Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
Hello Basa,
Squatting is not "illegal" occupation. Squatting itself is a legal right which has been exercised over many years where there is a dispute over ownership or the registration entitlement to land, title or property.
In any regard, and as previously stated on numerous occasions, the family involved made no claim as to ownership or title of the land in question.
Under the Land Registration Act 2002 (Adverse posession of registered land - points 3.1 - 3.3) no one can be deemed to be a squatter / squatting or claim squatters rights if they do not lay claim to the intention to posess.
They may well have been guilty of trespass in the earlier scenario which led to the latest appeal, nevertheless my earlier points (above) still stand.
I'm sorry but you are wrong. No crime, by either party to this appeal, has been alleged or proved. The legal arguments were not about "illegal occupation" they were on the matter of whether the Council had failed in its statutory duties to the homeless family in question. This is not actually a criminal offence but falls remiss under "abuse of process" or "negligence".
EDIT.
Great - I see that now we're getting some serious debate on a serious issue, lets keep it up.
|
Whilst squatting is not a criminal offence agreed, it is a civil 'offence'. In this case there is no dispute or doubt as to the land ownership, which is why the 'pikeys' didn't even think of claiming title as they knew it was a no,no. Which is sort of what I was saying here> "[i]No one in their right mind in this situation would not attempt to argue that they owned or had any similar right to occupy the land .. they were trespassing ffs.[/].
In any event I think squatting should be illegal to prevent rogues from obtaining property without working for it. Proviso> There should be adequate provision available through legal means, e.g. council accommodation.