What is so bad about squatting when a building has stood empty for years?

[shims]

Why the hell should someone be allowed to squat in someone else`s

property ?

Because they are needy and the owner may not be. An indicator of this would be if the building has been lying vacant for some time, falling into disrepair and not advertised as 'for sale' or 'to let'.

If it dosnt belong to you , then you have NO right to be in there .

Even if it does 'belong' to you, you'll soon find that it doesn't if it suddenly seems to be standing in the way of a proposed new road etc.

 

It's not okay to steal something just because it's not being used.

How do you steal a building?

 

 

There are people who squat out of necessity and those who just choose that lifestyle. The problem for the property owner is that the properpty is likely to be abused by squatters and it can cost large amounts of time and money pursuing legal means of removing them. Once an owner wants to refurbish, utilise or sell their vacant property squatters ought to be legally compelled to vacate at short notice.

[shims]

No, why should they?

For the general good of the neighbourhood and it's residents, that fact that a run down property may jeopardise sale of surrounding properties and could cause environmental health issues.

 

How brave.

The alternative can be to spend tens of thousands of pounds in court fees trying to evict people that ought to have no legitimate right to occupy a building that they neither own nor pay rent to reside in. Squatting should be 'at your own risk' ie. you can be removed at anytime with minimal notice.

[Tony]

Squatting isn't illegal.

 

If you find an empty property, one which has, for the sake of argument, the door forced open before you stumble upon it.

 

Then you can squat it.

 

If you need housing, then it is a good way of securing temporary housing.

 

Far better for someone to be looking after an empty property than nobody doing so and it falling into potential disrepair.

 

Obviously we don't want irresponsible people forcing doors then claiming they stumbled upon an empty property. But if a responsible person has fallen on hard times and will look after the property, perhaps repairing the door (they FOUND forced open), keeping the property clean etc. then surely its a good thing.

 

Houses that have been empty six months can be seized by the state and rented out to tenants. Surely we should have a system in place for squatters to pay rent to the council and have some security of tenure.

 

"found open"

 

Yea, and I'm the Easter bunny.

 

this is the squatting sequence

• Trespass
  
• Breaking and entering
  
• Criminal damage
  
• Unlawful occupation
  

 

You seem to think that squatters are social hero's. I've always found them to be drug addled criminals that cost building owners tens of thousands every time they break into private premises. The last time I had to clear them out the police advised me not to take my dog anywhere near because of the human excrement and HIV infected blood that covered every surface. Squatters that put up curtains, redecorate and happily hand the property back in better order are only found in fairy stories.

[retep]

Hotelier leaves home for a week so it can be decorated . . . then 15 jobless Italian squatters move in

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322246/Man-leaves-home-week-decorated-15-squatters-in.html#ixzz13UifXd5V

[melthebell]

Others have dealt with the issue of ownership so I'll just add that the 'squatting experience' for owners generally comprises

• criminal damage
  
• casual vandalism
  
• drug use
  
• prostitution
  
• intimidation
  
• police interest
  

and various others forms of criminal activity, the results of which are paid for heavily by the legal owner who has perfectly legitimate reasons for not occupying the property. Squatters aren't freedom fighters, they are usually criminals and it isn't the responsibility of building owners to help with their problems.

 

no it doesnt tony, if you knew anything about squatting youd know theres also plenty of otherwise law abiding people that squat, some do the houses up better than they were, some open up buildings for community groups and gigs etc, and some have squatted whole streets for decades without bother

[melthebell]

It dosn`t matter how long a building has been stood empty , the fact is , the building is owned by someone , and they can do as they please with it with regards to leaving it empty.

 

Why the hell should someone be allowed to squat in someone else`s

property ?

 

If it dosnt belong to you , then you have NO right to be in there .

 

and is it morally wrong for people to leave unwanted buildings in disrepair sometimes for decades? while theres people homeless, sleeping rough, on friends floors, on housing waiting lists sometimes for decades?

[melthebell]

"found open"

 

Yea, and I'm the Easter bunny.

 

this is the squatting sequence

• Trespass
  
• Breaking and entering
  
• Criminal damage
  
• Unlawful occupation
  

 

You seem to think that squatters are social hero's. I've always found them to be drug addled criminals that cost building owners tens of thousands every time they break into private premises. The last time I had to clear them out the police advised me not to take my dog anywhere near because of the human excrement and HIV infected blood that covered every surface. Squatters that put up curtains, redecorate and happily hand the property back in better order are only found in fairy stories.

 

tony you been at the daily mail again? you seem to be reeling off their fave headlines on this subject

[Tony]

Hotelier leaves home for a week so it can be decorated . . . then 15 jobless Italian squatters move in

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322246/Man-leaves-home-week-decorated-15-squatters-in.html#ixzz13UifXd5V

 

Ey, but mama mia, taka loooka ada da frescos anda da terrazzo widda da Versace drapes anda da besta new stone pizza oven in town. Magnifico !

 

(if only)

[Tony]

tony you been at the daily mail again? you seem to be reeling off their fave headlines on this subject

 

No sunshine, I've paid the bills and had to repair the damage out of my own pocket. It's no fun when you can't open the front door because there is a six foot high pile of human excrement in Netto bags behind it.

[lakey149]

That's pretty much the jist of it, however with my property being recently occupied, proof of bills etc being paid by myself, then I'd be able to ring the police and have you done for breaking and entering, criminal damage etc.

 

I wouldn't suggest doing this to a house somebody is living in. But if your house is repossessed, I'd recommend squatting it. If you are homeless and its freezing I'd suggest squatting the post office and old court building in town for example.

 

The council can't house people and we have houses (and grand communal buildings) laying derelict.

 

It would be a win win situation for all if responsible squatters moved into some of the buildings that lay derelict and improved them and made a home in them.

 

We've seen quite a few buildings razed to the ground recently in Sheffield due to arson, I'd much rather see them used for temporary housing, especially if the squatters look after them.

 

But why is it ok for 'responsible' squatters to move in to a council building than, say, a residential privately-owned property that has been left to rot for years upon years? Fair enough that some 'wannabe' property developer bought it ages ago with the intention of doing it up but how can someone then justify that person just leaving the building to waste when some people desperately need a roof over their heads? Is squatting, even when it is temporary and 'responsible', still such a crime?