Should Squatters have rights? Poll Results/Discussion
Options
Comments
-
chunkymunky wrote: »oh look theres a car, nobodies driving it and the owner wont sell it to me so i must have the right to just take it
Totally different things, houses are normally abandoned for years and years, why shouldn't someone take advantage of that, its a waste just sat there doing nothing.
My mum rented a house (first and last time), stuck new carpets in, spents loads of money and hours doing it all nice, the guy came in, he even sent his child to private school aswell, anyway he didn't pay any rent whatsoever, he actually paid a very small deposit (mum thought she was being fair as £1000 seemed to much for most people) and he squatted for 6-7months, nobody could approach him as he'd ring the police, its tooks 1000's of money and court hassle to evict him, he eventually left taking quite a bit of the furniture with him.
guess you get stung if you don't follow the rules even so its a !!!!!! situation.
What Happened To Summer!? 0 -
chunkymunky wrote: »oh look theres a car, nobodies driving it and the owner wont sell it to me so i must have the right to just take it
Squatters don't have the right to "take" the property, or damage it any way. Though I'm not saying they don't do this.
Ownership of property is one thing, actual possession another. If an owner effectively gives up possession by abandoning a property, it seems a bit rich to complain if someone else takes up occupation.
I wouldn't want to live next to a squat, but then I wouldn't want to live next door to an abandoned property either. In my opinion there's no excuse for property to go to waste in this crowded and expensive country.
I don't get the fuss, I've never heard of someone going on holiday for a month and finding their house has been squatted in.0 -
-
I don't know about you, but you're certainly not going to get me hanging around in a ramshackled dilapidated old hut for 12 years, on the offchance that I might be able to call it "mine" at some point in the future. No, I'd far rather try to go to college and do the whole "career hack" thing, and move up the property ladder if I succeed, and hope that I can stay in my rented flat on housing benefit if I don't.
In the event that I fall out with all my relatives and things get really rough for me, I'm honestly not sure that I wouldn't prefer to be in prison.
So if any squatters ever win any title deeds, I say good luck to them. I honestly think it's a rarity. I certainly don't think it means that squatting for its own sake is a good idea.
0 -
It should be treated as trespassing, pure and simple. They shouldn't be there, the owner should be able to use force if necessary to remove them. The whole thing should be made a lot easier.
<ring ring>
"Hello, police? There's some people trespassing in my house, with no permission to be there. I think they may be causing criminal damage, too."
"Ok, we'll be right over. Make sure you've got some proof it's your house."
That's how simple it should be.
Just because the property is empty gives them NO right at all. It still belongs to the owners and they can do with it as they wish. If they want to leave it empty, that's up to them.0 -
It is an out-dated law, a bit like the one where you can take posession of an abandoned boat (or even one that's in trouble!). You can technically do it, but it's not polite.Mortgage | £145,000Unsecured Debt | [strike]£7,000[/strike] £0 Lodgers | |0
-
Just because the property is empty gives them NO right at all. It still belongs to the owners and they can do with it as they wish. If they want to leave it empty, that's up to them.
An extreme example, but what do you think of the following situation:
Would squatting be ok if 95% of the housing in the country was owned and left empty by 5% of the population, effectively leaving somewhere in the region of 90% of the population homeless. If there were that many empty houses and homeless people, would squatting be ok? Would owning masses of houses and leaving them empty be ok?
My view is that under those circumstances, squatting would be downright necessary. The real issue is what value the percentages should be set at, which is far from an easy question.
As for the initial question, I don't think I can easily answer. I believe that housing is treated too much as an investment now rather than a necessity, which means that the rich naturally have much more control over the property market than those on lower income who desperately need access to low-cost but reasonable accommodation. I'd prefer to see a shift towards a society where housing is treated as more of a right than a privilage, but that's just wishful thinking!I am a Chartered Financial Planner
Anything I say on the forum is for discussion purposes only and should not be construed as personal financial advice. It is vitally important to do your own research before acting on information gathered from any users on this forum.0 -
PasturesNew wrote: »
The land belongs to the Queen.
You may have a lease on a flat or a "freehold" on a house. That just means that Liz II does not charge you rent.
Back in the days of Adam and Eve the land belonged to everyone; this means that somewhere along the line someone stole it.
The land is in short supply; this means that if you have it you are depriving 60,000,000 other people of their share. (I believe that if we all had our
share we would have about half an acre each).
Just because you own land and property, don't think this makes you a medieval baron over the rest of the surfs. Come to think of it Barons had to jump PDQ when they got a summons from the King and had to keep the surfs sweet for fear of a revolution.
If you are not using your share, any one else can take possession and use it instead. If they use it for 12 years it becomes theirs and eventually becomes a "freehold". However a change in the law means that for registered land the "squatter" must inform the legal owner of the fee simple that they are in possession after 10 years. "Dear owner have you noticed me using your land - you have a couple of years to get rid of me":D
That said, when there is a building on the land, the squatter should avoid any damage to someone else's property and I would like to see the Police taking a robust attitude to such criminal damage. (But Hell, the prisons are full already, I get the feeling that some posters would like to bring back the gas chambers :rolleyes:).
I have a funny feeling that the Government has given powers to local authorities to put tenants into your empty property if you don't?0 -
I'd prefer to see a shift towards a society where housing is treated as more of a right than a privilage, but that's just wishful thinking!
Why should "housing" be a "right". Where would you draw the line: free food, free transport, free heating, free beer?
Back in the days of Liz I, the Tudors tried to set up a system where those out of work were entitled to a couple of acres, where they could WORK at growing their own food.
The term "By hook or by crook" refers to similar peoples' rights to go into the woods and gather enough flimsy timber to keep themselves warm and cook their food.
Unfortunately in this overcrowded, over heating, world there are not enough natural resources to go round anymore.0 -
My view is if it doesnt belong to you keep out or get your own. A lot of squats just get left in s--t order when they have gone. (not all i know)
Take some travellers, if I had some land and they came to me and asked if they could stay there for a week or so and leave it as they found it I would say yes. But look what happens they leave c--p and rubbish when they go and complain they are hard done by. A lot of it (not all) is their own fault.
sorry will now get off my soap boxO0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.8K Spending & Discounts
- 235.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.2K Life & Family
- 248.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards