[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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. 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.

There are times, and this is one of them, where the obstinacy of individuals trying to disprove the law are beyond belief.

I stated that I was referring to "privately owned houses - not those available for rent or tenancy occupancy". Your references to IPO's, DRO's etc bear no relevance, whatsoever, to the illegal occupancy of such residencies. IPO's, DRO's etc are required only in circumstances whereby landlords (commercial or otherwise), housing associations or councils (those who charge money (ie. rent) to third parties for occupancy and are predisposed to the occupancy of their properties on the basis of tenancy agreements) are involved.

This http://www.letlink.co.uk/GeneralInfo...-%20PE1977.htm is the law on the "Protection from eviction act 1977" - I respectfully suggest that you read it in its entirety whereby you will find that it refers, in no small measure, to "landlords" - and not private owners whose ownership of any given property is easily proved as referenced earlier.

Indeed, with reference to the cut and paste from the site you used - are you seriously suggesting that their advice of sending " ....a letter addressed to yourself in your new home. This is sufficient proof for the police that you live there." is considerably better proof of legitimate ownership than a mortgator, insurance company or utility company?

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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.

Sorry, I was working on the assumption that you lived in a tent, my mistake. However, given your new found confidence in your interpretation of the law I'm quite sure you'll be more than happy to forsake your current accommodation to find the time to conduct some factual research.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Why do you think there is the term DRO if you think squatters cannot displace residential occupiers? Did parli(a)ment add it because it sounds funky?

I "think there is the term DRO" in order to facilitate eviction from rented property - this is not something I've been referring to.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Sorry, I didn't think it was pedantic to point out the difference between an IPO and a PIO, both being complet(e)ly 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?

They may both be completely different but I can find "no where" that they are relevant to privately owned (not for rent) premises.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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 ten(n)ant 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.

As previously stated, and in line with current legislation and statute, IPO's are relevant / pertinent only in a scenario where the occupancy of a rented property is in question.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Now, in your fanciful scenario, as soon as ownership is settled, they can be evicted.

Yes. Where the property is privately owned and not available for rent or tenancy occupancy.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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.

I'll give you a "bye ball" on this - working on the assumption that you failed to realize that I was talking about "privately owned houses - not those available for rent or tenancy occupancy" - and hadn't read the aforementioned legislation at the time of posting (by the way, it's "an" IPO and you might want to spell "imminently", and "guaranteed" properly - just to avoid confusion).

Originally Posted by Xaccers

And this (,) Mr Angry(,) is why squatters prefer to target rented accom(m)odation, not because ownership is harder to prove, but because the immediate need of the property is less likely, meaning they can stay for longer.

I think the protection afforded under existing legislation, and my previous post, prove perfectly well the preference of squatters for rented accomodation.

The clue with regards to the illegal nature of occupancy of any private residency is contained in the sterling advice as proffered from the site that you decided to cut and paste from - insofar as they advise "Explain that you are not a burglar".

Yes, I can see that one standing up in court (not!).


http://www.squat.freeserve.co.uk/notes.htm[/quote]