Jump to content

Recommended Posts

has anybody else noticed that there are squatters in one of the large houses on east dulwich road.


they dont seem too bad, i spoke to a polite young man yesterday night whilst walking the dog, he said they intend to live

there not to cause any disruption or have any partys.


lets see what becomes of this. hopefully they are peacefull and stick to their word

Agreed Milo!


I don't agree with taking over a family home, preventing people living in their own homes, but leaving properties unoccupied whilst there're so many homeless and greedy landlords offering hovels at almost extortionate rents, then fair play to the squatters.

so fair play to those knowledgable and fit enough to squat in an unoccupied house?...forget those in need who don't have those organisational skills. The last squatters i knew lived in a house owned by a housing association who rehoused those with mental health difficulties ..the squatter I spoke to smiled politely when i pointed out the paradox of the situation.

alice Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > The last squatters i knew lived in a house owned

> by a housing association who rehoused those with

> mental health difficulties ..the squatter I spoke

> to smiled politely when i pointed out the paradox

> of the situation.


xxxxxxxxx


So how were they able to squat the house, unless the housing association weren't making full use of it?


Is there some length of time a house has to remain empty before it can be legally squatted? My house has sometimes been empty for a few months in the past, and the prospect of squatters never occurred to me :-$


Maybe they would reject it as far too small :))

Has there been any damage caused to the house by the squatters? And who does the property actually belong to?


I think it's murky water to tar all squatters with the same brush, in either case. It is unfair to base opinions on the actions of others you may have come into contact with in the past. Yet, it can also be dangerous (in a non dramatic sense!) to not be wary of a group of people taking over an owned property.


However. In a post such as this, and as residents of the area, then maybe we should steer away from the rights and wrongs and apparent lifestyles of sqatters and focus on what we all have an interest in. Our community.


Preach over! Do excuse me for this! I have worked with a number of squatters on projects in the past and have been amazed to discover how varied their stories and situations are. Class has little to do with it very often! The vast majority of people I worked with had easily enough money to rent a stable home (probably more than me, since I work in a museum!) with heating and water, but often squatting was seen as a statement and a chosen lifestyle. Even a political reaction!


So....back to the point. Is the house being damasged that they are occupying?!!


Abi

My understanding of the situation (which I do not pretend is authorative or current) is that squatters are not allowed to break into a property to occupy it. Equally, they are not allowed to occupy the propertry if that prevents the owner from using it for its proper purpose. e.g. someone cant squat in your house if it prevents you living in it.


Am I near the mark anyone?

Milo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> TheAllSeeingEye Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Is it their house ?? No. I sense someone above

> is

> > almost approving of the squatting process.

>

>

> I approve of it, houses left unlived in for a long

> period should definitely be squatted.



Isnt it trespass and therefore illegal ?? yes, it is.

If you own/rent a home, and it is your actual home, and you come back from holiday to find it squatted, you can call the police and ask them to remove the people who are occupying it. Squatters know this and don't bother with people's homes.

If squatters occupy a council/housing association property, which is not currently someone's home, then the owner has to ask them to leave, serve a notice on them warning them that the owner will be asking a court to grant them possession of the property, then go to court. The court is very likely to agree with the landlord, except in very very unusual cases such as when the squatters have been there for years. Then the court and landlord arrange for bailiffs to go round and remove the squatters - they may call the police if they think there will be trouble, but bailiffs I have seen in action usually get people out with a loud voice and physical presence. A number of years ago, the law was changed to allow social landlords to "pre-allocate" a flat/ house to a new tenant before it was actually ready for occuoation. This means that if the place is squatted while repairs are going on, the squatters can be removed very quickly as it counts as someone's home. Most squatters know this so don't bother to occupy places that look like they will soon have a tenant/owner. I don't know what the situation is with places left empty by private landlords.

I have no problem with squatting, on two basic conditions - that squatters cause no trouble to the property or neighbours, and that they aren't keeping out someone who wishes to live in the house legally. I don't believe that the number of people squatting is making a vast and negative difference to the list of people awaiting housing, nor do I think, if left unoccupied, these squatted houses would find their way to people in genuine need. They would simply exist in a state of increasing decrepitude until it was financially expedient for the landlord to either sell or fill it - if the landlord isn't interested enough in their property even to occupy it in one or another way, why shouldn't someone else make use of it in the meantime?


If squatters treat the place they occupy with care, then until someone else wants to legally live in that home (at which point, out you go), more power to them.

I think squatters should be made to pay their way, foot the bills for their activities or if they really are broke put them out to work on behalf of the country. Maybe they could even do a full half day of work with members of the Royal family. Free loaders the lot of them - no more excuses.

matthew123 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think squatters should be made to pay their way,

> foot the bills for their activities or if they

> really are broke put them out to work on behalf of

> the country. Maybe they could even do a full half

> day of work with members of the Royal family. Free

> loaders the lot of them - no more excuses.




Goodness me. So black and white.....

Years ago, I squatted a disused railway station, near Stroud, along with several other people. The grounds gave us parking space for our caravans and trucks. Everyone was working away at something, low-paid but enough to live on without having to supplement by claiming benefits.


So while it may seem people are free-loading, it may be the case that they are less of a drain on the system than someone claiming housing benefit, for example. After all, the property is empty, I'm assuming it's been so for some time - long enough for the squatters to have noticed the lack of activity anyway - providing no damage is done and the people involved aren't anti-social, I just can't see it as a terrible thing.


The squatting laws changed back in the late 80's/early 90's, I think, so it is much easier for the owner of the property to serve an eviction notice, after which they've got 4 weeks before they're out. I'm going from memory so happy to be corrected on this.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Moving into a new place and need both a wardrobe and a chest of drawers, ideally collection Friday. Thanks!
    • Lordship Lane has two dry cleaners, three pizza places and an Italian selling pizza, two burger places, three bakeries, two hardware (ish, I'm thinking AJ Farmer here), God knows how many coffee and charity shops, two Italians, three nail salons, five wine shops... Where was the abject outrage when Dynamic Vines opened up literally next door to Cave de Bruno? But I don't see his customers decamped next door - no, those stalwarts are still out in force every night.  In Roman times all businesses were clustered by product. It's what kept prices down. Same in any market you go to abroad, they're all selling the same things next to each other.  Why is everyone being so hard on this new place? It's called healthy competition - you can't curtail the expansion of your business on the basis you that might hurt someone else's. 
    • I have a new fixation so any available, please let me know.  Thanks.
    • In restaurant terms I would say a chain manifests when the motivation is no longer “we are a couple/small group who have an idea and love food” who open a restaurant, them another and then a few more BUT THEN PIVOT to “we need capital to rollout out new restaurants so we have leveraged the help of the following investors”  that is the moment it stops being about the chef/food on the plate and becomes about the spreadsheet  so it is POSSIBLE  for a restaurant to have 50 branches and not be a chain - but I can’t think of any  I don’t know chango - by based on the number of outlets they appear to have just crossed/or are about to cross that line 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...