[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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.

If they did not enter your property by illegal means, ie without proof of them breaking in, and change the locks, they are then able to claim to be squatters, and an IPO is required to evict them, this gives you the status of a DRO and they must leave within 24 hours.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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.

And in order to evict them you need to submit an IPO to get PIO or DRO status
This is why people can go away for the weekend and come back and find squatters in their property and the police will do nothing.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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.

I can't, you see, as they are my neighbour, it means I have a property, and as such I am unable to claim to be a squatter.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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).

Why do you think there is the term DRO if you think squatters cannot displace residential occupiers? Did parliment add it because it sounds funky?

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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.

Sorry, I didn't think it was pedantic to point out the difference between an IPO and a PIO, both being completly different.
I suppose you think people are being pedantic if you start talking about cats when you're asked about dogs, and people point out your mistake?

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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.

Let me explain this to you.
If ownership is proven, which it generally always will be, an IPO cannot be submitted unless there is an imminent need for that property, ie a tennant is about to move in.
If this is not the case, then an IPO cannot be submitted, and the squatters cannot be evicted using this process.
This then gives the squatters longer in the property than if an IPO had been submitted, which would give them up to 29 days after they were discovered.
Now, in your fanciful scenario, as soon as ownership is settled, they can be evicted.
In reality, and law, they can only be evicted via a IPO which gives the landlord the status of PIO, if the landlord can prove that the property is needed iminently by someone else.
The immediate need of the property is pretty much guarenteed with a private residence, but not so likely with a rented property.
And this Mr Angry is why squatters prefer to target rented accomodation, not because ownership is harder to prove, but because the immediate need of the property is less likely, meaning they can stay for longer.


http://www.squat.freeserve.co.uk/notes.htm

Dealing with the Police

If the police arrive, don’t open the door, speak to them through the letter box. Explain that you are not a burglar; you are living there because you have nowhere else to live. Do not say that you broke in. You can say you were walking past and the door was open.

Be polite but firm with them. Once you are inside a place and have "secure access", (i.e. your own lock on the door) the main danger of arrest and prosecution is over. Try to get the front door reasonably secure as fast as possible (i.e. change the lock).

If the police insist on coming in, tell them that no arrestable offence is taking place and they should leave you alone. In the unlikely event that you are arrested, phone RELEASE (0171-603 8654) and they will put you in touch with a solicitor. You have the right to make one phone call. The police must release you within 24 hours, or charge you. You still do not have to tell them anything other than your name, address and date of birth.

Staying In

Send a letter addressed to yourself in your new home. This is sufficient proof for the police that you live there. Make sure that there is somebody in as much as possible in the first week or two, especially if the place is being worked on. It is often a good idea to keep a copy of the squatters’ legal warning by the front door, because the owners may come round and try to repossess the place by pretending that they thought there was no-one living there. It is illegal for them to throw you out if you are in physical occupation of the place when they arrive. They can be prosecuted if they do this.