New laws scrap ‘squatters rights’
Published 31/08/2012 
What are your thoughts on the new laws scrapping squatters rights and making squatting a criminal offence?
Squatting in residential property in England and Wales becomes a criminal offence on Saturday 1st September 2012. Under clause 144 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act, the offence of squatting will be punishable by up to six months’ jail and fines up to £5,000 in England and Wales.
20,000 squatters in England and Wales now face eviction as Police prepare to enforce this change in the law which criminalises those occupying residential buildings without a valid tenancy.
Phil Gormley, chief constable of Norfolk who speaks for the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) on uniformed operations, said: “We can now act immediately and remove squatters directly from properties in line with the new legislation and ensure people’s homes are protected.”
Housing Minister Grant Shapps seems to disagree with the housing charities. He is quoted as saying “No longer will there be so-called ‘squatters rights’. Hard-working homeowners need and deserve a justice system where their rights come first – this new offence will ensure the police and other agencies can take quick and decisive action to deal with the misery of squatting. We’re tipping the scales of justice back in favour of the homeowner and making the law crystal clear: entering a property with the intention of squatting will be a criminal offence. By making this change, we can slam shut the door on squatters once and for all.”
Justice minister Crispin Blunt said: “For too long, squatters have had the justice system on the run and have caused homeowners untold misery in eviction, repair and clean-up costs. Not any more.”
Mark Alexander, founder of Property118 warns that commercial landlords are not protected by the new laws and raises the question “given that the news laws only make it illegal to squat in residential properties does this mean that commercial landlords with empty properties are likely to bear the brunt of the fall out?”
Left wing Housing Charities have been quick to jump on the media bandwagon by claiming the news laws will increase homelessness. QUESTION – are squatters not technically homeless anyway?
Leslie Morley, Chief executive of housing charity Crisis made a very interesting point though when she said “”Ultimately the Government needs to tackle why homeless people squat in the first place by helping not punishing them.”
Readers of Property118 will be very much aware of why the problems exist, will it get worse though with the proposed changes to the benefits system?
UPDATE
New information added >>> HERE
-
Dan says:
31/08/2012 at 10:45
-
Mark Alexander says:
31/08/2012 at 13:58
-
Lee says:
31/08/2012 at 15:00
-
Paul Barrett says:
31/08/2012 at 16:03
-
Ben Reeve Lewis says:
31/08/2012 at 17:09
-
Carla matthews - Cluttons says:
31/08/2012 at 18:10
-
Ben Reeve Lewis says:
31/08/2012 at 19:14
-
Ben Reeve Lewis says:
31/08/2012 at 21:15
-
Paul Barrett says:
31/08/2012 at 22:15
-
Ben Reeve Lewis says:
31/08/2012 at 23:19
-
Paul Barrett says:
01/09/2012 at 00:27
-
Ben Reeve Lewis says:
01/09/2012 at 01:36
-
Paul Barrett says:
01/09/2012 at 02:41
-
Ben Reeve Lewis says:
01/09/2012 at 04:17
-
LK says:
01/09/2012 at 09:54
-
greyhair says:
01/09/2012 at 10:56
-
Devon Landlord says:
01/09/2012 at 11:59
-
John says:
01/09/2012 at 13:03
-
Mark Alexander says:
01/09/2012 at 14:07
-
Mark Alexander says:
01/09/2012 at 15:09
-
Mary Latham says:
01/09/2012 at 18:16
-
cosmo says:
01/09/2012 at 19:18
-
Mark Alexander says:
01/09/2012 at 20:23
-
Paul Barrett says:
02/09/2012 at 00:56
-
Paul Barrett says:
02/09/2012 at 01:11
Leave a commentit’s a bad day for human rights in the UK tomorrow. This new anti-squatter legislation makes me feel ashamed to be a British Citizen, I an very angry.
I take it from your comments Dan that you have never invested your life savings into a property and then found out that somebody else is occupying it rent free without your permission?
Do you own a car? How would you feel if I just started driving it around and refused to give it back to you? What would you do about it? Would you just say, oh well, it’s your human rights, get on with it mate or would you call the Police and have me arrested? If the Police said “sorry mate, he’s allowed to do that” how would you feel? Might you be so desperate that you might even resort to crime to get me out of your car? If so, and you were arrested and imprisoned for it whilst I was still driving your car around, might you feel that was injustice? Many property owners have found themselves in this position – what about their human rights?
I don’ really have much of a problem with people sharing your opinion, I just think opinions like yours are very naive. What I do have a problem with is the ridiculous government policies that are destined to increase homelessness. This criminalisation of squatting is justice, the changes in the benefits system which will undoubtedly increase homelessness, due to removing incentives to the private rented sector to provide housing to benefits claimants, are, in my opinion, ill conceived to say the least .
Human rights is total bs. If you haven’t paid to live there then you shouldn’t be there. Finally we have got something right.
So tonight if police take action there will be 20000 homeless people.
It is worth a shot for all these squatters to be down the council tomorrow morning stating they are homeless and to house them.
Would this put them ahead of a Romanian gypsy and her 5 kids; I doubt it.
who should recive precendence, who is in more NEED.
Surely the gypsy can return from whence she came!? leaving the homeless squatter next on the list.
It will be an interesting 48 hrs.
You can’t overnight have 20000 homeless people.
Perhaps open up some army camps.
This what occurred when 20000 Ugandan Asians were given British Citizenship and arrived en-masse.
Be interesting how all these councils work out who qualifies as whom is in the greatest .
It seems a very subjective decision depending on who is making it.
Do ALL councils sing from the same hymn sheet.
I think some govt direction is required here as otherwise different councils will view things differently and that cannot be right.
It should be a national policy as to who has the greater NEED.
I posted elsewhere on P118 my broader views on squatting which dont need repeating here (As I dont want the ear bashing haha) apart from to point out that squatting is already a criminal offence and the machinery is there, through an interim possession order (IPO) to get rid of them quite quickly.
What is being lost by landlords in their understandable enthusiasm for this new law is that it is actually an attack on people’s right to gather on land and protest. It is no accident that just 2 days ago Eric Pickles….Hardy to Shapps’ Laurel, called for a war on protestors http://is.gd/jAKk33
Why am I not suprised?. Althgough its with almost indecent haste that the true reason from bringing in this law is thrown into the ring. The furniture being moved out before the corpse is dead.
On this point Dan is correct, it is a bad day for human rights. Of course as Paul Barratt said in answer to my other post on this landlords have their own interests to protect. I completely understand that but try to look beyond that single focus for a bit and think about what it means to society as a whole. You may want to protest about something yourselves one day. Not all protestors are scruffy anarchists and not all causes are loony leftie.
PRESS RELEASE
Commercial property owners beware – squatters are looking for a new home
Cluttons, leading international property consultants and chartered surveyors, has called
for further clarification in the law and has warned the commercial property market not to be caught off guard.
From 1 September 2012, squatting will become an illegal offence in residential property: a long overdue move that has been welcomed by many. With changes to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishments of Offenders Act 2012, squatting in residential property could carry a sentence of up to a year in jail or a £5,000 fine.
Cluttons is concerned that this legislation is too narrow, as it only applies to residential buildings which have been “designed or adapted, before the time of entry, for use as a place to live” and commercial properties are still very much at threat.
There is also concern that this previous civil issue will not be prioritised in criminal courts, and without the serious threat of imprisonment or financial penalty, it will not be taken seriously.
Julian Briant, head of residential consultancy division, Cluttons, commented: “Owners of empty commercial buildings need to be particularly careful as squatters start to search around for a new place to live. Sheds, office blocks, retail units and industrial buildings will all become fair game for squatters for whom the risk of ‘getting’ on to their particular residential property ladder is too great.
“The whole industry is pleased to see the government recognising squatting as the devastating problem it is, but we feel that the lack of clarification and transparency means the threat still very much remains, and we all need to be prepared for this.
“We will continue to recommend that commercial and residential owners use caretakers as
a cost-effective and efficient way of protecting empty sites, particularly those high profile properties which are widely known as being unoccupied. The real question for property owners: can you risk an empty property becoming occupied?”
George Oliver, vacant property manager, Gallowglass Security, stated: “Although we cannot accurately predict how effective this legislation will be, we believe that the
intrinsic culture of squatting will remain. We are preparing for an influx of squatters in commercial properties and recommend that others follow suit.”
Spot on Paul. The other side of the coin indeed. And lets not forget another 20,000 court cases costing the tax paper how much exactly? If Squash are to be believed, anywhere up to £700 million+ which in one fell swoop wipes out the proposed £350 million savings on legal aid.
Do you remember the old Criminal Justice Act from the mid 1990s? One major focus of that legislation was to criminalise Raves. The cops ignored it as being logistically uselss
And several charioties take your opinion Paul http://is.gd/GDMsvt
Yes I think I have said I agree with your correct assessment of sneaking a law in to bash legitimate protest.
Unfortunately the previous squatter legal process did not work adequately.
It took many months of concluding the legal process which from the extremely narrow perspective of a LL or homeowner was unsustainable.
Most LL and homeowners are only looking at their immediate parochial interests.
But yes the bigger picture you identify is so true.
Imagine a load of protesting LL occupying Grant Schapps offices or Mr Pickles!!!
Then LL would see that this law will come back to bite them big time.
what do you call a load of LL when they get together to protest.
I imagine a lot of them would be wearing balaclavas!
However this law will address the immediate concerns that squatters may be removed if the LL requests so/.
As previously discussed there maybe LL that do not request squatters to leaqve unless they wish to do so.
I presume police will only take action to remove squatters if a LL or owner requests as such.
Iw ould doubt therefore than many squatters would access obviously still ocupied properties and possibly woiuld even contact LL to ascertain whether it would be alright to squat in a property.
As we have mentioned there are a lot of LL out there that would prefer a vacant property occupied than not on the basis that properties tend to get worse when they are unoccupied.
I am sure there are and will be enlightened LL and property owners who can see the benefit of their vacant properties being occupied.
The situation now would be that all a LL would have to do is request they leave and if they don’t the police would remove them.
Any sensible squatter wouild comply, to refuse would obviously cause them big problems
Oh yeah we posted elsewhere on this didnt we Paul? Not P118. The notion of caretaker squatters.
Has anybody noticed the big fly in the ointment here?
The Act refers to residential premises, not commercial. What do you think all those committed squatters groups will be looking at?
Government have started a war here trust me. I know people who know people…..if you get me
I imagine there might be a place here for G4S………………….LOL!
This as those commercial premises will need guarding better than they are presently, if at al!!
I imagine there wiii be run on trained Alsation guard dogs.!?
Kennels!!!!!!! an investment opportunity Paul haha
Seriously though; and I know it isn’t really your terms of reference but surely your council and others have been aware of this legislation and making contingency plans for all these soon to be most likely homeless squatters.
20000 is a lot of people to be possibly dumped on the streets across the country.
Police will be earning a lot of overtime!
”
surely your council and others have been aware of this legislation and making contingency plans for all these soon to be most likely homeless squatters.”
hahahaha And in the real world? Paul mate we dont have resources for little things like pro-activeness. Its flashing blue light stuff all the way. We had massive staff cuts 2 years ago and now we are facing more. It is doubtful if I have a job left come January, in which case violent landlords, dodgy agents, squatters? The floor is all yours
Look at the Law Society’sGazette for supporting common sense opinions
I think it needs to be balanced with a much more robust approach to long term empty properties. There is a large family bungalow near me with a huge garden, which has been kept empty by a small developer for 6-7 years as part of a speculative tax dodge. Only after repeated approaches to the Council has action been taken.
THis new legislation has possibilities it seems to me. When my non paying tenant remains in my property at the end of his/her AST am I now able to define his/her occupancy as squatting? I think that this is the case. So in addition to all the slow moving legislation that enables me to get him/her out is it not true that residential landlords now have another arrow in the quiver to support them. This, in addition to the fact that to claim benefits, under the soon to be introduced Universal Credit, a person has to have a place of residence, gives a little more power to the landlords’ elbow when dealing with the awkward minority of tenants who cause the most trouble.
Bring it on I say!
Does this mean that any tenant who has been given notice to leave but stayed beyond the due date can be arrested and charged?
It doesn’t work that way I can assure you – please see >>>
http://www.property118.com/index.php/squatters-rights-whats-not-changed/31608/
No it doesn’t – please see >>>
http://www.property118.com/index.php/squatters-rights-whats-not-changed/31608/
This new legislation does not change Sections 8 and 21 of the Housing Act 1988 and
it will not help landlords who have non- paying tenants. What it will do help
us with is the situation when a tenant(s) return to a property after they have been legally evicted by a
Court appointed Bailiff. Many unsuspecting landlords forget to check that
windows are locked following eviction and many tenants leave those windows
unlocked so that they have easy access to re-enter after eviction. These people will now be covered by this
legislation.
In my opinion we are now one tiny step closer to the
recognition that property owners have a right to choose who enters our
properties. Until now the law has not even recognised that “an Englishman’s
home is his castle” and if a homeowner could not remove unwanted visitors what
chance did landlords have? I have no problem with tenants right to “be heard”
by the Court when a landlord is using Section8 and accusing them of a breach of
the Tenancy. It takes far too long to actually get into Court in the first
place and that is the weakness of this legislation for landlords. When we are
using Section 21 (the no fault process of eviction) we need the law to recognise
that landlords have a right to repossess our properties, we were given that
right in the Housing Act 1988 and it was this change in legislation that gave
many people the courage to become landlords. The reality is that the legal
system has made Section 21 toothless.
I hear so many cases
where the Judge throws out a properly served, correctly complete S21 Notice
simply because the tenant says that he did not receive the Notice – recently I
heard one where the landlord had proof of posting from 2 separate Post Offices
(as laid down in the legislation) and yet the Judge told the landlord to come
back in 3 months. Another one earlier this year where the Tenant produced a
photocopy of the AST showing that the term of the tenancy was 12 months not the
6 months that was stated on the original copy that the landlord produce –
signed by the landlord and the tenant! The Judge in this case told the Landlord
to seek legal advice and come back to court. This delayed the hearing by 3
months.
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the Possession
legislation but there IS something fundamentally wrong with the attitude of the
Courts towards a landlords right to repossess his property providing he has
fully complied with the law. May be I am
being overly optimistic in hoping that this new legislation will help to bring
about a change of attitude to landlords rights? I certainly hope not because
more homeless people, as a result of this legislation, will mean an even greater
need for people to have the courage to invest in properties to rent.
Follow me on Twitter @landlordtweets
about time !!
this is certainly a step in the right direction. but not far enough.
in order for a squatter to have ‘rights ‘ somebody else must ultimately be made homeless.
and invariably that is the home owner.
the next step is to make theft of accommodation as illegal as stealing a car.
that means a tenant not paying rent when due becomes the act of ” theft of accommodation “.
and we should lobby our MPs and Grant Shapps as individuals and as a body of landlords to make this happen.
there is no reason nor excuse as there is a fail-safe mechanism for all tenants.
Housing Benefit.
Superb post Mary
I think we need to change things round so that the tenant has to disprove what a LL has done rather than the LL having to prove what he has done.
Let’s face it most LL will issue a Section 21 on time.
Quite frankly a few days either side, what is the difference.
Judges should defer to the LL that what he has done is correct and he should present proof that he has done so.
After all if a LL is trying to recover possession of the property he is hardly going to lie.
He knows the importance of correct paperwork.
The sanction against LL is if a tenant can prove that say rent was paid and eviction occurs on that basis then the LL could be up on contempt of court and perjury.
Not offences that a LL would disregard lightly!!
I am afraid that your optimism will NOT be borne out.
To make it easier for LL to recover their properties will just cause more fast tracking of people becoming homeless.
From a tenant not paying rent can take 10 months to evict.
That is 10 months that the council don’t have to rehouse, and face possible higher TA costs.
It is not in councils or govts interests to assist to facilitate easier possession for private LL to their properties.
But yes brilliant post, encapsulates the issues the PRS is facing re getting access to your own property.
I would say that rather than stating it is theft, a tenant if they don’t pay rent automatically becomes a squatter.
Squatters don’t pay rent.
What is the difference.
Just because someone has a piece of paper advising they have rights of ocupation; that only applies if they pay for the service.
Should be no rent, you become a squatter, so leave or be prosecuted.
That would concentrate a few minds.
They would not wanting to risk being criminalised.
Perhaps then they wouldn’t spend the LHA on drink, drugs and the betting shop.
After all life is a lot more bearable if you are in accommodation; even if you are cold and starving as the choice is to be cold and starving but out on the street.
So DON’T spend your LHA on anything other than rent.
Make sure your LL gets his rent or bye, bye onto the street with you.
Life is all about choicies!
There is always a chance to get down to a foodbank and then wrap up in a warm duvet.
Or you can spend your LHA on things other than rent and be on the street……………CHOICIES..up to you!!