[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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.

As they have changed the locks and made a claim on the property that they believed it was vacant and did not enter through illegal means, the only way to get them out is via a IPO which declares you as a DRO, and then allows you to use some violence to evict the squatters, such as being able to break the door down.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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?

And the proof is given when you obtain the IPO, which you still have to as a DRO.
If you break in, and try to evict the squatters without a PIO, they can have you charged with assault.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Not so - as previously explained PIO's apply only in certain circumstances - certainly not in privately owned residential properties occupied by the owner occupier.

I think you are getting your IPO's and PIO's confused.
A IPO is given by the court and basically says you have the right to the property, it gives you your DRO (as previous occupant) or PIO (as landlord etc) status.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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".

Ah but if they admit to criminal entry rather than "it was an open window/door guv, prove me wrong" then they can be evicted by the police straight away, as they're not squatters then.
This is why squatters sites and organisations suggest criminal activities to enter the property, then to clean up and lie about how access was gained.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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.

The reason for targetting rented accomodation is nothing to do with proof of ownership but thank you for discrediting your own earlier agurment that an owner only has to ring the bank to get an eviction (after all, the landlord still has the deeds held by the mortgage company, but as I explained, that doesn't matter until the court decides on a IPO), rather it is to do with the increased likelyhood of the property not being needed in the forseable future.
Unless the landlord has tenants waiting to move in, or needs to move in himself in the near future, then he cannot apply for an IPO, likewise, if you had a second home in the country and discovered squatters, because you don't need to live there, you could not use the fast track eviction processes of the IPO.