Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption
 


       Downsizer Forum Index -> Finance and Property
marigold

Squatting

Reading this lead me to this.

I have mixed feelings about squatting and certainly I think it's wrong for squatters to occupy people's homes, but when it comes to buildings that have been empty for a long time and are being left to rot what's so terrible about moving in and making use of them? What sort of person would rather let a building rot than negotiate with people who want to live in it and are willing to do repairs?
Hairyloon

Re: Squatting

What sort of person would rather let a building rot than negotiate with people who want to live in it and are willing to do repairs?

Generally speaking, people with more money than sense.
Bebo

The sort of person who is worried about those occupying it getting rights to keep it ('adverse possession') or about them being difficult about getting out when they want the building back. Quite often empty properties are empty because the owner has other plans for them but can't get started on them because or planning or other regulatory / legal delays.
toggle

local councils are one of the absolute worse for this. If you are interested in how the squatters movement began in the UK, then try Ron Bailey - The Squatters. I did a lot of reading on this as part of looking into the history of housing provision
Bebo

London Borough of Lambeth used to be one of the worst. They lost some very expensive property in kennington as a result (including a 6 bedroom victorian town house that my OH's family used to live in until they condemned it and left it to squatters for 20-odd years).
Hairyloon

The sort of person who is worried about those occupying it getting rights to keep it ('adverse possession')

The simple way to prevent that is to have a deal with them...
Although nowadays you don't need to worry at all if the property is registered.
gil

London Borough of Lambeth used to be one of the worst. They lost some very expensive property in kennington as a result (including a 6 bedroom victorian town house that my OH's family used to live in until they condemned it and left it to squatters for 20-odd years).

Villa Rd, by any chance ? Legendary.
Bebo

London Borough of Lambeth used to be one of the worst. They lost some very expensive property in kennington as a result (including a 6 bedroom victorian town house that my OH's family used to live in until they condemned it and left it to squatters for 20-odd years).

Villa Rd, by any chance ? Legendary.

St Agnes Place.
gil

Not heard of those. toggle

I have, it upset a lot of people. Bebo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Agnes_Place

My info was wrong, looks like they didn't win the adverse possession case in the end.
Bebo

I have, it upset a lot of people.

It upset the MIL that they had to move out. The fact that the building stood there for donkeys years afterwards and was occupied was the icing on the cake for her. There was a really strong local community there, but it all got dispersed.
toggle

From what I can recall, there were other similar evictions going on at about the same time. Jamanda

There was a big eviction on a block just down the road when we were living in Willesden. It was a dawn raid affair on a place with perfectly nice people who had done DIY and plumbing and things.

I should remember the year really Embarassed Mid 90s. Sean says 93.
Nick

The sort of person who is worried about those occupying it getting rights to keep it ('adverse possession')
The simple way to prevent that is to have a deal with them...
Although nowadays you don't need to worry at all if the property is registered.

In what way is it simple to come to a deal with someone with no assets, no fixed abode other than yours, no security and nothing to lose? Oh yes, of course I promise not todamage the place and move out on demand as long as you don't throw me out.

You'd hand over a couple of hundred grand to someone like that, essentially on goodwill?

Got a spare house, please?
Hairyloon

The sort of person who is worried about those occupying it getting rights to keep it ('adverse possession')
The simple way to prevent that is to have a deal with them...
Although nowadays you don't need to worry at all if the property is registered.

In what way is it simple to come to a deal with someone with no assets, no fixed abode other than yours, no security and nothing to lose?
Why don't you read the question?
What sort of person would rather let a building rot than negotiate with people who want to live in it and are willing to do repairs?
Where is the problem?
If they have nothing, and no job, then they will be eligible for housing benefit, so it is no skin of their nose to pay you rent.
Nick

Then we are not talking about squatters, but tenants. Did you read the title? Hairyloon

Then we are not talking about squatters, but tenants. Did you read the title?
Is not me that is having trouble with reading tonight.
The simple way to prevent that is to have a deal with them... Nick

Then we are not talking about squatters, but tenants. Did you read the title?
Is not me that is having trouble with reading tonight.
The simple way to prevent that is to have a deal with them...

http://forum.downsizer.net/viewtopic.php?p=1167304#1167304

I'll leave you to it. As I say, you want to hand over an asset like that, best of luck. I guess you have more money than sense.
Hairyloon

Perhaps you should start [http://forum.downsizer.net/viewtopic.php?p=1167207#1167207[/url] and work through it.

Or if you are still struggling, come back to me and I'll spell it out.

Sorry, wrong link. Embarassed
onemanband


What sort of person would rather let a building rot than negotiate with people who want to live in it and are willing to do repairs?
Where is the problem?
If they have nothing, and no job, then they will be eligible for housing benefit, so it is no skin of their nose to pay you rent.

'willing to do repairs' - what a lick of paint, patch a few leaks, basic repairs ? Maybe. But I can't see squaters(or non-rent paying tenants) paying the thousands or tens of thousands to bring some of these properties upto a proper standard compliant with regulations.

'housing benefit' - if rent is being paid/claimed then the property must meet minimum standards. The cost of renovating a property to the proper standard could take years to recoup from rent and may not suit the owners future plans for the building.

You can't rent-out a derelict building for habitable use. Even if you let someone live for free in a derelict building you would probably be liable if there was a fire and they died.
Hairyloon

But I can't see squaters(or non-rent paying tenants) paying the thousands or tens of thousands to bring some of these properties upto a proper standard compliant with regulations.
Best just let them rot then.
Bebo

But I can't see squaters(or non-rent paying tenants) paying the thousands or tens of thousands to bring some of these properties upto a proper standard compliant with regulations.
Best just let them rot then.

If the intention is to knock them down and build something else once you've sorted out planning etc it is best for the owner to just let them rot. They own it, their choice.
Nick

Perhaps you should start here and work through it.

Or if you are still struggling, come back to me and I'll spell it out.

Nope, you'll have to spell it out. I don't see how that shows me it's easy for me to turn a redundant property full of squatters into a safe, legal, rented home where the landlord benefits. Perhaps you could illustrate with examples?
Hairyloon

If the intention is to knock them down and build something else...
Then it doesn't matter a damn what the squatters do to it.
Bebo

If the intention is to knock them down and build something else...
Then it doesn't matter a damn what the squatters do to it.

It does if you can't get them out when you want to. See my earlier wiki link.

I've decided that I'm becoming more right wing as I get older. The lazy buggers should just get a job and either buy or rent the property they live in like everyone else does.
Hairyloon

Nope, you'll have to spell it out. I don't see how that shows me it's easy for me to turn a redundant property full of squatters into a safe, legal, rented home where the landlord benefits.
Than was not the question on the table though was it?

What sort of person would rather let a building rot than negotiate with people who want to live in it and are willing to do repairs?
The sort of person who is worried about those occupying it getting rights to keep it.
The simple way to prevent that is to have a deal with them... marigold

It's not quite as simple as having a deal with them though, is it? It can be hard to get rid of tenants you do have a legal agreement with if they decide to misbehave.

I still can't make up my mind - on the one hand, yes a property owner should be able to do what they like with what they own, but on the other hand, is it right for some people to have a vast excess of possessions when others have none (and not much chance of obtaining any through honest graft)?
Hairyloon

I still can't make up my mind...
If you are looking for a "one size fits all" answer to such a multi-faceted question, then you are wasting your time.
The black and white examples exist in theory, but everything else is shades of grey.
Where you draw the line is up to you.
onemanband

If you 'make a deal' with somebody to live in a run down property then you will probably be in breach of all sorts of housing regulations.

Bedford house is a grade II listed building. I'm not that familiar with listed building rules but I would guess this is why Bedford house has stood empty for 20 years. What damage are these squatters doing to a listed building ?

There's some interesting looking plants in the pictures. Anybody care to ID them ?
Hairyloon

If you 'make a deal' with somebody to live in a run down property then you will probably be in breach of all sorts of housing regulations.
Might be. Probably depends on the terms of the deal.
Quote:
Bedford house is a grade II listed building. I'm not that familiar with listed building rules but I would guess this is why Bedford house has stood empty for 20 years.

Leaving a listed building to rot far enough that they'll let you knock it down rather defeats the point of listing them. It ought to be illegal.
Quote:
What damage are these squatters doing to a listed building ?

Why do you bigots always assume that squatters are criminals?
onemanband

[quote="Hairyloon:1167675"]
Quote:
What damage are these squatters doing to a listed building ?

Why do you bigots always assume that squatters are criminals?

I said 'damage' not 'criminal damage'
Damage to a listed building could be unintentional / uninformed or done for good intentions.
From the pictures of Bedford house I can see ; graffitti on original artworks/ signs and oil drums hanging from the ceilings.
Nick

Squatting requires a lack of permission to occupy and exclusive access with a lock of some kind. Given that its unlikely an unwilling owner would provide such a lock I'd guess the squatter would usually add this. That's criminal damage, no?

And, unless they arrange to pay all utility bills from day one, or use none of them, then there's theft. Its probably possible to squat without committing a crime but I'd bet it very rarely happens.
Bebo

Quote:
What damage are these squatters doing to a listed building ?

Why do you bigots always assume that squatters are criminals?

Why is it bigotted not to support the occupation, often illegally, of property that some poor sod has paid for. The question could easily be reverse:
Why do you bigots assume that people who own property should allow others to occupy it without permission?
marigold

Quote:
What damage are these squatters doing to a listed building ?

Why do you bigots always assume that squatters are criminals?

Why is it bigotted not to support the occupation, often illegally, of property that some poor sod has paid for. The question could easily be reverse:
Why do you bigots assume that people who own property should allow others to occupy it without permission?

In this case, I rather suspect that some rich sod inherited the property Wink .
Hairyloon

Why is it bigotted not to support the occupation, often illegally, of property that some poor sod has paid for.
It is the assumption that the occupiers will cause damage that is biggotted... as is the assumption that the occupation is likely illegal.
onemanband

Why is it bigotted not to support the occupation, often illegally, of property that some poor sod has paid for.
It is the assumption that the occupiers will cause damage that is biggotted... as is the assumption that the occupation is likely illegal.

If that's bigotrey I'm happy to be a bigot.
Rather that than be naive and entrust my property to somebody else when I have nothing to gain but lots to lose.

If assuming somebody will do something illegal is bigotted then by that logic all security measures are bigotted. You'd better take the locks off your front door and leave the keys in your car if you don't want to be a bigot... and you might want to respond to that email asking to send money to release an inheritance cheque.
Bebo

Why is it bigotted not to support the occupation, often illegally, of property that some poor sod has paid for.
It is the assumption that the occupiers will cause damage that is biggotted... as is the assumption that the occupation is likely illegal.

Erm, I was under the impression that it was only legal if it had been left open and they can just walk in. Not many people do that and if it isn't getting in would involve 'breaking and entering' wouldn't it?
Bebo

Quote:
What damage are these squatters doing to a listed building ?

Why do you bigots always assume that squatters are criminals?

Why is it bigotted not to support the occupation, often illegally, of property that some poor sod has paid for. The question could easily be reverse:
Why do you bigots assume that people who own property should allow others to occupy it without permission?

In this case, I rather suspect that some rich sod inherited the property Wink .

In that case their poor parents (or grandparents etc etc) had to pay for it. And they had to pay inheritance tax on it.
Hairyloon

Erm, I was under the impression that it was only legal if it had been left open and they can just walk in. Not many people do that and if it isn't getting in would involve 'breaking and entering' wouldn't it?
If it has been abandoned for 20 odd years, then there is a reasonable likelihood that a door or window will have rotted sufficiently.
onemanband

[quote="Hairyloon:1167675"]
Leaving a listed building to rot far enough that they'll let you knock it down rather defeats the point of listing them. It ought to be illegal. [quote]


It probably is - that's why some catch fire.
       Downsizer Forum Index -> Finance and Property
Page 1 of 1
Home Home Home Home Home