[bridge7too7far]

My friend is gettin reallly upset about her mum who owns a flat in Barsley and has squatters in there who won't leave because they say they have squaters rightss. How can they have rights for breaking intyo a flat you own. It's like havng burglars and they have no rights. Can anyone help?

[GiRTh]

Amy, what you need to do is contact your solicitor or your local CAB. They'll be able to help you.

[bridge7too7far]

Originally posted by GiRTh
Amy, what you need to do is contact your solicitor or your local CAB. They'll be able to help you.

I'm Graham not Amy okayy ot you can call me G for short, most do. Thanks for help anyway I said that squatters say they got the rights, so whats a solicitor gonna doo. Whats CAB?

[Captain.Remy]

I don't know if it's the same system as the french one but until the end of the winter, you can't eject them from the flat as it's winter and it's cold.
So if it's the same law then your friend will have to wait until april to sue them

[Shaun]

This rule is utterly ridiculous. I don't care if the homeless people stay on the streets, because they're homeless for a reason; they got into drugs, they lost everything, whatever. It's not the responsibility of the homeowner to accommodate random strangers, regardless of how immoral it is to force someone into living on the streets.

[Captain.Remy]

Message original : Shaun
This rule is utterly ridiculous. I don't care if the homeless people stay on the streets, because they're homeless for a reason; they got into drugs, they lost everything, whatever. It's not the responsibility of the homeowner to accommodate random strangers, regardless of how immoral it is to force someone into living on the streets.

I'm not saying it's good or bad because we can debate about it for a long time but I think you can't eject them until the end of the winter because it's cold outside (that's the main reason, the law is more complicated).

[Stu]

Originally posted by Shaun
This rule is utterly ridiculous. I don't care if the homeless people stay on the streets, because they're homeless for a reason; they got into drugs, they lost everything, whatever. It's not the responsibility of the homeowner to accommodate random strangers, regardless of how immoral it is to force someone into living on the streets.

Ask a few of them and im sure they will tell your their not homeless by choice. Many of them fell short of what you have...luck.

Some people want to take on the responsibility of taking homeless people in to their care by choice. I think its a fairly admirable thing to do , so dont make the mistake of throwing us all into your ''I dont care if the homeless people stay on the streets'' crowd. Or dare I say...box.

[Legend]

Originally posted by Shaun
I don't care if the homeless people stay on the streets, because they're homeless for a reason; they got into drugs, they lost everything, whatever.

You're not half heartless aren't you?

But seriously, it's really not as black and white as all homeless people being druggies or alchoholics. Of course they are homeless for a reason, but there are numerous reasons and not all of them are the person's fault as you seem to be implying.

I don't agree that they should have "rights" but I don't think they should be kicked back out onto the streets. I think help should be given or at least offered to those squatting. Obviously it wouldn't be nice to have people squatting in your house but I don't think squatting would be top of their list of places to "live".

[Stu]

I might be wrong here...but are we all getting a bit mixed up with terminology? Isint a squatter somebody who occupies an abandoned only space? Surely being put up in an active apartment is just lodging?

[bridge7too7far]

Originally posted by Captain.Remy
I don't know if it's the same system as the french one but until the end of the winter, you can't eject them from the flat as it's winter and it's cold.
So if it's the same law then your friend will have to wait until april to sue them

I don't know for suree wether thats the reason. I'll have to ask again for details, I know that sueing cost money for soliccitors and thats not right either. It's nobodys fault but the squiatters

[bridge7too7far]

Originally posted by Shaun
This rule is utterly ridiculous. I don't care if the homeless people stay on the streets, because they're homeless for a reason; they got into drugs, they lost everything, whatever. It's not the responsibility of the homeowner to accommodate random strangers, regardless of how immoral it is to force someone into living on the streets.

here here to that coment there is hostals for the homeless, let them sleep there instead of breaking an entering. Squatters should be treated the same as burglers

[Mrluvaluva]

Originally posted by bridge7too7far

you can call me G for short

That makes two of you!

[Stu]

Originally posted by bridge7too7far

here here to that coment there is hostals for the homeless, let them sleep there instead of breaking an entering. Squatters should be treated the same as burglers

Hostels fill up , leaving homeless people still living on the streets. Plus the majority of squatters dont break and enter , they just live in buildings that have been derelict for some time.

What sort of IQ do you hold to claim that homeless wanderers looking for shelter in a building that are [most of the time] completely empty should be treated the same as burgalars?

Have you any concept of what a squatter is?

[Shaun]

Originally posted by Morpheus

Ask a few of them and Im sure they will tell your their not homeless by choice. Many of them fell short of what you have...luck.

Some people want to take on the responsibility of taking homeless people in to their care by choice. I think its a fairly admirable thing to do , so dont make the mistake of throwing us all into your ''I dont care if the homeless people stay on the streets'' crowd. Or dare I say...box.

I didn't say it was by their choice, but as a homeowner it's also not their choice to have people claiming rights to their home. It's absurd. It's actually theft.

And there's a difference between offering homeless people a home, and them actually taking it.

Originally posted by Legend

Of course they are homeless for a reason, but there are numerous reasons and not all of them are the person's fault as you seem to be implying.

I don't agree that they should have "rights" but I don't think they should be kicked back out onto the streets. I think help should be given or at least offered to those squatting. Obviously it wouldn't be nice to have people squatting in your house but I don't think squatting would be top of their list of places to "live".

Again, didn't say it was their choice. I understand that not all homeless people can help it...that's why I said "whatever" as I could have gone on listing possible reasons for their lack of shelter.

And regardless of whether they have no alternative but to claim squatter's rights or live on the streets - it's still ultimately theft and intrusion on someone's property.

[Stu]

Originally posted by Shaun

I didn't say it was by their choice, but as a homeowner it's also not their choice to have people claiming rights to their home. It's absurd. It's actually theft.

And there's a difference between offering homeless people a home, and them actually taking it.

And once again all of this issssssssssssss... [drum roll] not squatting.

[Shaun]

Originally posted by Morpheus

And once again all of this issssssssssssss... [drum roll] not squatting.

From Wikipedia:

In England and Wales, the term 'squatting' usually refers to occupying an empty house in a city. The owner of the house must go through various legal proceedings before evicting squatters. Squatting is regarded in law as a civil, not a criminal, matter. However, if there is evidence of forced entry then this is regarded as trespass and the police have the powers to remove the occupants. If the squatter legally occupies the house, then the owner must prove in court that they have a right to live in the property and that the squatter does not, whilst the squatter has the opportunity to claim there is not sufficient proof or that the proper legal steps have not been taken. In order to occupy a house legally, a squatter must have exclusive access to that property, that is, be able to open and lock an entrance. The property should be secure in the same way as a normal residence, with no broken windows or locks.

Erm...claiming rights to someone's home, yes. That'd be squatting.

You seem to be suggesting that all squatters are nice and rosy. A distant cousin of mine (3rd cousin), who lives nearby, is homeless. I've seen myself what leads someone to that course of life. It isn't 'woe is me' unluckiness, there are plenty of opportunities in this country if we only seize them: free education for all children being one example of that.

[Tom]

Squatters as IMO no better than thieves. They are essentially breaking into property that isn't theirs, yet they are being rewarded for it with squatters rights!! Its madness.

[Dr43%er]

This may help.

http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/squatters.htm

[bridge7too7far]

Originally posted by Dr43%er
This may help.

http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/squatters.htm

Thnaks I'll print that off and give her a coppy next time I see her

[Stu]

Originally posted by Shaun
You seem to be suggesting that all squatters are nice and rosy. A distant cousin of mine (3rd cousin), who lives nearby, is homeless. I've seen myself what leads someone to that course of life. It isn't 'woe is me' unluckiness, there are plenty of opportunities in this country if we only seize them: free education for all children being one example of that.

Your STILL missing my point. Squaters are people who live in predominantly empty or abandoned houses , doing nobody any harm except perhaps the owner of the completely unused property.

People here are suggesting they should be treated as theives because they break and enter into an occupied home and sleep on the rug while grandpa trys to watch the TV. Thats not a squater and they should not be treated as thieves. Thats a stupid thing to say. They live in buildings that would otherwise be burned to the ground by some ASBO sooner or later. If you want to say they steal , fine , but the buildings are unused. I call it opportunity.

[Dr43%er]

I had a property that was empty for around 10 months whilst I was waiting for a grant from the government. The property was not abandoned, but empty. If a squatter had got in there I then would have had the cost and hassle to remove them. Why should it cost me time and money to be able to do what i want with my own property?

[GiRTh]

Originally posted by Mrluvaluva

That makes two of you!

It's a few more than two isn't it?

[Matt08]

Originally posted by bridge7too7far
My friend is gettin reallly upset about her mum who owns a flat in Barsley and has squatters in there who won't leave because they say they have squaters rightss. How can they have rights for breaking intyo a flat you own. It's like havng burglars and they have no rights. Can anyone help?

The best thing for your friend to do would be to contact her nearest Citizens Advice Bearau, who would be able to tell her what her legal rights are. Once she knew her legal rights, she could take it from there. If it came to the conclusion that the sqatters were there illegially, then she could get the police to remove them from her flat.

[Shaun]

Originally posted by Morpheus

Your STILL missing my point. Squaters are people who live in predominantly empty or abandoned houses , doing nobody any harm except perhaps the owner of the completely unused property.

People here are suggesting they should be treated as theives because they break and enter into an occupied home and sleep on the rug while grandpa trys to watch the TV. Thats not a squater and they should not be treated as thieves. Thats a stupid thing to say. They live in buildings that would otherwise be burned to the ground by some ASBO sooner or later. If you want to say they steal , fine , but the buildings are unused. I call it opportunity.

And you're still missing my point - it's ultimately property that does not belong to them, and is no different at all to breaking and entering, other than causing damage. It doesn't matter if the property owner has been away from there for a week or 50 years, it's still his, and squatters have no [moral] right to inhabit it if the owner doesn't want them to.

Taking the example with the topic starter here, it's obviously causing his friend's mum a great deal of stress and concern to have these squatters claiming their property - and in my opinion that's just not right.

[Sunny_01]

The link that Dr gave to you gives some great info I would pass that on ASAP so you can take the right steps quickly.

Squatters do not discriminate about where they will move into, run down buildings, new builds etc.. at the end of the day they make a choice to try and live in property that belongs to someone else and dont pay anything towards it. Why should they live rent free?