Squatting now a criminal offence

LeafGreen

Assuming that the law applies to pre-existing occupations, I wonder if there will be a large glut of evictions over the next few months?

Angie_B

So, what will this mean for 'tenants' who refuse to pay rent, say for 3 or 4 months? Will this new law make it possible for LL to now get them out of the property or will the standard court route eviction still be required?

Better_Days

Angie_B wrote: »

So, what will this mean for 'tenants' who refuse to pay rent, say for 3 or 4 months? Will this new law make it possible for LL to now get them out of the property or will the standard court route eviction still be required?

I wondered this too...

Also what happens when a LL attempts an illegal eviction (e.g. invalid S21 due to deposit not being protected etc) - it would seem that the Police already have a poor understanding of the law, will this make things worse?

FireWyrm

Angie_B wrote: »

So, what will this mean for 'tenants' who refuse to pay rent, say for 3 or 4 months? Will this new law make it possible for LL to now get them out of the property or will the standard court route eviction still be required?

The new law exempts those who remain in a property and who were previous tenants. The LL still has to go the civil eviction route and rightly so, otherwise, LL's left and right would be claiming their tenants were 'squatters' and calling the Old Bill to evict them bag and baggage.

No, this law covers illegal entry into a vacant property which sensible people have always called 'breaking and entering'. Unfortunately, until now, the average plod was a twit and couldnt destinguish between illegal entry which is a criminal offence and 'squatting' which is a civil one. All they've done is make it clearer for plod, so they dont have to work their brains too hard deciding whether or not to do their jobs.

FireWyrm

Better_Days wrote: »

I wondered this too...

Also what happens when a LL attempts an illegal eviction (e.g. invalid S21 due to deposit not being protected etc) - it would seem that the Police already have a poor understanding of the law, will this make things worse?

This law does not apply to 'tenants'....which could obviously be a problem with the Eastern Europeans in London who claim to have a valid tenancy contract. In reality, I suspect those would still have to be evicted the old fashioned way. Its a small step forward, but a welcome one none-the-less.

jjlandlord

Angie_B wrote: »

So, what will this mean for 'tenants' who refuse to pay rent, say for 3 or 4 months? Will this new law make it possible for LL to now get them out of the property or will the standard court route eviction still be required?

A tenant who does pay rent is still a tenant (as the tenancy continues) until bailiffs execute a possession order to evict him.

A tenant who stays after the end of the tenancy is trespassing but not a squatter. This was the previous legal position and the new law maintains this distinction as it states:

(2)The offence is not committed by a person holding over after the end of a lease or licence (even if the person leaves and re-enters the building).

So there is absolutely no change to tenants whether they are good, bad, or even ugly.

m0t

FireWyrm wrote: »

This law does not apply to 'tenants'....which could obviously be a problem with the Eastern Europeans in London who claim to have a valid tenancy contract. In reality, I suspect those would still have to be evicted the old fashioned way. Its a small step forward, but a welcome one none-the-less.

Would this not be covered by 1(b)the person knows or ought to know that he or she is a trespasser.

I would have thought you could have said that if they moved into a house that was full of possessions that would not traditionally be part of a rental agreement (such as clothes, family photos, food, personal documents etc) you would be able to argue that these individuals ought to know that they are tresspassers and would be covered. Otherwise squatters could continue to squat using fake rental agreements.

FireWyrm

m0t wrote: »

Would this not be covered by 1(b)the person knows or ought to know that he or she is a trespasser.

I would have thought you could have said that if they moved into a house that was full of possessions that would not traditionally be part of a rental agreement (such as clothes, family photos, food, personal documents etc) you would be able to argue that these individuals ought to know that they are tresspassers and would be covered. Otherwise squatters could continue to squat using fake rental agreements.

And their response will be...its all perfectly normal where we come from, we had no idea someone else was living here, we're poor people who have been duped by an evil pretend landlord. Of course there may be a very few where this was literally the case, but I have always thought that the majority of these cases where they produce 'documenation', it was perfectly feasable for them to have forged it in the first place to use as 'evidence' for their continued occupation. if it works, it works, if not, they've lost nothing much and can move on and try another house.

jjlandlord

FireWyrm wrote: »

we had no idea someone else was living here,

Again squatting implies that the property is vacant.
If it is not then it is not squatting and is already a criminal offense not to leave when asked (c.f. post #11).

Angie_B

FireWyrm wrote: »

This law does not apply to 'tenants'....which could obviously be a problem with the Eastern Europeans in London who claim to have a valid tenancy contract. In reality, I suspect those would still have to be evicted the old fashioned way. Its a small step forward, but a welcome one none-the-less.

Thanks for the clarification. I agree with you that it is definitely a step in the right direction.

As a current renter/FTB who is trying to buy a property where the tenants have refused to move out, I understand the importance of both sides - protection for tenants and protection for LLs.