Squatting

Latest Articles

Squatting
Page Previous 1, 2, 3

Downsizer Forum Index -> Finance and Property

Author

Message

Hairyloon

Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Posts: 15425
Location: Today I are mostly being in Yorkshire.

Posted: Sat Oct 01, 11 9:21 am Post subject:

onemanband wrote:

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

Joined: 26 Dec 2010
Posts: 1473
Location: NCA90

Posted: Sat Oct 01, 11 9:38 am Post subject:

[quote="Hairyloon:1167675"]

onemanband wrote:

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

Joined: 02 Nov 2004
Posts: 34535
Location: Hereford

Posted: Sat Oct 01, 11 10:01 am Post subject:

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

Joined: 21 May 2007
Posts: 12590
Location: East Sussex

Posted: Sat Oct 01, 11 10:07 am Post subject:

Hairyloon wrote:

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

Joined: 02 Sep 2005
Posts: 12458
Location: West Sussex

Posted: Sat Oct 01, 11 10:44 am Post subject:

Bebo wrote:

Hairyloon wrote:

Quote:

What damage are these squatters doing to a listed building ?

Why do you bigots always assume that squatters are criminals?

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

Hairyloon

Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Posts: 15425
Location: Today I are mostly being in Yorkshire.

Posted: Sat Oct 01, 11 10:47 am Post subject:

Bebo wrote:

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

Joined: 26 Dec 2010
Posts: 1473
Location: NCA90

Posted: Sat Oct 01, 11 11:23 am Post subject:

Hairyloon wrote:

Bebo wrote:

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

Joined: 21 May 2007
Posts: 12590
Location: East Sussex

Posted: Sat Oct 01, 11 11:25 am Post subject:

Hairyloon wrote:

Bebo wrote:

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

Joined: 21 May 2007
Posts: 12590
Location: East Sussex

Posted: Sat Oct 01, 11 11:46 am Post subject:

marigold wrote:

Bebo wrote:

Hairyloon wrote:

Quote:

What damage are these squatters doing to a listed building ?

Why do you bigots always assume that squatters are criminals?

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

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

Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Posts: 15425
Location: Today I are mostly being in Yorkshire.

Posted: Sat Oct 01, 11 12:44 pm Post subject:

Bebo wrote:

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

Joined: 26 Dec 2010
Posts: 1473
Location: NCA90

Posted: Sat Oct 01, 11 12:44 pm Post subject:
[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	All times are GMT Page Previous 1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

View Latest Posts