Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Charities Fear End Of 'squatters' Rights' Could Lead To Big Rise In Homelessness


Recommended Posts

If you own the property then I cant see how it is anyones business but your own if you live in it or not.

The politics of envy are rampant on here.

Nothing to do with envy. Housing is an essential need - would you make the same argument for, say, water-hoarding? I've nothing, absolutely nothing, against property ownership, provided you make use of it. I wish people would stop using the phrase 'politics of envy' all the time. It's a pointless straw-man, a political meme that's just a way of trying to shut down anyone who expresses a view vaguely to the left of anything its user has said.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 157
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I sense some irony here?

I think it's great when "homeless" (read druggies, hippies, lefties and in general off grid people) people go into normal people's homes and squat and make their lives misery. On that basis, I really don't give a shit about squatters. How about they pony up and pay their dues? No?

sure they can pay the dues out of the compensation they receive from normal people restricting their access to the land they sit their fat asses on and the land they dont sit their fat asses on that they stop them from using under the power of a gun, otherwise fair enough have a free for all and the most sociopathic takes all.

Ultimately im all for people having land rights and paying due compensation to those without for restricting them or alternatively having a free for all, either way seems pretty fairly monetarily equitable/socially equitable to me

Edited by Tamara De Lempicka
Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/aug/31/charities-end-squatters-rights-homelessness?newsfeed=true

The government needs to go, they prefer to attack the poor again and again, and allow the rich to keep homes empty, this is going to turn into another mess.

What utter ******!

People are perfectly entitled to keep their houses empty if they want to.

Individuals have absolutely no right whatsoever (legally or morally) to just decide that they can occupy someone else's properly just because they think it might be unjustly empty (even if they are right). Properties can be empty for all sorts of reasons and these freeloading scum make absolutely not attempt to find out why before moving in, causing untold inconvenience to the owners.

Obviously the above doesn’t necessarily apply to government owned property. HMG should be encourage to make use of its empty buildings, but that still doesn't make it right for squatters to move in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FFY

So you see nothing wrong in people or organisations buying up properties and leaving them empty in order to keep prices and rents high?

It becomes my business then.

Are you suggesting that, for example, someone might own one property that they rent out, then purchase a second and deliberately not rent it out? They would have to believe that keeping the second property off the market would allow them to raise the rent on the first to higher than that which could be achieved by renting out both. Sounds unlikely.

Or is this something that only works for landlords with many properties? At what point does keeping 1 property empty work out to the benefit of the landlord? When the landlord has 10 properties? 100 properties?

FT

Link to post
Share on other sites

FFY

So you see nothing wrong in people or organisations buying up properties and leaving them empty in order to keep prices and rents high?

It becomes my business then.

Empty properties should be subject to an escalating tax the longer they are left empty. There is no reason, especially in current circumstances, for properties to remain permanently empty unless purposefully hoarded as you say, or left to rot by a don't-give-a-toss landlord.

Edited by Britney's Piers
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh Grant Shapps, Minister for Landlords and Housebuilders. It should be a criminal offence to leave a house empty for the long term.

Who do I vote for, to get a government representing the people again?

You don't actually get to do that. There are two 'choices' presented to the public of what sort of flavour they want the government to have. The actual decisions that count are made by the established elite and sold to the public by said 'elected government'.

It doesn't matter if the public still don't like the choices made for them even after all the weasel words and soft soaping of the politicos - "It's a democracy" so you have to accept what the 'democratically elected' government decides. Oh yeah, we also have "a society of laws" so don't step out of line or one or you'll fall foul of one of the increasing number of repressive laws passed to suppress dissent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Empty properties should be subject to an escalating tax the longer they are left empty. There is no reason, especially in current circumstances, for properties to remain permanently empty unless purposefully hoarded as you say, or left to rot by a don't-give-a-toss landlord.

We could have a window tax as well. Or maybe a fine for drivers for every empty seat per journey. Or a tax for all those hoarding gold, baked beans and toilet rolls.

Surprised at those on here yearning for more government control and more taxation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't actually get to do that. There are two 'choices' presented to the public of what sort of flavour they want the government to have. The actual decisions that count are made by the established elite and sold to the public by said 'elected government'.

It doesn't matter if the public still don't like the choices made for them even after all the weasel words and soft soaping of the politicos - "It's a democracy" so you have to accept what the 'democratically elected' government decides. Oh yeah, we also have "a society of laws" so don't step out of line or one or you'll fall foul of one of the increasing number of repressive laws passed to suppress dissent.

nope, theres only one choice

Choose a representative and if you dont choose you have no choice, got fck all to do with democracy, its consensual dictatorship, the same as it has been through all UKs recorded history (which alot has been relatively good compared to other dictatorships), one day it may become a democracy, just like N Korea might, then again it might not

Every time a UK politician uses the word democracy its like a politician from the democratic R of Korea. Democracy isnt a name, its a description, clearly removing someones democratic right in the name of Democracy has fck all to do with democracy

Some dictatorships are slightly less dictatorial than others though, the UK would rank towards the high end (but below N Korea) as the majority of dictatorships at least have a democratic mechanism of recall

Edited by Tamara De Lempicka
Link to post
Share on other sites

We could have a window tax as well. Or maybe a fine for drivers for every empty seat per journey. Or a tax for all those hoarding gold, baked beans and toilet rolls.

Surprised at those on here yearning for more government control and more taxation.

Sorry, but is this topic not discussing more government control and regulation in favour of landlords? Are you in favour of more regulation, just as long as you agree with it?

If you wish to have the right to hoard properties which is actually hoarding finite land, unlike beans and so on, then more government regulation is needed to counterbalance for the social effect of doing so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What utter ******!

People are perfectly entitled to keep their houses empty if they want to.

Individuals have absolutely no right whatsoever (legally or morally) to just decide that they can occupy someone else's properly just because they think it might be unjustly empty (even if they are right). Properties can be empty for all sorts of reasons and these freeloading scum make absolutely not attempt to find out why before moving in, causing untold inconvenience to the owners.

Obviously the above doesn’t necessarily apply to government owned property. HMG should be encourage to make use of its empty buildings, but that still doesn't make it right for squatters to move in.

I agree.

Now get your house off my land.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We could have a window tax as well. Or maybe a fine for drivers for every empty seat per journey. Or a tax for all those hoarding gold, baked beans and toilet rolls.

Surprised at those on here yearning for more government control and more taxation.

I agree.

The government should stop protecting land and house boundaries.

There are no squatters unless the state is enforcing land rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this happen specifically to keep rents high? Any evidence would be welcome.

Of course not.

"rich" people keep properties empty for one of two reasons:

1) They have so much money they can afford to do so. They have a house in every port so to speak. Abramovich has four yachts for example. WTF does someone need with four yachts, surely it can just be moved to wherever he wants it, but that's just how rich people live. It doesn't entitle anyone to steal one of them from them.

2) It's awaiting redevelopment but that hasn't started yet. Arguably such property ought to be on the rental market but the uncertainties of getting people out to a deadline make that difficult

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course not.

Not been around much, have you?

Serious LL's have been buying up most of an area and then pricing up the rest more or less forver. It's a scam almost as old as buying one property and moving in druggies at a loss so the rest of the street becomes cheaper so you can buy it out.

As long as you've got enough cash to play the long game it's piss easy. Hell, the central banks do it with whole counties/states/towns.

"rich" people keep properties empty for one of two reasons:

1) They have so much money they can afford to do so. They have a house in every port so to speak. Abramovich has four yachts for example. WTF does someone need with four yachts, surely it can just be moved to wherever he wants it, but that's just how rich people live. It doesn't entitle anyone to steal one of them from them.

2) It's awaiting redevelopment but that hasn't started yet. Arguably such property ought to be on the rental market but the uncertainties of getting people out to a deadline make that difficult

Your thinking is far too small scale.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fundamentally unpatriotic law. Governments, including the British government, routinely ban hoarding during a state of emergency. The usual excuse given for this is to ensure social cohesion. We are told this financial crisis constitutes a national emergency. Yet this law will enshrine hoarding of a basic essential - shelter - in the rule of law.

And then the Luckiest Generation tut at the level of anti-social behaviour they claim to see.

It strikes me as more of a wonder the streets aren’t full of demonstrators demanding compulsory euthanasia.

- Jeremy Paxman

Edited by Sledgehead
Link to post
Share on other sites

I found the whole "campaign against squatters" both by the government and the Evening Standard /Daily Mail pretty sickening.

1) All the tear-jerking examples of squatting were NOT squatting. They were almost always "protected occupiers" where the police could evict immediately without a court order as the "squatters" were already committing a crime. The fact that the police don't know the law is no reason to change the law. It's to explain it to them slowly and in small words. Their ignorance also works the other way (try getting them to acknowledge illegal eviction is a crime rather than a "civil matter")

2) There is no such thing as "squatters rights". The rights are the ones we all have to protect us from illegal eviction from unscrupulous landlords. All you have to do to evict squatters is to go to court and show they are squatters. Without that protection what's to stop a landord just claiming you are squatters to get you out?

The government know these facts.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HomeAndCommunity/WhereYouLive/Derelictbuildingsandsquatters/DG_10022452

Politics of the lowest order. Whip up fear and then sh1t on the weak.

It's scary how legal protections that took centuries to get can be can be whipped away in a few months of misinformation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2) There is no such thing as "squatters rights". The rights are the ones we all have to protect us from illegal eviction from unscrupulous landlords. All you have to do to evict squatters is to go to court and show they are squatters. Without that protection what's to stop a landord just claiming you are squatters to get you out?

You have a signed and dated AST.

What this move also does is make all non AST tenants basically instantly homeless the moment the LL wants them out and is bright enough to lie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course not.

"rich" people keep properties empty for one of two reasons:

1) They have so much money they can afford to do so. They have a house in every port so to speak. Abramovich has four yachts for example. WTF does someone need with four yachts, surely it can just be moved to wherever he wants it, but that's just how rich people live. It doesn't entitle anyone to steal one of them from them.

2) It's awaiting redevelopment but that hasn't started yet. Arguably such property ought to be on the rental market but the uncertainties of getting people out to a deadline make that difficult

noone has a problem with rich people keeping properties empty, Abramovich can keep a million empty properties if he wants, he just needs to stop squatting on everyones land. Build his houses a few Km in the air (until air is regulated so we inevitably run out of it) and theres not an issue

Edited by Tamara De Lempicka
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh Grant Shapps, Minister for Landlords and Housebuilders. It should be a criminal offence to leave a house empty for the long term.

Who do I vote for, to get a government representing the people again?

Seems about right.

There are something approaching 4,000 new laws being churned out per year now. More government, more intrusion, more control. Of course, there is a world of difference between taking over an 'active' household and holing up in a long-empty, perhaps derelict property. There problem with politicians these days is that there law-making is of a knee-jerk nature and broad; so it lacks nuance and can be used in an oppressive way.

There are huge problems in this country with the property market - we basically don't have a functioning one; it has been usurped by the vested interests and those on the make (the financiers and rentiers), at the expense of ordinary people.

I don't necessarily approve of squatting but high housing costs, lack of social housing and who see property as an investment are problems creating the dysfunction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this happen specifically to keep rents high? Any evidence would be welcome.

SMI, forbearance on loans, bail outs....banker shells buying up possessed properties.....yes, property markets are manipulated to the detriment of the people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Squatting is a very good use of the available housing stock.

The Govt. are getting so desperate, they're playing the 'politics of envy' card. Lets stir emotions against the homeless.

Roll-on the next election. Lib-Lab coalition anyone?

I'd hope that the results of this law-change will highlight the amount of empty properties, and precurse a new imputed rent tax on all residential property

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd hope that the results of this law-change will highlight the amount of empty properties, and precurse a new imputed rent tax on all residential property

we'll need swat teams.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.