How to claim squatters rights.
Discussion
427James said:
Vesuvius 996 said:
Cant' be ar5ed to read the whole thread, but the legal position is that if you live somewhere for six years you own it.
On other hand, the OP should get a job.
Sorry 996, big fan of your work normally, but its 12 years (and someone has already fairly accurately summarised the impact of the land registration act on the limitation act based adverse possession claim).On other hand, the OP should get a job.
Have a good weekend.
SAH!
groucho said:
ewenm said:
wolves_wanderer said:
If I was you I would make every effort to try and trace the owners possible. If they could not be found I would proceed exactly as you suggest by looking after the house. If nobody turns up after 10 years then unfortunately they will have to pay the idiot tax, you could take your expenses and give the rest away to charity if you genuinely are not looking to profit. (although quite who would leave a house empty and uncared for for 10 years I don't know.)
Better that than have a derelict house in the street attracting all sorts (and looking shit.)
People are stating "10 years". Anyone got a link to the legislation that allows someone to claim a derelict building after 10 years?Better that than have a derelict house in the street attracting all sorts (and looking shit.)
So, 12 years without paying rent, let's assume the market rate is £1000 per month, that's £12000 p/a = £120,000 free rent.
Then let's assume the house is worth £200,000 (which it would be for £1000 per month) the squatter gets £320,000 worth of stuff for doing nothing. Then remember this is Tax free, you'd have to earn £500,000 before Tax to spend £320,000. So Mr Squatter is earning the equivalent of £50,000 per year doing diddly-squat (literally).
Edited by srebbe64 on Friday 4th January 17:40
[/quote]
Hard to believe but it's absolutely true. After 10 years a squatter can apply to own the house that he/she are living in (under certain conditions). Then lots of hoops are jumped through and within a couple of years they could own the house.
So, 12 years without paying rent, let's assume the market rate is £1000 per month, that's £12000 p/a = £120,000 free rent.
Then let's assume the house is worth £200,000 (which it would be for £1000 per month) the squatter gets £320,000 worth of stuff for doing nothing. Then remember this is Tax free, you'd have to earn £500,000 before Tax to spend £320,000. So Mr Squatter is earning the equivalent of £50,000 per year doing diddly-squat (literally).
Edited by srebbe64 on Friday 4th January 17:40
[/quote]
Totally agree -its shameful. But better than pre 2002 where all you had to do was be a complete lazy piece of sh#t for 12 years and not bother contacting the owner at all. Wasn't there some story of a tramp moving into a 500k place where the residents had moved to Oz or something. Should have been shot on the spot with the rest of the workshy b'stards trying to get something for nothing.
Parrot of Doom said:
Actually it was a council owned property in that instance.
Then whoever it was at the council who was responsible for that mess, should be shot. Council houses are there for people who cant afford to house themselves. That one will presumably be taken out of circulation to be sold to buy more special brew.MMmmm. Special Brew.
srebbe64 said:
groucho said:
ewenm said:
wolves_wanderer said:
If I was you I would make every effort to try and trace the owners possible. If they could not be found I would proceed exactly as you suggest by looking after the house. If nobody turns up after 10 years then unfortunately they will have to pay the idiot tax, you could take your expenses and give the rest away to charity if you genuinely are not looking to profit. (although quite who would leave a house empty and uncared for for 10 years I don't know.)
Better that than have a derelict house in the street attracting all sorts (and looking shit.)
People are stating "10 years". Anyone got a link to the legislation that allows someone to claim a derelict building after 10 years?Better that than have a derelict house in the street attracting all sorts (and looking shit.)
So, 12 years without paying rent, let's assume the market rate is £1000 per month, that's £12000 p/a = £120,000 free rent.
Then let's assume the house is worth £200,000 (which it would be for £1000 per month) the squatter gets £320,000 worth of stuff for doing nothing. Then remember this is Tax free, you'd have to earn £500,000 before Tax to spend £320,000. So Mr Squatter is earning the equivalent of £50,000 per year doing diddly-squat (literally).
Edited by srebbe64 on Friday 4th January 17:40
gtr-gaz said:
What a load of complete drivel!!
and I don't mean the OP.
7 pages long and there are maybe 3 or 4 posts that are of any help. The rest is just slagging people off. What's the point, or is that what Pistonheads has become???
I would'nt like to live next door to a derelict house. Surely that goes for everyone, although I would not try to claim it for myself.
If it was me, I would try and tidy it up a bit. Look after the garden etc, so it doesn't look empty. I would then sell mine and move somewhere else.
As for trying to get the council to act? That would be like pi$$ing in the river.
There is a difference to wanting the house kept in a reasonable condition. And then there is thinking that you can keep the house for doing so.and I don't mean the OP.
7 pages long and there are maybe 3 or 4 posts that are of any help. The rest is just slagging people off. What's the point, or is that what Pistonheads has become???
I would'nt like to live next door to a derelict house. Surely that goes for everyone, although I would not try to claim it for myself.
If it was me, I would try and tidy it up a bit. Look after the garden etc, so it doesn't look empty. I would then sell mine and move somewhere else.
As for trying to get the council to act? That would be like pi$$ing in the river.
was this situation ever resolved ?
i found it when looking for something else and well i have to say the 20 mins taken to read it has been one of much amusement.
all the idiots saying its illegal, its theft, you cant do it, send in thugs with baseball bats -well tut tut guys thats a big load of cr4p, you can and many ppl do this all the time.
few small points here - abandoned is NOT the same as unnocupied.
adverse possession is alive and well in this country and happens ALL THE TIME
suing for trespass (one of my faves) - absolutely no chance
the OP is well within the law to have a locksmith open the doors and change the locks.
he can then clean up the property and actually rent it out if he so desires - although it is adviseable to do it on a short notice period (in case the owner does finally turn up)
after 10 years (if the property is registered) the possessor (aka in old terms squatter) can then apply for the title to the property. the land registry try themselves to contact the registered owner - if no objection occurs he will gain "absolute title" to the property - if an objection is raised then the original owner has declared an interest. If however after a further 2 yrs the original owner has not taken legal steps to remove the possessor or come to an agreement with him then the possessor can apply again and this time the title will automatically change to him.
if the property is unregistered then the procedure is slightly different.
the time frame is 12 years and he applies and gains "possessory title" which can then ata a later date be changed to absolute title. once possesory title is obtained btw you can actually get insurance to cover you for the full value against losing the property to the original owner
bottom line is you might not like it or agree with it - but it is perfeclty legal and acceptable to gain title (and hence ownership) of land or property that is not checked or maintained.
i found it when looking for something else and well i have to say the 20 mins taken to read it has been one of much amusement.
all the idiots saying its illegal, its theft, you cant do it, send in thugs with baseball bats -well tut tut guys thats a big load of cr4p, you can and many ppl do this all the time.
few small points here - abandoned is NOT the same as unnocupied.
adverse possession is alive and well in this country and happens ALL THE TIME
suing for trespass (one of my faves) - absolutely no chance
the OP is well within the law to have a locksmith open the doors and change the locks.
he can then clean up the property and actually rent it out if he so desires - although it is adviseable to do it on a short notice period (in case the owner does finally turn up)
after 10 years (if the property is registered) the possessor (aka in old terms squatter) can then apply for the title to the property. the land registry try themselves to contact the registered owner - if no objection occurs he will gain "absolute title" to the property - if an objection is raised then the original owner has declared an interest. If however after a further 2 yrs the original owner has not taken legal steps to remove the possessor or come to an agreement with him then the possessor can apply again and this time the title will automatically change to him.
if the property is unregistered then the procedure is slightly different.
the time frame is 12 years and he applies and gains "possessory title" which can then ata a later date be changed to absolute title. once possesory title is obtained btw you can actually get insurance to cover you for the full value against losing the property to the original owner
bottom line is you might not like it or agree with it - but it is perfeclty legal and acceptable to gain title (and hence ownership) of land or property that is not checked or maintained.
Edited by BountyHunter on Wednesday 28th January 22:21
Why is this still legal? Why has no one protested the law. I'm sure if a squatter was found in the PM's house then the law would be changed damn quick.
It is a disgraceful law.
If a fraudster got access to your bank account and started using it, it wouldn't be legal.
Yet they can have your house!!!! Madness!
It is a disgraceful law.
If a fraudster got access to your bank account and started using it, it wouldn't be legal.
Yet they can have your house!!!! Madness!
there was something in the papers last thursday about ppl squatting in some park lane mansions. they interviewed a lawyer and he said iirc something like:
you have to live in it for ten years then you can apply for rightful ownship. you then have to clear this with the current owner. you also have to prove that you didnt break in in the first place.
you have to live in it for ten years then you can apply for rightful ownship. you then have to clear this with the current owner. you also have to prove that you didnt break in in the first place.
elster said:
Why is this still legal? Why has no one protested the law. I'm sure if a squatter was found in the PM's house then the law would be changed damn quick.
It is a disgraceful law.
If a fraudster got access to your bank account and started using it, it wouldn't be legal.
Yet they can have your house!!!! Madness!
sorry but you analogies lack substance.It is a disgraceful law.
If a fraudster got access to your bank account and started using it, it wouldn't be legal.
Yet they can have your house!!!! Madness!
if a squatter was found in anyones house they could be removed - legally and relatively quickly
but we arent talking about someone coming home from a holiday or going to their well looked after weekend home etc - we are talking land or houses that are unused, unattended, unloved etc etc for years on end. In some cases theyve never been registered with the land registry
bank account = something totally different.
this is from wikipedia (but is actually well written)
"The primary purpose of adverse possession in the law is to cure defects in real estate titles by putting a statute of limitations on litigation.
Without the doctrine of adverse possession one could never know if one's title to real estate was secure, because long lost heirs of any former owner or lien holder of centuries past could come forward with a legal claim on the property. Adverse possession places a statute of limitations on this kind of action, giving vigilant property owners security in their possessions.
Adverse possession is based on the doctrine of laches, which states that "neglect to assert a right or claim that, together with lapse of time and other circumstances, prejudices an adverse party. Neglecting to do what should or could, have been done to assert a claim or right for an unreasonable and unjustified time causing disadvantage to another."
Plainly stated, this means the law does not reward a person who neglects to enforce his property rights by allowing him to claim the fruit of another person's labor at a later time. Failure of a landowner to exercise and defend his property rights for a certain length of time may result in the permanent loss of the landowner's interest in the property"
as you can see there is a real basis and need for this law.
basically the right to own property is a trust, and if you dont fulfill the necessary do's and dont's of that trust then you can forfeit the property without compensation.
Edited by BountyHunter on Wednesday 28th January 22:55
Edited by BountyHunter on Wednesday 28th January 23:02
BountyHunter said:
bottom line is you might not like it or agree with it - but it is perfeclty legal and acceptable to gain title (and hence ownership) of land or property that is not checked or maintained.
You're using rare circumstances to justify the thieving actions of scumbags who take advantage in entirely different circumstances.Do stop it...
mybrainhurts said:
BountyHunter said:
bottom line is you might not like it or agree with it - but it is perfeclty legal and acceptable to gain title (and hence ownership) of land or property that is not checked or maintained.
You're using rare circumstances to justify the thieving actions of scumbags who take advantage in entirely different circumstances.Do stop it...
as i said before the right to own land is a trust, and if you allow your property to fall into abandonment or dont both checking on it then your have not honoured that trust.
Edited by BountyHunter on Thursday 29th January 00:25
BountyHunter said:
mybrainhurts said:
BountyHunter said:
bottom line is you might not like it or agree with it - but it is perfeclty legal and acceptable to gain title (and hence ownership) of land or property that is not checked or maintained.
You're using rare circumstances to justify the thieving actions of scumbags who take advantage in entirely different circumstances.Do stop it...
as i said before the right to own land is a trust, and if you allow your property to fall into abandonment or dont both checking on it then your have not honoured that trust.
Yes I do...suggest you read my post again.
I said the scrotes are using your scenario as an excuse to impose their thieving ways in entirely different circumstances.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff