Boards

I hadn't thought of that.

I wonder if in certain instances you can get 'orphan properties' like you can get orphaned copyrighted works, where the original copyright owner is unknown or otherwise unavailable to contact to ask for permission, leaving the intellectual property in a kind of unusable limbo.

Also people can hide any obvious signs of entry. People tend not to want to live in houses without doors, what with not wanting to be burgled or anything, so squatters usually fix up houses/change the locks/etc.

I can see how you're getting confused here though, because it is kinda confusing (which is also partly why 'squatter's rights' are so often misunderstood and misrepresented in the press). If the house is empty and someone forces their way in, that's forcible entry, and illegal, in the same way burglary is. Squatters don't usually go into houses that already have people in them. The courts have to decide who the *legally rightful* occupier should be - that is, if it's the owner who has chosen not to live in that house, or the occupants who are there legally with a rental contract or whatever (or they may even be the legal owners, the target of a scam).

The thing is though it's still illegal for the owner to forcibly enter into the property if the squatters don't want them to. That's the point of the law, to protect the occupiers from unjust home invasion (see also: every Englishman's home is his castle). Squatters are by definition living in a property without the permission of the owner; it's just the usually the owner doesn't care that his or her property is occupied. The civil process evolved over time to ensure that, where the owner's rights are infringed, there's a way to correct that without inadvertently committing an injustice in the process (which would be the unlawful eviction of the occupiers of the building).

If you did criminal damage in entering a property then you could be done. (this is a largely interprative idea though, the neighbours of the properties that we went into had metal shutters/doors and I guess that we bent these, however we then put on a proper wooden door, the neighbouts prefer this, and we would sometimes replace the smashed window glass that had been smashed by the work gang that put up the shutters. Sometimes it was the work gang that had actually nicked the proper wooden door to the property.

We would get the new door on pretty damn quick, it also made sense to make the door as presentable as possible as this also calms neighbours fears.

We would only ever squat in a property that was unoccupied and was not intended for occupation in the near future, you can go down to the local library to find out if the council property that you were moving into was earmarked for renovation so that any tennants would be moved in soon (councils had to state what properties they were going to do up to a standard that they could be rented out to tennants well in advance and they had to do this to qualify for their budget for this from central government)

Of course this was when there was large amount of social council owned housing.

We would have automatically assumed that if you squatted in someones HOME when they were just out, would result in a justified punch in the face, as any human would feel afronted to have this happen.

That is asking for trouble and Richard and his loose organisation would always say that this was a no no, people who did this got a bit of censure from other squatters because of the appalling name that this gives justifiable squatting, which is when a property is empty needlessly and to occupy does not cause hardship on the owner (hardship not nuisance......anyone with a larger housing stock than they require when there are so many homeless cannot claim hardship if some of their properties are occupied.

Much property ownership is financial speculation, and many empty propoerties abound because of this, it is just as m=likely that the deliberately falsely optimistic prospects for the hous9ing market could hurt people speculating in property far far more than the inconveniance of finding some people in one of their emptys.

There is a much much bigger issue concerning the lack of provision of social housing, when a deliberate ploy was introduced to force lots of property into the hands of private speculators and to create more private landlords, this overcooked the whole housing market and now results in gov having to pay skyrocketed private landlords rent prices, who in turn have to pay loans to banks for vastly overpriced housing, this was a political move to create the illusion that ordinary people could be an investor and a home owner, whereas the losers in this was society having a large stock of housing that did not cost a lot (comparatively) for them to house those people that needed housing.

Gonna have really valuable insight into the matter.

when a bint that he rented his, only house to decided she wasn't up for paying for it. He's letting her off cause he's a nice guy.
Yesimad.

Instead of what it was until today, where the person wanting to kick you out had to prove you should be kicked out first.

The police don't make a legal judgement as such, they just see what looks to be a crime being committed and arrest people for it.

If the coalition wanted to increase the number of dumb cases taking up the time in courtrooms across the land, while also increasing the number of people whose lives are made worse for ridiculous reasons, then they've done well here.

does it say in the comments who had called the police? the only comment in the face of the article is from someone who was aware and seemingly sympathetic (though not in their actions) of his plight.