Lawyers berate new law criminalising squatters

Although many years ago, I had problems getting tenants out of my property when their legitimate lease expired; they went to the local council to get a council house, and because they didn't like what was on offer they were told by the senior housing officer to refuse to leave and squat! The advice given was that by the time I had gone through the legal process to get them out, a house of their liking would become available!

When I found out what the officer had said, I went to the council office to speak with him but he refused to see me. I therefore took matters into my own hands and announced to all the council tenants waiting to see him what he had done, and that the people involved had gone from not being on the two-year waiting list to the top of it pretty much overnight; within 24 hours the squatters had gone leaving the property in an absolute mess!

I am all for helping the homeless but this case left such a bad taste in my mouth that I pulled out of the rental sector; I suspect many other landlords have experienced similar issues and that is why so many properties stand empty!

In this case it should have been the housing officer facing criminal charges for inciting the squatting, not just the tenants for actually squatting!

Can someone from the Law Society please explain what authority they have from their member to berate this long overdue legislation? All too often, the Law Society seems to regard itself as part of the Government Opposition, with a remit to automatically oppose everything the government does. It should stop behaving like a political party and give more thought to representing its members - most of whom actually believe in property rights.

I agree with all of the above, long overdue. It is not up to private landlords to provide free accomodation to squatters, if there is a problem with homlessness it is for the government to address. Law Society announcements like this just serve to make the public think we are all out of touch with the opinions of the hardworking, mortgage & rent paying majority.

I think the Law Society misjudged the public mood on this subject and perhaps they should have kept their gob shut this time.

S.from Surrey - your comment about the garden shed reminded me of an episode of 'One Foot in the Grave' with Victor Mildrew when he had a squatter in his garden. His reaction to the squatter was quite amusing.

There are some very interesting self help remedies for dealing with squatters. Mind you - I better not post them up here as I might be accused of taking away business from struggling law firms.

Peaker added that the creation of the offence also runs the risk of criminalising some very vulnerable people. ‘It will mean that homeless people are forced to live in less safe commercial property,’ he said.

Just read the article again. What a total nonsense statement to make. Vulnerable homeless people will no longer be able to break into your property and be 'safe' and cosy, whilst locking you out and damaging and stealing your possessions.

Now the poor souls will have to break into less safe and unfurnished commercial property instead.

What planet is Mr Peaker from?

We need to take control of our own Society and require it not to take public positions on all pieces of legislation, particularly those where there are lawyer members with strong views on both sides of the argument. Clearly, The Law Society was not speaking for its membership when it took this position yet this is the impression given. The headlines will now state that this legisaltion was somehow "wrong" because lawyers didn't agree with it. In this particular case it also risks lawyers being ridiculed as the populous does not agree with squatting.

How do we stop this repeatedly happening?

Is this employees of The Law Society keeping themselves in jobs? Is it the leadership promoting the Society's importance by inappropraite means?

The Law Society is not the Law Commission.

I have made my comment !

A good remedy for private landlords. They no longer have to go through the ordeal of getting rid of squatters. After all they worked very hard for their properties. Squtters right was a joke any way.

A long over due legislation. Squatters right was a joke any way.

Nice one John! Now that's what I call thinking like a lawyer!!! In contrast my Daddy would have used a horse and rope. I guess that's called self help.

Who benefits from s.144? Local authorities with thousands of empty properties. Banks hoarding repossessions to await an upturn in the market. 'Buy-to-letters' who plunged their savings into property fuelled by cheap credit after the stock market debacle in 2008-09. Those empties and that investment strategy help keep housing out of reach for many first time buyers as property prices remain artificially high.

Who loses under the new law? Homeless people who take direct action to occupy unused properties. Raided without a warrant under s.17 PACE by the police. Arrested under s.144. Their temporary home no doubt boarded up whilst they are in the police station. Denied police bail because the police eviction ensures they have no fixed address. They will again be denied bail in the Magistrates' Court for the same reason. All without the judicial oversight which exists under the present civil avenues of redress for landlords.

Then we will, instead of allowing them access to affordable rented property, jail them at vast public expense at a time when prisons are overflowing.

S.144 represents a serious erosion of the rights of the citizen as it turns homelessness into a crime and police into bailiffs. This at a time when key public workers cannot afford to live in areas like central London because of spiralling costs. The government response to a housing crisis, shamefully unopposed by the Labour Party (only 13 votes against s.144), is to jail the homeless whilst shying away from any rent controls.

Footnote: s.144 is likely to offend the principle against retroactive criminal offences, since it applies to squats existing before 1st September 2012.

The Law Society can pronounce on whatever it likes. However I wish it wouldn't make it sound as if it did so on behalf of all Solicitors.
Personally I think it's great-more work for criminal lawyers.
However with Courts closing it might be that squatters could occupy the void Court buildings.

At last the Government is protecting property rights, EFFICIENTLY.

I don't have any legal background so forgive me if these are silly questions but I cant help wondering about what happens in the following situations:
What happens if squatters are occupying/ take occupation of a house that vests with the Crown as bona vacantia if the Crown fails to disclaim but also chooses not to 'take ownership' (not to maintain or insure) and therefore it is unlikely that they will request the removal of the squatter? Is is just a matter of the Crown choosing not to pursue legal action? Can the squatters then claim adverse possession after the required time? If the Crown takes action, will that mean that they invoke their full rights as landlord and now have to maintain and insure the property?Also what happens to legal tenants if the landlord's company dissolves and their assets ie the freehold or head lease vests with the Crown? I appreciate that these are quite specific questions but if anybody has any ideas, I'd would be very grateful for the information.

It was Orc, not Orr. I think it was what is known as a "joke".

Giles Peaker is right.

I am a housing solicitor: all my clients are legally aided and they are all either homeless or residential tenants with housing problems.

The law was sufficient as it was before this was enacted. Section 7 CLA criminalised squatters where they were refusing to leave upon the owner's request. The police could have enforced this legislation but failed to.

This new legislation effectively removes blame from successive governments who have failed to put in place useful housing policies, placing the blame elsewhere, onto a group of people who are already, conveniently for Grant Shapps and Crispin Blunt, rather marginalised and with a small voice.

I note the guidance with this legislation suggests the police liaise with local authorities' homelessness departments. Perhaps a strong reminder for local authorities as to what their duties actually are wouldn't go amiss as they are very good, in my experience of not accommodating people where they should do.

Perhaps the police could also please kindly provide squatters with details for solicitors so they can seek further advice regarding homelessness, and possibly, in some cases, their human rights under Article 8 ECHR.

And as for the suggestion that tenants will be fine because they will have a tenancy agreement or rent receipt to show the police I could be rather scathing but I'll just say I wish I had a quid for every tenant I have seen whose landlord does not provide either rent receipts or written tenancy agreements.

Interesting comments to this article and I feel compelled to add some of my own.

As a New Zealander and former UK solicitor with experience in Social Housing Law in London Authorities, my take on this is:

1. The former position with self help / criminal remedies under 1977 Act was unsatisfactory for landlords. Basically, any act leading to breach of the peace or forcing entry (e.g. forcing entry due to squatter changing the locks) was a criminal act. Unless a landlord could "trick" their way into the property (e.g. is it ok if I just come in for a chat and to have a look around) and then politely but firmly refuse to leave, the squatter had the upper hand.

2. Although it was unlawful for a squatter to force entry to gain entry, in practice this posed no problems whatsoever to squatting. The informal advice given to squatters by their advocacy groups - per anecdotal accounts I received from squatters themselves - was the squatter breaks in (or gets a mate to do it) and then says "the front door was left open" or "unlocked", "it wasn't me who changed the locks...", etc. Without direct proof of a criminal break-in, how was one to prove illegal squatting?

3. Adverse possession is a bit of a red herring in my view. A claim in adverse possession can be defeated by land owner establishing that the occupation was either unknown to them or without their consent - any squatting must by definition be fatal to establishing adverse possession. Any landlord who has a squatter and does not communicate their opposition to that squatting is daft and might be said to deserve to lose their property. That said, whilst adverse possession clearly has its uses (e.g. extension on a house made 20 years ago and part of it is on neighbour's land. Should that neighbour be able to claim trespass and removal of offending structure 20 years on?), the idea that someone can use subterfuge and other underhanded means to snag themselves a plum house on Primrose Hill or Hampstead Heath seems bizzare.

Also, whilst the limitation period for owners to claim adverse possession is 10 or 12 years (from memory), land owned by the Royal Duchy enjoys a significantly longer limitation period (25 or 30 years again from memory). What is the basis for that? Royalty is entitled to a higher degree of latitude when it comes to incompetence in managing their own property portfolios?

The other issue with adverse possession I encountered in local government was adverse possessions set up during the break up of the GLA and transfer of its housing stock to LAs as well as re-organisation of housing functions within LAs. Some of these properties fell outside of management and were "forgotten". Obviously the occupants of those properties knew that they were not paying rent. Should the taxpayer pay for local government incompetence? I would have thought public policy says "no".

4) A poster bemoaned the fact that the new anti-squatting laws do not apply to former tenants. A former tenant remaining in occupation can never be regarded as a squatter as they obtained initially obtained possession with the landlord's consent. The point is that a squatter never had that consent. It would be a brave government to eliminate in one stoke of the pen, the statutory protection afforded to tenants. The policy considerations are - I suggest - significantly different to that of squatting.

5) I am doubtful that the Government has pushed the cost of eviction from landlords onto the state and the police. Part of the warrant for enforcement (of a possession order) process includes a series of risk assessment questions which the owner must address before the warrant is issued. I'd say that in at least 50 % of squatter cases I dealt with, (East London admittedly), the police had to be present - the court bailiffs wouldn't have attended otherwise. I suggest the tax payer will actually save money by not wasting time and money on court administration and hearing time.

Another consideration is that if squatters and would-be squatters know that their occupation is subject to summary termination without notice (I presume the new laws don't require some notice to be given first?) then surely the number of squats is going to decrease. I think this is especially so when we are dealing with criminals or illegal immigrants.

6) When faced with the need to evict unlawful occupants, I often found the defendants were "persons unknown" (again part of the helpful advice given to squatters - "don't give them your name so you can't be sued"). Annoyingly, I would face unsympathetic judges who wanted to listen to these "persons unknown" express their grievances against all and sundry and worse sometimes adjourn proceedings on the basis of some technical point. Easy solution - add a provisional claim for damages for unlawful use and occupation to the claim - "should any person join to defend these proceedings then damages are sought at the rate of ..."

I never had an adjourned possession hearing again. Whenever an unnamed defendant started piping up, I would politely point out that they had not joined in the proceedings to defend, that the judge could not hear them unless they joined and "oh by the way, if he joins as a defendant, we want damages". In most cases the Judges would refer to the risks of joining and defending (monetary) and the would be "defendants" would shut up with a possession order following swiftly.

7) It may also be of interest to note that in my experience in East London the majority of squatters were either travelers or "pseudo-travelers", students (mainly foreign of white European background), or foreign workers (again mainly Euro / white) - i.e. persons who were not entitled to homeless assistance (and did not appear to need it in any event). This was during the time when A8 Accession State Nationals could only come to England to work on limited entry rights. These people were often from Poland or Romania and many (sadly) appeared to be extremely destitute.

Whilst the more wealthy squatters (e.g. White English, Euro students) were able to utillise various forms of advocacy and rights information assistance, the Poles and Romanians tended to have little education or grasp of English and presented as appearing vulnerable. Of course, the result was always the same regardless of means or ability to enlist support - eviction.

I also had experience of the police picking up criminals when assisting with evictions. In one case a Russian tried to pretend he was with a group of Poles who were squatting about 20 flats in a block. Our interpreter caught him out, translated in Russian for the police (who established he was in England without any right), and then was promptly sent on his way by London's finest! After the Russian was gone, the Poles communicated to our interpreter that he was a thief and violent and they were all scared of him!

8) Many squatted properties get returned in pristine condition having been cared for by house proud occupants. Sadly the majority of squatts are trashed to one degree or another. Apart from the general filth and rubbish left behind, a common sight was bedrooms having makeshift side-tables of a similar appearance of photos published years ago of Whitney Houstin's bedside table - i.e. ripped up fag packets, bits of burnt tin-foil, ash everywhere and 100s of burn marks on the table.

Extensive tampering to the power meter is also common -at least 50% of council flats squatted in my experience.

One memorable eviction not long after the premiere of the film "Hot Fuzz" involved the police resulted in about 10 officers ramming down the door to a flat to chants of "Hot Fuzz", storming into the property, a shamefaced young lady and a large German Shepherd dog leaving in a hurry about 2 minutes later followed by the coppers all with big smiles on their faces saying words such as "Ooooh", "yuck!" and "Hot Fuzz". When I inquired as to what was going on, an officer replied that they had interrupted the lady in the process of coitus with the animal... Talk about irony (hot fuzz).

9) In the mid-2000s, a considerable problem arose with squatters serial squatting in large residential accommodation blocks earmarked for demolition or refurbishment. These guys were stripping out all the copper and lead pipes, wires etc, In some cases using empty flats to burn off all the insulation and other toxic goodies which accompany high value metal materials. You'd clear out a load of squatters only to find a new group has arrived requiring fresh possession proceedings and more delays. Genuine homeless applicants and those on the waiting list for a lettings policy transfer (e.g. for overcrowding or to house children with disabilities requiring particular types of properties) had to ensure further delays finding suitable accomodation whilst legal processes taking months if not years were followed to evict these people. I would not be surprised if this was still a problem in London at least.

I suspect that some of the foregoing will get up the noses of many liberal minded readers. That's OK by me though, For what its worth, my experience of liberal thinking in England is uncritical advocacy for wrong-doers regardless of the cost and expense to wider society and without any care as to the potential for overall harm to society. My take is of course from the LA perspective and seeing the hardship faced by genuine housing applicants who see their applications delayed whilst the undeserving (per democratic mandate - statute, regulations, housing policy etc - not per someone's whimsical views as to who deserves what) effectively snatch themselves a place at the top of the housing queue.

For what its worth, I should also add that I have nothing against squatting per se and would engage in the practice myself were the right opportunity to arise (lawfully of course!) and were it not for the fact I have three young children and a partner who would not condone such steps . (Of course I would not force a landlord to endure the cost and time of bringing possession proceedings once I was found out). What I do have an issue with is people who abuse others property and other rights and then get their knickers in a twist when sensible people say "enough's enough".

In closing, I have to say I am enjoying the Law Gazette and the lively debate resulting from its stories. Also, its great to see solicitors challenging the dross being perpetuated by the Law Society and SRA.

Dear Mr Crane,

Your points are noted regarding your views on the recent legislation and surrounding issues based on your experiences which make interesting reading (hot fuzz!!).

As you say your experiences are based as a local authority lawyer. Local authority housing stock (in east london especially) is very bad!! If you don't look after the property, and you lose control of what is empty and what isn't, then that is fair game to a squatter. The net result is you either don't do anything, or you then have to make an effort to see that it is looked after. i.e this focuses attention on a property that clearly lacked any prior to it being squatted. I'm not saying that is morally right or otherwise...just a fact of life, when there are too many people, not enough affordable houses to live in, and when vunerable people have no other options. That is not the fault of the squatter but a wider societal problem that needs to be addressed. It is very interesting when you look at other countries that value social inclusion and really have policies that look after the most vunerable in their society and have real redistribution of wealth policies, not just policies that are desinged by the wealthy for the wealthy, there is very little squatting and associated behaviours!! Norway for example.

I don't think anyone said the properties are returned in pristine condition. However there are more cases of houses NOT being trashed while squatted than are mentioned by you, published by the gutter press and the mooted by the current incumbents of power in this country. An example was provided, and they certainly are not the only ones!!!

As for people stripping out metals etc from buildings, this is theft, and nothing to do with squatting. There are, i'm led to believe, adequate rules to deal with this, although MP's and bankers seem to be immune from such trivialities!!

Oh, and the reason my house doesn't get squatted, is because i don't own anymore than 1, a squatter would find it quite difficult to get into, and there is a very protective rottweiller!!! This is personal responsibility for your belongings....if you don't look after your property through ignorance, incompetance or just because you have too many to care for properly, then don't be too surprised when someone squats it.

Kindest regards

Tom (a practising nobody)