear completely and we'll have £700 a month (my husband's wages) to live on. We won't qualify for any top up benefits because he only works 25 hours a week (the best he's been able to get) and although we'll get housing benefit it's capped at £69 a week. As our rent is just over £98 a week we will have a shortfall that will have to come out of the £700 before we start to pay for anything else. Fortunately we should get council tax benefit so don't have to worry about that on top of everything else.

We've looked around for cheaper places to live but actually you can't get anything at £69 a week in the private sector and the council waiting list has thousands on it ...priority given quite rightly to those with children and the disabled.

vampirequeen I agree with your summary and that there are two types of squatters. I take issue with those who break into someone's out when they are away and then claim that they have rented it and they change the locks and throw out the owner's possession. I think there was a case a while ago about a Romanian family who did just that. The owner had been abroad for a couple of months and came back to find a family living in her house!! Took ages to evict them and the damage was enormous. These aren't homeless people - just people wanting something for nothing!

Added to the squatters law is the issue of the cap on rent subsidy... so this is another group of lower income families/individuals being pushed from pillar to post..they will include children, vulnerable people, elderly as well as those who are robust enough to cope with an unwanted upheaval.

So what do you propose we do with the 20.000 + that will be displaced by the new Law? Will it help the crime-rate?

It wouldn't be an issue if Maggie and subsequent governments hadn't sold off so much of the housing stock. Now there is a shortage of affordable housing to rent let alone to buy.

greatnan it is a tricky situation. To be made to move after a long tenancy feels insensitive..but as you say if another family are living in a tiny place could have a better quality of life... Although I guess, as a home owner, I am not being badgered to sell my house (more space than 2 people really need) to a family who could do with more space. Rightly or wrongly money brings choice.

When I left ex I moved into a lovely little house (in a much posher area lol). There isn't the same sense of community here than there was on the estate.

There is a sort of sliding scale for council rents because of the rent rebate system. Over the years there were times when I didn't pay any rent, other times I paid part of the rent and finally I paid full rent.

VQ - my sister has lived in her council house for over 25 years, following her divorce. When she moved in she had three sons living at home, either at school or college. She has made a lovely little garden and spent a lot of time and money decorating the house. She is now 75 and has lots of health problems. She has a network of good neighbours who take care of her when she needs it. I know there are lots of people on the waiting list for family homes but she would be devastated if she had to move to another area where she knew no-one. There are no old-people's bungalows on her estate.
She doesn't pay rent or council tax because she has no savings (she has never worked outside the home) and lives on her pension and Attendance Allowance.
I can see both sides of the argument for making people move to smaller accommodation and I don't know what the solution is.
In cases like your own, do you think there could be a sliding scale of rents according to the net income of the household? Obviously, if the tenant had adult children who later moved out the rent would decrease proportionately.

It seems very unfair that if your income rises about a certain level you have to move house. I lived in my council house for 20 years before I became a teacher and earned a decent wage. It would have been horrible to have to move just because I'd got a better job. I was my home and I belonged to a community.

Alison you would still need cheaper properties for those moving out of social housing to move into..

I suspect that there are already plenty of laws that cover criminal damage to /theft from properties such as posters here have described squatters doing.

The issue of (usually larger) companies deliberately allowing property to fall into disrepair is something that could be tackled by a new law! Increase the council tax for each year a property is unoccupied. This would encourage owners to either sell /use /repair the property or even allow squatting to avoid the increase in tax.

I think it is wrong to assume that every squatter is a n'ere do well scrounger. I am sure that those at the bottom of the social strata are also sometimes squatters but often single people find it hard to find affordable private rentals as they are not able to get social housing and squatting may be a necessary route.

I wish the person who owned the unused lock up shop next to my home would do something with it..it is a mess! But they do not appear to have to maintain it nor does there appear there is anything local council tax payers can do about the eyesore!

I obviously did not make it clear LA means local authority. If the LAs can get people to move out there will be more houses for the needy. I hope that is now clearer. I am sorry if my post was not clear.

I don't think any landlords would welcome such a basis for setting rents and it still doesn't mean that there are more houses – only people moving from one to another.

Must admit those were my thoughts .

absent If people's rent increases a lot as their income increases they will either move to cheaper rented property or go and buy their own, just the same as my ex-colleague's sons.

vampirequeen I think there are so called squatters who sadly are also drug/alchohol addicts who are unable to pay rent. All their money has gone on their addiction. Once it becomes known then other addicts move in and then the 'fun' begins. A lot of stuff is ripped out to sell, for example a whole kitchen ripped out and sold on, similar for a bathroom. Of course the infamous copper piping. The house is then just a ruin with a roof. The addicts don't give a damn about how the place looks. After they have ruined this house they then move on.

Yeah Alison Brother Bob Crowe on a total package of around £145,000 per annum I believe still resides in a council house as does disgraced peer Baroness Udin. How they justify living in houses that people on low incomes clearly need is beyond me.

How does changing the basis on which rent is paid increase the housing stock?

One way of adding to the housing stock would be to charge rents according to income. This idea comes from an ex-colleague of mine who charged his children a percentage of their salary to live at home. He said it meant they would eventually move out when they could afford to.

I have read that some highly paid union leaders live in council houses so they can identify with the workers but I doubt they can with so much disposable income! If rents were related to household income there would be an incentive to move out when they became too high. Alternatively LAs could have an upper income limit for social housing.

I agree When. It's disgraceful in a country with so many second home owners that people are having such a hard time finding a place to live especially if they are on low incomes.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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.