Pikeys - Human Rights - What about us?

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Russ D

During that time the police said they could do nothing as they had not forced entry.

Pretty much sums up what I said.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Pretty much sums up what I said.

We must have been reading two different posts then. I said that if I came home to find someone had decided to make my home their own then I'd want to have them prosecuted.

You then went on to suggest that squatting and breaking in and entering were 2 different things.

I demonstrated that that is not really the case.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Russ, what you are describing is not squatting - it is illegal occupancy / breaking and entering - two entirely different kettles of fish which are usually easily remedied by means of a cursory call to your local constabulary.

Unless your house has been derelict, abandoned or unoccupied for a length of time, very considerably longer than two weeks I might add, then anyone who would endeavour to occupy it woud be breaking the law - but certainly not squatting.

This is part of the problem - squatting, and the rationale / legal entitlement to do so, is very misrepresented and misunderstood.

Transfer of the legal title of the land takes 12 years, however due to a European ruling deemed this as illegal as no compensation needed to be given to the previous owner, which is against the human rights of the previous owner.
Squatting itself was criminalised The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994

There's a house over the road from my parents.
It's been vacant since it was built about a year ago.
Someone could smash a window (illegal act encouraged by many squatters advice web sites), get the window replaced, change the locks and refuse to leave.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Russ D

We must have been reading two different posts then. I said that if I came home to find someone had decided to make my home their own then I'd want to have them prosecuted.

You then went on to suggest that squatting and breaking in and entering were 2 different things.

I demonstrated that that is not really the case.

Apologies Russ. I thought since you quoted it that you were replying to my "I honestly don't know if squatting should be made illegal" statement when you responded with " Too right it should - if I went away for 2 weeks..." sorry if that wasn't the case.

Yes. Squatting and breaking and entering are two different things - hence the police in the case you referred to saying they "could do nothing as they had not forced entry. Locks were changed from the inside and the occupants could not legally be moved without a court order due to "squatters' rights"."

You see had it been a case of forced entry or breaking and entering the police would, quite simply, have arrested them. Since it would appear that removing them from the property would have involved a court order due to squatters rights then we have to assume that they claimed squatters rights. Ergo, they had not comitted a crime.

That's what I was referring to in my "pretty much sums up what I said" comment.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Apologies Russ. I thought since you quoted it that you were replying to my "I honestly don't know if squatting should be made illegal" statement when you responded with " Too right it should - if I went away for 2 weeks..." sorry if that wasn't the case.

Yes. Squatting and breaking and entering are two different things - hence the police in the case you referred to saying they "could do nothing as they had not forced entry. Locks were changed from the inside and the occupants could not legally be moved without a court order due to "squatters' rights"."

You see had it been a case of forced entry or breaking and entering the police would, quite simply, have arrested them. Since it would appear that removing them from the property would have involved a court order due to squatters rights then we have to assume that they claimed squatters rights. Ergo, they had not comitted a crime.

That's what I was referring to in my "pretty much sums up what I said" comment.

I beg to differ.
If they broke in, and repared the damage (ie bought a new window pane for a tenner) thus giving no evidence of the damage, they could (as advised to do so by many squatter's web sites) claim that the front door was open as they walked past.
A crime has been committed.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

I beg to differ.
If they broke in, and repared the damage (ie bought a new window pane for a tenner) thus giving no evidence of the damage, they could (as advised to do so by many squatter's web sites) claim that the front door was open as they walked past.
A crime has been committed.

Xaccers, I agree, but that is circumstantial. In the particular case in question it appears that the occupants gained entry via an open window and the police did not feel confident enough to allege forced entry or breaking and entering.

Again, each case is unique.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

What exactly (for added emphasis) do you think I meant by that?

Well, I think you are having a go at people named Adolf! Not everyone named Adolf (or Adolph) is a tyrannical dictator and I'm sure that people with that name are fed up with constant reminders that they share a name with one.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Well, I think you are having a go at people named Adolf! Not everyone named Adolf (or Adolph) is a tyrannical dictator and I'm sure that people with that name are fed up with constant reminders that they share a name with one.

Personally, I blame the parents.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Xaccers, I agree, but that is circumstantial. In the particular case in question it appears that the occupants gained entry via an open window and the police did not feel confident enough to allege forced entry or breaking and entering.

Again, each case is unique.

Question to squatters: Did you obtain illegal entry
Squatters: Ooo no, the window was wide open, we didn't smash it then repair it, because that would mean we broke the law and you could evict us without a court order.

Mr Angry, while you are out shopping and have left your house empty, someone could break in, repair the damage and remove the evidence of the criminal activity, and then change your locks.
Until you can get a PIO showing that you have a right to be in the house, there is nothing that can be done.
The time required to claim squatters rights is simply the time to break in, clean up and change locks.

[Paul K]

Sorry but I'm of the same opinion as many in this thread. True Romany travellers that get on with their own lifestyle whilst not intruding on the lives of others should be allowed to continue travelling as and how they wish. The ****/ faux-travellers that only use the term "traveller" to try and excuse their behaviour should be dealt with properly and fully by the legal system. Too many people currently use the description of "traveller" when they are nothing short of mobile criminals who only travel to keep one step ahead of the Police.
True travellers do not terrorise neighbouhoods that they travel into, they do not leave areas looking like rubbish dumps/ scrap yards, they do not intimidate local people and they do not immediately jump on the human rights band wagon when questioned.
True travellers have more respect for people and the areas they visit than these fakers and true travellers must be as angry as the people having to pick up the pieces or tidy up the mess left behind by the fakes.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Question to squatters: Did you obtain illegal entry
Squatters: Ooo no, the window was wide open, we didn't smash it then repair it, because that would mean we broke the law and you could evict us without a court order.

Xaccers, with all due respect, I think you are trying to belittle the issue here.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Mr Angry, while you are out shopping and have left your house empty, someone could break in, repair the damage and remove the evidence of the criminal activity, and then change your locks.
Until you can get a PIO showing that you have a right to be in the house, there is nothing that can be done.
The time required to claim squatters rights is simply the time to break in, clean up and change locks.

.

PIO's apply only where the property in question was previously occupied by a tenant or in the ownership of a landlord, council, housing association or freehold owner - not a legal owner / occupier. Your analogy above applies only in those situations. In my situation, if the above were to happen to me, house owner as opposed to landlord / tenant, then a simple call to the police and, if necessary, my bank would be sufficient to prove criminal access (that, and my neighbours standing around asking who was in my house).

Russ D pointed out earlier the case of David Dale from Port Talbot. From his occupation (a landlord) I think we can see how Mr Dale ended up in the situation he ended up in. If there had been criminal activity engaged in to gain access, which in this case there was not, then I'm pretty sure the police would have acted appropriately.

You posted earlier about squatters websites advising potential squatters to break windows to gain access to properties. For the avoidance of doubt I feel it only fair and balanced that I point out that they refer, specifically, to empty / vacant houses (empty and vacant in the sense that they are standing unoccupied - not lived in).

This is not a legally constituted organization endorsing it's members to engage in the opportunist crime of burglary in the event that the current occupier has popped out to the shops or off to Bognor Regis for their annual holiday - that is breaking and entering. Any law abiding citizen would understand that, unless of course you're attempting to assert, contrary to the law and the police, that squatters exercising their legal right to squat in unoccupied / vacant properties are breaking the law.

You posted earlier that squatting was made "illegal" under the 1977 act - this is not correct. Squatting is, to this day, still legal.

Lord Hausham argued that conspiracy to commit tresspass (which, contrary to popular belief, is ulawful but not illegal) should be made illegal. He was defeated and the law commission instead introduced five new offences

1: Using or threatening violence to secure entry knowing there is someone present opposed to the entry (Section 6)

2: Being on premises as a trespasser and failing to leave after having been required to do so by a displaced residential occupier or a protected intending occupier (Section 7)

3: Trespassing with a weapon of offence (Section 8)


4: Trespassing on embassy or consular property (Section 9)


5: Resisting or obstructing a bailiff or sheriff executing a possession order under Order 113 or 26 (Section 10).



----------------------------------------------------------------


Paul, Your post is 100% spot on.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

PIO's apply only where the property in question was previously occupied by a tenant or in the ownership of a landlord, council, housing association or freehold owner - not a legal owner / occupier. Your analogy above applies only in those situations. In my situation, if the above were to happen to me, house owner as opposed to landlord / tenant, then a simple call to the police and, if necessary, my bank would be sufficient to prove criminal access (that, and my neighbours standing around asking who was in my house).

If you left the door open, then no criminal access has taken place.
If they smash a window, unwitnessed, clean up the evidence, no criminal access can be proven (as is likely to have in the case Russ mentioned).
Once the locks are changed, the police have no legal access to evict them.
So make sure you set your alarm and video cameras going next time you go out.
You must make a claim for possesion (IPO) within 28 days of discovering your premises were being occupied by squatters.
So no, it's not a case of a quick phone call to the police and the bank.
It's no where to live until you get the IPO which then leaves 24 hours for the squatters to leave before they are considered criminals, although you can force your way legally into the property once the IPO is given.


I did not mention the 1977 act.
Squatting was criminalised in the 1994 CJA.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

If you left the door open, then no criminal access has taken place.
If they smash a window, unwitnessed, clean up the evidence, no criminal access can be proven (as is likely to have in the case Russ mentioned).
Once the locks are changed, the police have no legal access to evict them.
So make sure you set your alarm and video cameras going next time you go out.
You must make a claim for possesion (IPO) within 28 days of discovering your premises were being occupied by squatters.
So no, it's not a case of a quick phone call to the police and the bank.
It's no where to live until you get the IPO which then leaves 24 hours for the squatters to leave before they are considered criminals, although you can force your way legally into the property once the IPO is given.


I did not mention the 1977 act.
Squatting was criminalised in the 1994 CJA.

In early February I left a window open, CID thought the resulting access by parties unknown illegal / criminal enough to send two forensics officers and a DC to come and fingerprint the entire house - how come?

You're missing the point. We are talking about abandoned, unused, council, housing association or landlord owned houses.

Illegal occupancy, and indeed entry, to anyone's house where they are currently living, registered as living, listed as an active rent paying tenant, are registered on the electoral roll or are a home owner is illegal. If you leave your door (or a window) open, in any of these circumstances, and someone enters your property without your express permission / invite they are breaking the law.

To suggest that someone entering your house after you leaving your front door open to pop out to the shops is not illegal entry is nonsense - otherwise we'd all be popping in uninvited to peoples houses and having a cup of tea without a second thought. Try it and see how long the police, or the occupier, let you sit there with your feet up before collaring you off to the local nick.

Again - we are talking about "vacant" (unoccupied) properties.

It is only when a property has been occupied as a result of being left "vacant" as opposed to "unattended" or where legitimate ownership / occupancy cannot reasonably be proven that there then arises the matter of obtaining an IPO to prove ownership / occupancy.

If occupying someone elses home was as simple as what you would have us believe then in the event that "It's no where to live until you get the IPO which then leaves 24 hours for the squatters to leave before they are considered criminals" then surely home owner occupiers who were victims of such practices would simply apply your logic and take over the house of the nearest neighbour who was unfortunate enough to leave their door or window open.

Apologies on the 1977 / 1994 CJA mix up - however, it still stands that there is a distinction in law between criminal and illegal.

[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.
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.

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.
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.
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.
Doesn't mean they still can't squat in your premisses until you get a IPO and evict them though.

[Mr Angry]

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?

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.