Squatting to be made Illegal
Discussion
Found this site, all the info these scum bags need including a printable notice to stick on doors/windows as below.
http://www.squatter.org.uk/index.php?option=com_co...
LEGAL WARNING
Section 6 Criminal Law Act 1977
As amended by Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
TAKE NOTICE
THAT we live in this property, it is our home and we intend to stay here.
THAT at all times there is at least one person in this property.
THAT any entry or attempt to enter into this property without our permission is a criminal offence as any one of us who is in physical possession is opposed to entry without our permission.
THAT if you attempt to enter by violence or by threatening violence we will prosecute you. You may receive a sentence of up to six months imprisonment and/or a fine of up to £5,000.
THAT if you want to get us out you will have to issue a claim in the County Court or in the High Court, or produce to us a written statement or certificate in terms of S.12A Criminal Law Act, 1977 (as inserted by Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, 1994).
THAT it is an offence under S.12A (8) Criminal Law Act 1977 (as amended) to knowingly make a false statement to obtain a written statement for the purposes of S. 12A. A person guilty of such an offence may receive a sentence of up to six months imprisonment and/or a fine of up to £5,000.
Signed
The Occupiers
N.B. Signing this Legal warning is optional. It is equally valid whether or not it is signed.
http://www.squatter.org.uk/index.php?option=com_co...
LEGAL WARNING
Section 6 Criminal Law Act 1977
As amended by Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
TAKE NOTICE
THAT we live in this property, it is our home and we intend to stay here.
THAT at all times there is at least one person in this property.
THAT any entry or attempt to enter into this property without our permission is a criminal offence as any one of us who is in physical possession is opposed to entry without our permission.
THAT if you attempt to enter by violence or by threatening violence we will prosecute you. You may receive a sentence of up to six months imprisonment and/or a fine of up to £5,000.
THAT if you want to get us out you will have to issue a claim in the County Court or in the High Court, or produce to us a written statement or certificate in terms of S.12A Criminal Law Act, 1977 (as inserted by Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, 1994).
THAT it is an offence under S.12A (8) Criminal Law Act 1977 (as amended) to knowingly make a false statement to obtain a written statement for the purposes of S. 12A. A person guilty of such an offence may receive a sentence of up to six months imprisonment and/or a fine of up to £5,000.
Signed
The Occupiers
N.B. Signing this Legal warning is optional. It is equally valid whether or not it is signed.
sjn2004 said:
THAT any entry or attempt to enter into this property without our permission is a criminal offence as any one of us who is in physical possession is opposed to entry without our permission.
I don't understand this part, why couldn't the owner or anyone else squat with them? And why would it be illegal to enter your own property - does this only apply if you no longer hold a key?Mr Sparkle said:
sjn2004 said:
THAT any entry or attempt to enter into this property without our permission is a criminal offence as any one of us who is in physical possession is opposed to entry without our permission.
I don't understand this part, why couldn't the owner or anyone else squat with them? And why would it be illegal to enter your own property - does this only apply if you no longer hold a key?Derek Smith said:
Not sure what the 'gently removed' is supposed to suggest although what comes after it tends to indicate a serious offence. I certainly wouldn't post such thing on a public forum and if I was the woman who employed you I might be a bit worried.
What people call squatters rights is no such thing in reality. The Criminal Law Act 77 makes it an offence to use violence to enter premises if someone on those premises is opposed to such entry. There are exceptions and one of them is the displaced residential occupier (DRO), which this woman would appear to be, who does not commit the offence and nor does anyone acting on their behalf, which is what you were suggesting you were doing. You could have been as loud as you like and not invented a story, especially one as dodgy as that.
If you wish to enter premises you can do so as a DRO, a protected intended occupier or with a court order. Once on those premises you, or someone acting on your behalf, may then demand that the occupiers leave.
There are certain limitations - some leasehold properties. So in essence what Cameron is doing is removing a law from the statute books.
The law protects more than squatters and it will be interesting to see what will replace it, unless Cameron is throwing residents to the wolves. Certainly it was brought in for very good reasons and if the section was removed it might well 'open the door' to Rachmanism.
Get a grip / give yourself a shake ya plonker. These people are scum of the highest order, what they do is ridiculous. Stop thinking everything is black and white and no one should ever in any case 'break the law'What people call squatters rights is no such thing in reality. The Criminal Law Act 77 makes it an offence to use violence to enter premises if someone on those premises is opposed to such entry. There are exceptions and one of them is the displaced residential occupier (DRO), which this woman would appear to be, who does not commit the offence and nor does anyone acting on their behalf, which is what you were suggesting you were doing. You could have been as loud as you like and not invented a story, especially one as dodgy as that.
If you wish to enter premises you can do so as a DRO, a protected intended occupier or with a court order. Once on those premises you, or someone acting on your behalf, may then demand that the occupiers leave.
There are certain limitations - some leasehold properties. So in essence what Cameron is doing is removing a law from the statute books.
The law protects more than squatters and it will be interesting to see what will replace it, unless Cameron is throwing residents to the wolves. Certainly it was brought in for very good reasons and if the section was removed it might well 'open the door' to Rachmanism.
matthewg said:
Derek Smith said:
Not sure what the 'gently removed' is supposed to suggest although what comes after it tends to indicate a serious offence. I certainly wouldn't post such thing on a public forum and if I was the woman who employed you I might be a bit worried.
What people call squatters rights is no such thing in reality. The Criminal Law Act 77 makes it an offence to use violence to enter premises if someone on those premises is opposed to such entry. There are exceptions and one of them is the displaced residential occupier (DRO), which this woman would appear to be, who does not commit the offence and nor does anyone acting on their behalf, which is what you were suggesting you were doing. You could have been as loud as you like and not invented a story, especially one as dodgy as that.
If you wish to enter premises you can do so as a DRO, a protected intended occupier or with a court order. Once on those premises you, or someone acting on your behalf, may then demand that the occupiers leave.
There are certain limitations - some leasehold properties. So in essence what Cameron is doing is removing a law from the statute books.
The law protects more than squatters and it will be interesting to see what will replace it, unless Cameron is throwing residents to the wolves. Certainly it was brought in for very good reasons and if the section was removed it might well 'open the door' to Rachmanism.
Get a grip / give yourself a shake ya plonker. These people are scum of the highest order, what they do is ridiculous. Stop thinking everything is black and white and no one should ever in any case 'break the law'What people call squatters rights is no such thing in reality. The Criminal Law Act 77 makes it an offence to use violence to enter premises if someone on those premises is opposed to such entry. There are exceptions and one of them is the displaced residential occupier (DRO), which this woman would appear to be, who does not commit the offence and nor does anyone acting on their behalf, which is what you were suggesting you were doing. You could have been as loud as you like and not invented a story, especially one as dodgy as that.
If you wish to enter premises you can do so as a DRO, a protected intended occupier or with a court order. Once on those premises you, or someone acting on your behalf, may then demand that the occupiers leave.
There are certain limitations - some leasehold properties. So in essence what Cameron is doing is removing a law from the statute books.
The law protects more than squatters and it will be interesting to see what will replace it, unless Cameron is throwing residents to the wolves. Certainly it was brought in for very good reasons and if the section was removed it might well 'open the door' to Rachmanism.
sjn2004 said:
THAT any entry or attempt to enter into this property without our permission is a criminal offence as any one of us who is in physical possession is opposed to entry without our permission.
THAT is factually incorrect. It should read: An entry or attempt to enter this property MAY be an offence.Derek Smith said:
The law protects more than squatters and it will be interesting to see what will replace it, unless Cameron is throwing residents to the wolves. Certainly it was brought in for very good reasons and if the section was removed it might well 'open the door' to Rachmanism.
I do not think that someone with a tenancy agreement could be defined as 'squatting', so eviction for non-payment of rent will remain a civil matter. JagLover said:
I do not think that someone with a tenancy agreement could be defined as 'squatting', so eviction for non-payment of rent will remain a civil matter.
There is no 'squatting' in law and is not defined. 'Squatters' are not protected. The CLA was not written to protect people who break into premises to live there.The law is to protect people who have tenancy agreements. It was, to a great extent, successful although not 100% of course and thugs are still sent in to remove people with inconvenient contracts. Indeed, in Brighton in the middle 80s we had a local landlord who pulled all the tricks that Rachman did and more. The law was there to protect those who were legally on premises.
It will be dangerous to just remove the law. We don't want doors kicked in, staircases removed, property trahsed, legal occupants beaten and thrown onto the street. What we need is it being made easier to remove people who have no right to be on premises.
Derek Smith said:
The law is to protect people who have tenancy agreements.
Not sure what you mean, there is a fair bit of law to protect tenants - for example the Protection from Eviction Act?!!? And a tenant tends to have a nice piece of paper to prove they have a right to occupy etc However, a squatter has no right to occupy and therefore I can see no reason why a homeowner should be not be able to remove them by force.
powerstroke said:
I think the law is different in scotland, anyone know how it works ??
Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 said:
Every person who lodges in any premises, or occupies or encamps on any land, being private property, without the consent and permission of the owner or legal occupier of such premises or land, and every person who encamps or lights a fire on or near any . . . road or enclosed or cultivated land, or in or near any plantation, without the consent and permission of the owner or legal occupier of such road, land, or plantation . . . shall be guilty of an offence punishable as herein-after provided.
Every person who commits any offence against the provisions of this Act may, if found in the act of committing the same by any officer of police or constable, be apprehended by such officer or constable, and detained in any prison, police station, lock-up, or other place of safe custody, and not later than in the course of the next lawful day after he shall have been so taken into custody shall be brought before a magistrate
Fine of £200 and/or up to 21 days imprisonment.Every person who commits any offence against the provisions of this Act may, if found in the act of committing the same by any officer of police or constable, be apprehended by such officer or constable, and detained in any prison, police station, lock-up, or other place of safe custody, and not later than in the course of the next lawful day after he shall have been so taken into custody shall be brought before a magistrate
great to see the english law being made the same as the scottish, just a shame it has taken so long to get there
most of the squatters seem to be anarchists who break into the house and then repair the damage, yet the owner can't do the same for some reason
as for the Caravan Using Nomadic Travellers, suspect they are a special case, I did have to laugh at a case a few years ago where they refused to move from some land, so the owner got out his mini jcb and dug a large trench where the access point was, when it rained, the water stayed in the field
most of the squatters seem to be anarchists who break into the house and then repair the damage, yet the owner can't do the same for some reason
as for the Caravan Using Nomadic Travellers, suspect they are a special case, I did have to laugh at a case a few years ago where they refused to move from some land, so the owner got out his mini jcb and dug a large trench where the access point was, when it rained, the water stayed in the field
Jasandjules said:
Not sure what you mean, there is a fair bit of law to protect tenants - for example the Protection from Eviction Act?!!? And a tenant tends to have a nice piece of paper to prove they have a right to occupy etc
However, a squatter has no right to occupy and therefore I can see no reason why a homeowner should be not be able to remove them by force.
The fact is that tenants have been evicted and terrorised in the past. One of the laws that attempts - and in many cases fails - to protect them is the CLA. That is what it was brought in to do.However, a squatter has no right to occupy and therefore I can see no reason why a homeowner should be not be able to remove them by force.
I'm just trying to put over the fact that there is no legal definition of squatter and the the law is a fairly good one. It gives the police a right to stop someone breaking into premises to kick out tenants. In 30 years I've used it twice and been on scene to see it used probably not more than that again. But all times it was the CLA that gave us the authority to bring the matter to a stop.
The problem is with the way the civil courts deal with these matters. It takes too long. However, in the case of the occupier coming home from holidaty and finding someone living in their house, the law is quite clear. They may enter, using force if necessary, even if there is someone on the premises who does not want them to enter, and demand that they leave. The CLA gives them that right.
The 'key thing' seems a bit silly.
What If I just broke a window to get into my own house and then claimed, "Sorry, i lost my front door key and had no idea the locks had been changed, or that someone was squatting in my house. The next thing i knew was i was in a fight with a presumed burglar. I used reasonable force to eject him from my property. When he tried to re-enter my property with a key, I assumed it was my lost key and confiscated it.
Surely that would work
What If I just broke a window to get into my own house and then claimed, "Sorry, i lost my front door key and had no idea the locks had been changed, or that someone was squatting in my house. The next thing i knew was i was in a fight with a presumed burglar. I used reasonable force to eject him from my property. When he tried to re-enter my property with a key, I assumed it was my lost key and confiscated it.
Surely that would work
Just a thought. in the last couple of years there have been squatters in some high profile houses.
I belive a couple of tory MP's had their house occupied.
Could this be the reason for the change in law? after all these years of the rest of us having to put up with this s
t they change the law when it affects one of them?
I belive a couple of tory MP's had their house occupied.
Could this be the reason for the change in law? after all these years of the rest of us having to put up with this s
t they change the law when it affects one of them?Pesty said:
Just a thought. in the last couple of years there have been squatters in some high profile houses.
I belive a couple of tory MP's had their house occupied.
Could this be the reason for the change in law? after all these years of the rest of us having to put up with this st they change the law when it affects one of them?
Could it be the Nu Labia mob who encouraged scum like this, and who preach a message that private property is a 'bad thing', whilst lining their own pockets, are no longer in power?I belive a couple of tory MP's had their house occupied.
Could this be the reason for the change in law? after all these years of the rest of us having to put up with this s
t they change the law when it affects one of them?Pesty said:
I think this was going on before 97 wasnt it?
1977 was when the CLA was brought in. Rachman was, I seem to remember, dead then but the MO was still common. i would assume it is likely to come back with a vengence with more and more people renting.Some people mentioned tenancy agreement as if that is some sort of magic shield that stops them being evicted. That would be nice, but it doesn't happen.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff