Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Xaccers
If those people who pop round for a cuppa, then change the locks, you do not have recourse to beat the door down or get them evicted by the police.
|
Nor would you need to. As the legal owner / occupier you are within your right to force entry to your property (in much the same way you might elect to do so had you locked yourself out) but any potential confrontation thereafter is entirely illegal if you use anything beyond "reasonable force" to remove individuals.
The burden of proof in this regard lies "with title" and can be proven quite simply by various methods as previously mooted, not least of all by proving your identity and having the police call your insurers. Not one court in the land is going to charge you with illegal entry, breaking and entering or criminal damage to your own property retrospectively. Anyone who would consider accusing you of same would need to be in a position to provide their proof of occupancy in a court. How likely are they to do that?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Xaccers
You have become a displaced residential occupier.
Your recourse is then to apply for a PIO within 28 days, otherwise its a much longer winded operation to get your property back.
|
Not so - as previously explained PIO's apply only in certain circumstances - certainly not in privately owned residential properties occupied by the owner occupier.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Xaccers
To be a squatter, you must have no where else to live, ie you cannot squat in your neighbour's house while still keeping your own.
|
Yet by your logic, if every and any property can be broken into and occupied, there can be no such thing as "nowhere else to live".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Xaccers
You must also be willing to obtain to obtain residence through dubious means, knowing full well it is to the detriment to the official owner.
|
Squatting is not a matter of residence - it's a matter of occupancy.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Xaccers
Most people aren't willing to do that, and besides, since the 94 act with the ability to "fast track" evictions, it is more attractive for squatters to target unused properties.
|
It has always been the case that squatters have targetted unused properties or vacant rental properties whose ownership, due to them being rented, is somewhat more difficult to prove. That is exactly what I've been saying - and what squatters rights sites seem to advocate - the occupancy of "unused properties" - not private residential homes where the owner has popped out to the shop or is away for a few days.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Xaccers
Doesn't mean they still can't squat in your premisses until you get a IPO and evict them though.
|
If it is "your", in that you legally own it, premises and it is not, nor has it been, available for rent nor occupied by a rent paying tenant then no, they can't. This is why we have "title deeds" held in trust by mortgators and distinctly different mortgage facilities and terms available to landlords, housing associations and councils.