Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Squatters don't steal a gome they illegally 'occupy' it...there's a clear legal difference.


My view is that no home owner should have to go through the current prolonged and expensive process of evicting people who are illegally occuping a home. It should be possible to evict immediately.


However I would also say that there is an equally valid argument to be be had about proerties that lie empty for years when there is such a dire shortage of affordable accomodation (esp in London). Don't know what the answer there is but many properties that do become illegally occupied are in this catagory.

Squatting should be criminalised. Full stop. Easy. No brainer, really.


The long term empty buildings issue is a bit harder, but one I have some sympathy for. But whatever the solution is, it must be controlled by councils. Councils should be able to identify long-term empty buildings and through a legal process be granted a lease to use by the court. This process would involve an attempt to contact the owner.


But what do you do with the building then? Let's take an example - the old Thai Pavillion on Melbourne Grove, closed now for about 10 years. Who is going to take on the cost of turning into somewhere habitable? And, when returned to the owner, make good the changes, as it supposed to be a restaurant.


The only other way would be some sort of compulsory purchase scheme. But that takes money as well.

My parants died I had to sell the family house. I was not living there, squatters moved in, and caused damage to such an extent that I had to get them removed, the value was at that time for houses adjasent value of ?110,000, I had to sell at ?70.000. Split by !2 My share was ?3.333.00

This is a 12 roomed house, a one bedroom flat in the house is on the market for ?229,950, If it had not been for the squatters I would be a Millionair now.

It is a multi-pronged issue. There are different kinds of squatters too. Some squatters can afford to pay rent but just choose not to. I think it is also reasonable to make squatters liable for the cost of repairing any damage they cause (whether they have the means to pay or not).


Clearly home-owners have to be able to remove squatters as soon as they are discovered (that is only fair) and I'm guessing that making it a criminal offence is purely a means to give Police and Bailiffs the powers to quickly get a warrant for forced removal. So that makes sense.


Councils already do have some powers to force action on property owners that allow their properties to fall into a state of disrepair. I think if councils were to be allowed to requisition empty properties then there would have to be some agreement on maintenance and so on. Again the sensible thing to me would be to work under some kind of complsary lease scheme, that would guarantee the owner that the property wuld be maintained and returned in good order but that would also act as an incentive to force property owners to do something with their properties rather than leaving them empty for years on end and risking a complusary lease.

> Squatters don't steal a gome they illegally 'occupy' it...there's a clear legal difference.


It can come conceptually very close.


Take the example we talked about here year or two ago, that of a large house bought by developers for conversion into flats, but then squatted. The squatters gained free accomodation. The developers, for each additional dead week in which they could do no work on it, suffered losses in the shape of any interest payments, other lost opportunities for investment, and absence of any rental or sales income. The squatters' gain was effectively the developers' irrecoverable, and most probably disproportionately greater, loss.

It's not the same thing though ian. Someone can crash into your car and drive off...the car may even be irrepairable but the hit and run driver hasn't stolen it. A house can never 'disappear', never to be seen again (unless it's demolished). It can be damaged, it can be vandalised, it can be burgled, and it can be illegally occupied, but stolen? no.


Squatters are simply illegal tenants and even legal tenants paying rent, damage property, and sometimes stop paying the rent too - landlords factor for this into the maintenance costs of renting property and account for it in rent levels accordingly.


Another interesting point to make is that it takes around eight weeks for a landlord to evict a sitting tenant under contract for non payment of rent (via legal due process). A squatter can be removed within four-six weeks in most cases as the law currently stands (if the landlord acts quickly enough).

"Squatters are simply illegal tenants"


No they're not. A tenant has a right of occupation either granted by someone with a superior right or arising by operation of law. Squatters are trespassers, and because the UK common law never developed an offence of criminal trespass squatting has never been a crime in itself. Squatting is also conceptually almost indistinguishable from theft in that it involves the deliberate taking of a valuable property right. Theft of land is specifically carved out of the statutory offence because it would otherwise be caught by the basic defintion. I can't see any reason why it shouldn't be included where there is deliberate unlawful occupation of property.

DaveR Wrote:

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


...Squatters are trespassers, and because the UK

> common law never developed an offence of criminal

> trespass squatting has never been a crime in

> itself.


Squatting is illegal in Scotland...

"Isn?t one of the requirements for theft that there is intention to permanently deprive the victim of their property?


If so how would you prove that a squatter?s intention was to permanently deprive the owner?"


Under UK law the 'property' is not the physical property but the rights associated with it. The right to occupy a property for a term (either as a tenant or as a licensee) is a valuable right, whether that term is 99 years, a month, or even a day. Each day that a sqatter occupies a house the lawful owner is deprived of the ability to exercise the right of occupation for that day for themselves, or to grant it to another. That deprivation is permanent - the value of the right is lost - and for as long as the squatter is in occupation there is an intention to continually deprive the owner of that property which is renewed each day.


That's how I'd argue it, anyway.

I would love to hear how those folks who don't think squatting is a problem wouldfeelif they were to cone home from work tonight to find me locked inside their home with no intention of leaving, reclining on the sofa feeding myself Doritos...

>:D<

Squatting should be a crime for the sake of the immediate repossession by the rightful owner - no arguments there. Convicted squatters will be required to compensate the owner from any income they attain from subsequent work or benefits, these will be deducted at source after tax. The amount will be at least the reparation cost but the term will be determined by the level of income. Should the owner('s estate) cease then money will instead be paid to the council for the remaining time.


[Puts his Red Hunter Jackboots on] Ahem...


(Pending) Convicted squatters who hold down jobs should be placed in temporary housing like those units made from shipping containers, their rent should be deducted at source after tax, they should be placed on probation for up to 1 year during which time they must find their own rented accommodation or participate in a renovation scheme as described below.


Willing, out of work squatters and probation breakers/expirees should be shifted to derelict buildings where they will be able to claim limited benefits provided they work at renovating the property at least 3 full days a week. They will otherwise have to be actively seeking employment or skilling up in the trades required to renovate. They will have no entitlement to stay once the work is complete unless they are in gainful employment in which case the landlord is encouraged to offer them first refusal on half of the units in any multi-occupancy dwellings. Those willing to use and share their new skills can be enlisted into subsequent schemes as forepersons (on enhanced wages). First and remaining units will be for social housing.


Those exempted from hard physical labour by medical exemption (properly verified) will be able to participate as planners, quartermasters, caterers and other ancilliary roles on sites.


Those in need of counseling and help to overcome substance-abuse, psychiatric or mental health issues, etc will also be assisted whilst participating in a workfare agreement where possible.


Local community groups will be in charge of the integration of the renovated properties into the wider community.


Landlords and owners of buildings that fall into disuse and disrepair should be subject to compulsory occupancy arrangements by the local council after one year since last occupancy lasting 12 months or more (short lets do not stop the clock). These will be brought back into use (see above and by other workfare or renovate to rent schemes for law-abiding citizens looking for better accommodation as well as commercial regeneration efforts). The landlords will be subject to at least a decade of capped rental rates ensuring that those in residence will be guaranteed rents 60% of the area mode rent value as the principal disincentive from exploiting the compulsory occupancy scheme. For each additional property in their portfolio that they also neglect the councils will be able to enact compulsory temporary possession for 10 years where the landlords will receive no more than 20% of the area mode rent, the remaining 40% will return to council housing budget. Absentee landlords will lose all rights at the end of the 10 years and rental income will go to the councils whilst they are absent. Councils will acquire ownership after 10 years and must use the property for housing unless there is a surplus of social housing capacity.


After 10 years, those landlords retaining possession will be allowed to retain all rental income which will be allowed to rise no more than 5% pa as it returns to the market rate.


[Here's my favourite bit...]

Those who refuse to participate and aren't sectionable will be moved to containment camps (Yay!) conveniently situated by sea cliffs where they will have to make their own shelter and grow their own food. They will receive minimal benefits which they will accrue whilst interred and can only gain access to in order to trade externally for resources and supplies. Building and fuel materials will be provided from reclamation and reconstitution processes from landfill. Camps would be provided with energy generators capable of utilising the waste bought in and generated by the camp.


[sTAMP! STAMP! STAMP! STAMP!]


Feel better now, another dull day made up for ;)

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

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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