[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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.

Your argument is tenuous in the extreme, as indeed is your ability to part interpret fact. I am talking about privately owned houses - not those available for rent or tenancy occupancy. Aside from gaining access, by whatever means, if an illegal occupant of your property changes the locks they negate your insurance on your house not your insurance on their house.

A cursory call to any relevant insurance company, mortgator, public service provider or utilities provider along with a written affidavit is sufficient to prove residence and ownership. Debt collection companies have been using these methods for years (even down to telephoning neighbours to ascertain residency) and they are all perfectly admissable in law and in court. Illegal occupancy of a private residential home is illegal, irrespective of the means of access - fact.

If you don't think that this is the case then feel free to go and occupy your neighbour's house and change the locks. Don't forget to get back to us with your experiences when you get out of jail.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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.

Only if (a) you require an IPO to evict them or (b) you assault them - see my earlier post to which you were responding. There is nothing, in law, to prevent you damaging your own private (as in not for commercial use or gain) property to gain entry and effecting a citizen's arrest for burglary - with the provisio that you do not use excessive force on another individual (not, for the avoidance of doubt, on a door or window - I'm not aware of any doors or windows having successfully prosecuted anyone for the use of excessive force on them).

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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.

Since you're resorting to being pedantic it's "an" IPO. I afforded you the courtesy of not highlighting your own grammatical errors in previous exchanges on this thread - please show a bit of mutual respect.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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.

Again we are talking about vacant or unoccupied properties and, admittedly and regrettably, some sites do suggest criminal entry in certain situations. Again though, this is not strictly illegal (suggesting the act) and the police would need to catch perpetrators and prove criminal damage to affect entry.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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.

OK, let me explain this to you - there is a fundamental difference between a private landlord and a landlord. All private landlords are required by law and under the FSA regulations to have landlord mortgage status. This is, amongst other reasons, for public liability indemnity and taxable / capital gains purposes.

Most landlords (not private landlords), inlcluding housing associations, commercial landlords and councils are constituted under the Companies Order of 1986 for the purposes of the business of property rental. This is to facilitate liability indemnities under the guarantee of limited liability (ltd companies). Limited companies consist of at least one director and a company secretary - these are the primary shareholders.

They mortgage properties and acquire mortgages in respect of properties in an entirely different manner than you or I would. These mortgages are secured against the shareholdings of the company under the limited guarantee status. In effect they don't own the properties - the limited company does. More astute members of the legal profession exploit this fact with great effect. Their adversaries, in this matter the squatters rights associations, also employ solicitors who are quite adept at exploiting this fact in the negative. If a landlord, such as a housing association, council or commercial landlord wants to prove ownership then he / she / they have to jump through a very considerable number of hoops to do so. Not least of all the signiature of all parties to the memorandum and articles of association at an extraordinary general meeting to formally announce ownership - this exposes otherwise silent shareholders / partners and all of their business interests.

This is time consuming and generally takes weeks to coordinate (hence the statutory 28 day limit on IPO applications).

So you see - it is to do with proof of ownership. Many businesses / business people do not want their shareholdings and business affairs discussed in public as a matter of public record and squatters and their legal representatives are only too well aware of and exploit this fact.

Mr Dale, referred to earlier, was probably forced to apply for an IPO simply because of his landlord status and, if he was, then his business affairs would now be known to all and sundry in Port Talbot. I, personally, am familiar with one case where an estranged wife "arranged" for squatters to take posession of one of her ex husbands' properties to force him to apply for an IPO thereby exposing his business affairs and share dealings with his "new " parther going back 11 years.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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.

He can apply for an IPO, but he needs to do so along with an accompanying written statement or certificate in compliance with section 12A of the Criminal Law Act, 1977 (inserted as part of a recommendation from your favourite Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994). Such statements are fraught with complications for landlords as they have to prove that any prospective tenant has been in discussions to take up a tenancy prior to the disputed occupancy. There is also a jail term and fine applicable in the event of perjury.

I look forward to hearing from you on your release.