The problem with the old situation was that in some circumstances squatters could sit tight and the police couldn't touch them unless anyone could prove forcible entry to the property.
The new law allows the police to deal with squatters, but I don't anticipate too many prosecutions arising as a result. What affronted many people was the fact that someone getting back from holiday and finding his house occupied couldn't do the obvious thing and get the coppers in to turf out the intruders. Once the call got to the police station, the grizzled old Sergeant would suck his teeth, shake his head sadly, and say the immortal words "It's a civil case, I'm afraid sir.".
On the assumption that the new stripped-down police force can get round to sending someone to have a look (and I make no criticism of that - the skeleton-staffed front line can't be in two places at once, and have to work to priorities) the squatters will probably shove off rather than risk arrest. Hence, those of us here are not expecting to see many prosecutions under the new law..
I could be wrong about this but this seems to have been an offence since 1977.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/45/section/7
There were two problems with that statute
i. the 'protected intending occupier' had to provide a statement of his interest witnessed by a JP or Commissioner for Oaths. (Displaced residential occupiers didn't need to do this).
ii. due to some poor policy/education the police used the 'it's a civil matter' cop-out on all such disputes.
I wonder how many people were charged under this section?
The new s.144 LASPO offence removes the red tape and makes it clear this is a criminal matter. BUT it's very broad. It's now an offence to squat any 'residential' building. This isn't the place to go into the social history of squatting but it has served a useful purpose, and can still be useful in forcing owners to put their property on the market in this time of high rents and homelessness.
I agree with you about the likely rate of offending. It's far cheaper PR to bung in a fairly harsh new law than to invest in enforcement.
Cynic Alert!
DeleteYou are totally correct. Many votes won and even some publicity for the homeless. Everybody wins!
A useful purpose ?
Delete1. Property owners owe no duty of care to squatters.
2. What makes you think you have any right to "force" anyone to put a piece of property on the market by method of illegal occupation ?
The "useful purpose" predates the land registration act. Ate hen land was not registered, it could be difficult to prove ownership. In those circumstances, ownership (ie the squatter's occupation of the land) resolved the issue.
DeleteAs a matter of civil law, certain duties are owed even in relation to trespassers. Best not to go there !!
DeleteYou didn't need B&E to prosecute under the 1977 Act. But it would have been more straightforward to charge criminal damege.
ReplyDeleteThere is also aggravated trespass - another Conservative Act, which was aimed at anti-hunt protesters, and last year used on the Fortnum and Mason protesters.
Isn't that the point though, to get the buggers out first?
ReplyDeleteAnd then hound them...
That is coursing......... or else .... teaching the peasants a lesson, pass me the post, I'm thirsty ....
DeletePlus the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act incudes fast-track provisions to obtain an "interim possession order" under which - in effect - the squatters would be removed by court order granted within days (or even hours) and would have to seek a court order to be re-instated. Failure to comply with the order is arrestable.
ReplyDeleteThe truth is that this law is unnecessary, but will generate lots of (positive) headlines. I personally think it will also be used by unscrupulous landlords to settle disputes with their tenants by using the police to evict them (at public expense). The Act specifically contains safeguards to prevent this, but that presupposes that the police are alive to the distinction between various categories of trespasser, tenant, tenant holding over, statutory periodic tenant, tolerated trespasser, tenant with expired notice to quit whose tenancy still subsists because it hasn't been terminated by court order, lawful invitee of tenant, sub-tenant, occupier, etc.
One expects a District judge in the county court will be aware of the above distinctions, hence the existing law requiring the approval of such an individual seems preferable to me than this knee-jerk nonsense.
And - although please correct me if I'm wrong - I do not think there has EVER been a case of somebody returning from holiday to find squatters preventing them from residing in their primary home. Of course such a story makes good headlines in the right wing press (especially if the squatters are illegal immigrants, or "benefits theives"), but it is just rubbish.
Don't know about jolly old England, but had a case of this in my neighborhood. Neighbors went off on vacation, came home to a local homeless person occupying their large front porch, complete with small fire in one corner, and using another corner for a privy. The cops had no problem arresting her for trespass and criminal damage to property (the fire and privy)
Delete"But it would have been more straightforward to charge criminal damege"
ReplyDeleteThere's three squatters - they're all already inside the house. The lock is broken. There are no witnesses to who broke it. How is it more straightforward to charge criminal damage?
As to police priorities - not very much that happens on a day to day basis will be more of a priority (make that should be more of a priority) than a homeowner finding his home is occupied by others. The loss of a bottle of vodka at the supermarket is much less important to the victim. As I recall the sentencing guidelines, entering someone else's property, say to deprive the owner of their possessions, is regarded as fairly serious.
ReplyDeleteAnd you're basing that on...?
ReplyDeleteI would say that finding your home is squatted is more of an annoyance than a traumatic event. Not like burglary, robbery, assault, missing kids, old ladies collapsed on the floor and unable to get up.
Yes it's a pain in the ar*e, but you're not really going to need counselling to get over it, are you.
Top priority? Not likely.
You might, on the other hand, like the idea of somewhere to lay your head at night, and your own home would probably be preferable to alternatives. Or are you suggesting that the squatters could take the owners in as paying tenants?
DeletePeople I've known who have been burgled say that just knowing someone has been in your house going through your things is very distressing. I imagine having squatters in your house would be even more traumatic.
DeleteNot a thought out comment!
DeleteI suspect only 1 in 100 will agree?
Gawd.
DeleteWell, that depends. If someone's squatting in a house that you let out, then there's no trauma. If it's your home, with all your possessions in it, it's probably worse than burglary, as the violation is ongoing rather than a single event.
DeleteIf it's a house that you used to live in, and now let out to carefully vetted tenants, or it's empty because you're renovating it, then the kind of squatters who trash the place could be traumatic. The kind that simply live there, and leave the place as they found it when they leave, not so much.
if you came home to find squatters, they would be arrested, and always would have:
ReplyDelete1. they'd be treated as burglary suspects and therefore subject to arrest.
2. they'd be in breach of the 1977 act.
this is about squatting in empty or derelict properties.
In fact, it is possible to include disqualification from driving under legislation that I suspect is only normally used in the case of kerb crawlers:-
ReplyDeleteSection 146 Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.
Any court may disqualify an offender from driving on conviction for any offence, either in addition to or instead of any other sentence. Somewhat surprisingly, perhaps, it is not a requirement of disqualification that the offence is connected with the use of a motor vehicle: the power to disqualify under s. 146 is a general power.
Useful in the family court sometimes when faced with persistent refusal to pay maintenance. Even the threat would be enough to get some to cough up.
DeleteInteresting and rather fascist?
DeleteDepriving someone of the use of their vehicle is tantamount to sacking them.
Thanks for letting the public know! Family confidentiality is a cover for abuse of process!
First, it is not an abuse of the process if permitted by law. If you don't like the law, talk to your MP.
DeleteSecond, sadly it is a fact that not all parents are willing to financially support their children and will do everything in their power to avoid doing so. Having children is a responsibility and with responsibility comes consequences.
Third, ownership of a vehicle is not some sort of human right. Not all jobs require a vehicle in order to be able to do that job. So I fail to see how depriving a person of a vehicle can amount to 'sacking.' We permit forfeiture of cars by law for many offences. Why is this any different as long as appropriate checks and balances are in place.
A well-argued response. I can but agree. Anyone faced with this prospect is given plenty of warning, and often it comes down to whether or not they believe the court will follow through. The anguish and hardship caused to families by non-payment of court ordered maintenance (which takes full account of ability to pay) can be immense, and the costs are borne by us all.
DeleteAs has already been stated, the displacement of homeowners, tenants or other protected occupiers by squatters was already a criminal offence under the 1977 act. Moreover, such individuals were entitled to use reasonable force to evict squatters without a court order in such circumstances (in theory anway.)
ReplyDeleteParts of this article are still relevant, although the bit about travellers no longer seems to apply.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/jul/13/criminalise-squatting-targets-gypsies
Your theoretical discussion is all well and good but a stumbling block that has been touched on previously, but remains extremely relevant is the ability of local authority solicitors to construct a rapid or vigorous case, correctly worded or correctly addressed and containing all the relevant documents.
ReplyDeleteWe serve process for a very large local authority in the North of England (with a justifiably very poor reputation) and have done for many years. We never cease to be amazed by the ineptitude of the majority of their staff, particularly on the criminal and civil side, rather than the child care staff.
On probably 50% of the documents we serve there will one or more errors, copy documents missing, names spelt incorrectly, or completely false, court dates wrong and addresses and/or postcodes wrong. And this isn’t just by locum or temporary staff on working holidays from South Africa or Australia – these are staff that have been at the same authority for donkey’s years.
As an example a few weeks ago we were instructed by one of their ‘Principle Solicitors’ to serve squatters encamped on council land. The site was completely surrounded by 10’ high fence and secured with padlocks. There was only one way in and out. We attached the relevant notices to the fence at that point. There was no letterbox.
The instructing solicitor was worried that we had not complied with CPR because the council may have had keys to the gate as it was council property, and they should have explored that avenue to enable the notices to be staked within the land.
FOR F***S SAKE. WAKE UP. Do you want to get these people evicted or not. What is the chance of the padlock being the same one the council put on the gate. What judge is not going to accept that that service was good?
We despair, and I’m sure some of you JP’s do likewise, but whilst local authorities can only afford to pay public sector wages they will only ever, on the whole, end up with staff that are not as motivated or efficient as those in the private sector.
"The site was completely surrounded by 10’ high fence and secured with padlocks. There was only one way in and out. We attached the relevant notices to the fence at that point. There was no letterbox."
ReplyDeleteClearly, this calls for the "Robin Hood" solution.
?
DeleteHave you no seen the fillums, man?
DeleteFix notice to arrow, fire arrow over fence.
Looks like Brighton are getting them already :
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sussex.police.uk/news-and-events/news/2012/09/04/three-men-will-appear-at-court-charged-with-squatting/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
"Definately not a Magistrate, oh no", but certainly spells like one!
DeleteI didn't realise that one had to be perfect at spelling to be a magistrate, which I'm probably not. I thought they came from all walks of life and could include those with bad handwriting and the inability to spell "defernutly". If that were the case then I wouldn't have applied, which I didn't, obviously.
DeleteCompletely different subject:
ReplyDeleteWill we now get the long promised transparency on sentencing. Hope so but probably not. Even the media conspire to distort the truth eg. "Sports car raiders jailed for 20 years" and then you see that there were ten of them, whose sentences totalled 20 years and of course that's before all the reductions and early release programmes. If I were on the bench I might feel very uncomfortable announcing fictitious sentences and then explaining the fiction.
I don't think that there will be many prosecutions for this new offence which has actually made the law in this area rather complex and so i would imagine that any cases brought will be handed to the DJ(MC).
ReplyDeleteThe Home Office Guidance for the new offence requires the Police to enter into a protocol with the local authority. These protocols will normally require the Police to consult with local authority officials before taking action against squatters. Thus, the Police will have every reason to continue to be inactive in this area.
This sought of thing has always received a blue light response in the met. As one of your commentators already pointed out it comes over the radio in the same manner as a burglary in progress. In cop parlance "suspects on" short for suspects on premises. It is every cop's dream to catch a burglar in the act!
ReplyDeleteIn my area it has become increasingly common to find, invariably Eastern European, men encamped in a vacant property. Almost always they have diverted the electricity, water etc and done damage to doors, windows, fixtures and fittings. It is not uncommon that they'll have set fires inside the place.
Don't get me wrong they were always arrested for some combination of burglary, criminal damage, abstracting electricity and more than once assault police. With the exception of the assault police I've never seen any of them charged as we've never been able to prove which of the half dozen or so people did the various acts.
Now at least they'll be charged with squatting.