Stealing houses set to become illegal

chewmylegoff

Carl31 wrote: »

Why? Its just a waste of land if lays un used.

i know people with very large gardens that you could say the same thing about. why not just build a house on it and move in? who cares that it is their property. waste of land!

and that's no doubt how "travellers" feel about the land they park their caravans on.

at the end of the day if it's someone else's asset you shouldn't be able to take possession of it and use it for yourself without their permission to do so. if someone leaves their car in a garage for a year and doesn't use it, it doesn't make it ok for you to take it.

trespass and squatting should both be criminalised in all forms in this country, in my view, and owners of property should be authorised to use reasonable force (although i expect that my definition of reasonable force, which involves heavy machine guns would be a step to far for most) to remove someone who doesn't have their permission to be on their property or land from that property or land.

Loughton_Monkey

the_flying_pig wrote: »

I suggest you mentally tot up a little list of the ways in which your jag example's different to Carl's house example & use this list to answer your own question.

...er....

Can only think of similarities.

House or Car. Both expensive assets. Both owned and paid for by someone. Both definitely not being used by owner during period of 'squat, or occupation'. Both would suffer extra 'wear and tear' during the 'squat'. Both assets are being used without permission, and without offer of payment. Both illegal [from tomorrow, anyway].

As it happens, I have an elderly neighbour with a car in his garage. Hasn't been driven, to my knowledge, for over three years now. I think he, too, would be a bit miffed to learn that Carl31 had 'borrowed' it, in order to 'stop it going to waste'.

olly300

chewmylegoff wrote: »

i know people with very large gardens that you could say the same thing about. why not just build a house on it and move in? who cares that it is their property. waste of land!

and that's no doubt how "travellers" feel about the land they park their caravans on.

No one is going to build a house in someone's large garden but people will camp or put their own animals in it if it's very large, and it looks like you aren't using it.

The only way to stop it is to make it very clear you are using it yourself, or rent it out to someone like a beekeeper to prevent someone else from using it.

In many places where I work there is always empty land, and gypsies and travellers know it's not used so move in every year. In one case where they kept their horses in a place every summer but they finally stopped doing this when the land was put to use.

In an ideal world you wouldn't have have to do this but laws over land rights in the different parts of the UK have historic contexts.

chewmylegoff wrote: »

at the end of the day if it's someone else's asset you shouldn't be able to take possession of it and use it for yourself without their permission to do so. if someone leaves their car in a garage for a year and doesn't use it, it doesn't make it ok for you to take it.

trespass and squatting should both be criminalised in all forms in this country, in my view, and owners of property should be authorised to use reasonable force (although i expect that my definition of reasonable force, which involves heavy machine guns would be a step to far for most) to remove someone who doesn't have their permission to be on their property or land from that property or land.

As a kid I trespassed when I went to play on private estates away from traffic. So should other kids I know who still do it be a criminalised for playing on a private estate or private roads because it's safer to play there?

The point is laws in this country are written to be interpreted in many ways so if you make trespass a criminal offence you will be criminalising people who aren't doing any harm.

BTW the residents didn't complain because I ended up playing with the kids who lived there. Likewise my friends' kids who do it now know the parents of the kids they play with.

the_flying_pig

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

...er....

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Can only think of similarities.

House or Car. Both expensive assets. Both owned and paid for by someone. Both definitely not being used by owner during period of 'squat, or occupation'. Both would suffer extra 'wear and tear' during the 'squat'. Both assets are being used without permission, and without offer of payment. Both illegal [from tomorrow, anyway].

As it happens, I have an elderly neighbour with a car in his garage. Hasn't been driven, to my knowledge, for over three years now. I think he, too, would be a bit miffed to learn that Carl31 had 'borrowed' it, in order to 'stop it going to waste'.

Pur-lease.

There are excellent reasons why expressions such as ‘one careful lady owner’are commonplace when advertising secondhand cars but unheard of in adverts for houses. No-one really cares who’s been in a house or what they’ve been doing, certainly particularly one that’s been deserted for months or years as per Carl’s example,since it’ll at the very least need a very thorough cleaning before it's fit for habitation.

The fact that you drove your car last week [as per your initial post – tho younow seem to be moving the goalposts slightly by introducing an example of a car that hasn’t been used in three years] shows that the car was in a very particular state of repair, cleanliness, stock of petrol/oil/windscreen-wash etc, & so on that you personally were entirely happy with for your own personal use. Other issues include your insurance policy & so on.

Sampong

Carl31 wrote: »

Why? Its just a waste of land if lays un used. If people decide they dont want it then take it off them and put it to good use. If this was the case, maybe there would be less requirement for people to squat?

Because it's their Property. I have some old stuff in my loft which I haven't used for years - it doesn't automatically make it someone else's.

olly300

Sampong wrote: »

Because it's their Property. I have some old stuff in my loft which I haven't used for years - it doesn't automatically make it someone else's.

If you decide to leave your residential property empty for years the local council has a right of compulsory purchase.

In reality few do so unless the property is starting to fall down or they get lots of pest complaints from neighbours i.e. pigeons in roof, rats

The reason being is first it takes too much effort to locate the owners, and second it costs to much to jump through the legal process.

chewmylegoff

olly300 wrote: »

As a kid I trespassed when I went to play on private estates away from traffic. So should other kids I know who still do it be a criminalised for playing on a private estate or private roads because it's safer to play there?

The point is laws in this country are written to be interpreted in many ways so if you make trespass a criminal offence you will be criminalising people who aren't doing any harm.

BTW the residents didn't complain because I ended up playing with the kids who lived there. Likewise my friends' kids who do it now know the parents of the kids they play with.

yes you will be technically criminalising people who aren't doing any harm, but that doesn't mean they will actually be prosecuted. the point is that it gives the police the power to actually come and arrest and remove people immediately (and preferably crush their caravans as well) where they actually are doing harm.

in the real world, no-one is going to start throwing children in jail for technically committing criminal offences. other countries have criminal laws re: trespass and their jails are not full of 8 year olds who ignored a "private" sign.

chewmylegoff

olly300 wrote: »

If you decide to leave your residential property empty for years the local council has a right of compulsory purchase.

In reality few do so unless the property is starting to fall down or they get lots of pest complaints from neighbours i.e. pigeons in roof, rats

The reason being is first it takes too much effort to locate the owners, and second it costs to much to jump through the legal process.

well, make that process much easier and cheaper then, as a counter balance. just pass a law that says if you don't pay your council tax / business rates for 5 years then you forfeit the property to the local council. i expect there is less draconian way that someone can think of...

Graham_Devon

Stuck on the fence on this one I'm afraid.

I've heard Grant Shapp's stating that this protects homeowners and landlords, and their rights should be protected. Basically if they want a second home or to leave it empty as an investment, that should be their right.

So much was made about people who go on holiday and return to squatters, but the report could only find one single case, and it wasn't really squatting, was a family fued issue.

I'm all for stopping squatting. In any other scenario it would be classed as theft. So I'm glad the law has been implemented.

It's just a shame that it's seemingly done at a time, and stated to protect homeowners and landlords, when people are crying out for regulation from the other side.....tenant protection. Yet again this is ignored.

Grant Shapp's is certainly showing his undivided intentions to protect and encourage BTL. This new legislation appears to be tinkering around the edges "protecting people as they go on holiday" but in reality, does little to stop the real squatters who become problematic. These things just don't really happen in reality.

chewmylegoff

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Stuck on the fence on this one I'm afraid.

I've heard Grant Shapp's stating that this protects homeowners and landlords, and their rights should be protected. Basically if they want a second home or to leave it empty as an investment, that should be their right.

So much was made about people who go on holiday and return to squatters, but the report could only find one single case, and it wasn't really squatting, was a family fued issue.

I'm all for stopping squatting. In any other scenario it would be classed as theft. So I'm glad the law has been implemented.

It's just a shame that it's seemingly done at a time, and stated to protect homeowners and landlords, when people are crying out for regulation from the other side.....tenant protection. Yet again this is ignored.

Grant Shapp's is certainly showing his undivided intentions to protect and encourage BTL. This new legislation appears to be tinkering around the edges "protecting people as they go on holiday" but in reality, does little to stop the real squatters who become problematic. These things just don't really happen in reality.

i don't see how this measure specifically protects landlords in preference to tenants.

presumably if you rent and you went away on holiday to find some squatters living in your rented house, you could get the police to clear them out. currently if that happened you would have to keep paying rent to the landlord until your contract ended i expect. (although i also do not believe that many people return from holiday to find squatters in their house).

similarly, it specifically says that tenants who don't pay their rent will not be classified as squatters and subjected to criminal action.

whilst i agree with the need for further regulation to protect tenants (and in particular to regulate letting agents) i don't see that this piece of legislation really benefits any class of rightful occupant of a house over any other.