If you read the Guardian today you may have seen a letter, signed by 158 lawyers (including QCs, University Professors and yours truly) about the law relating to squatting.
Lawyers have been watching the government and media make inaccurate pronouncements over the past few months on the ‘law of squatting’ with increasing irritation.
As these inaccurate statements are now being used to support a change in the law, it is about time some publicity was given to the true situation.
The current law on squatting / trespass
- If squatters occupy someone’s home, or somewhere which is about to be occupied as a home, it is ALREADY a criminal offence if the squatters remain after being told this and asked to leave.
- The police can arrest the trespassers, and the ‘displaced residential occupier’ can use reasonable force to enter the property and reasonable force to remove the squatters.
- If you are not a displaced residential occupier, you can still get the squatters out through the courts, usally within a month if you use the ‘normal’ proceedings, or within a few days if you use the special interim possession order.
So if you are a displaced residential occupier and the police refuse to help you get your home back, this is nothing to do with the law being inadequate. It is either because the police have decided not to use their powers or because they don’t realise that they have them.
So why does the government want to change the law?
Its difficult to say. But lets take a look at what the effect of it will be.
- Desperately poor people who have nowhere to go will be turned into criminals if they occupy unused and abandoned property.
- People exercising what is now a legitimate form of political protest by occupying property or land will also be turned into criminals.
Is that what we want?
Excellent blog post, Tessa.
Two years ago when I was practising in the litigation dept of a large law firm we were often instructed by large commercial landlords to remove travelling people from commercial property. There was a rigid process to be followed, but ultimately it did the job and gave the travellers very reasonable notice periods.
In respect of the proposed change in the law, I think this stance needs to be rethought. The distinction between the law and enforcement of that law seems to have been overlooked.
Absolutely. The problem is not the legal powers available to the Police (for example) but the fact that the fail to use them.
But as has been pointed out elsewhere – giving the Police more (or perhaps more obvious) powers is not going to help if they are not given any additional resources / manpower to enable them to carry them out properly.
And perhaps also giving them better training so that they realise that they have them!
So, where might things be heading with the urge to criminalise squatting?! Considering that already, a criminal offence will probably have been committed when a squatter occupies someone’s property and continues to do so after being asked (by the legal owner of the property) to leave, one must ask the question, “what if the legal owner of the property is unknown, cannot be reasonably established etc, or remains unaware that his/her property is occupied by a squatter?” In such an instance, the squatter is not asked (by the paper title owner) to leave and therefore, technically, under present legislation, no criminal offence has been committed! Now, if squatting is criminalised and any squatter is deemed to have committed a crime by his/her action of squatting, even though no request to vacate has been made by the paper title owner, who might benefit? There always has to be a benefit for someone, doesn’t there?! I imagine the Government have an additional, unannounced plan to put into operation here – I know, why doesn’t title to any such property vest in some faceless Government Agency, Department, or Body….who can then sell it on for a good profit?!
If the proposals were to extent to criminalise squatting on open land (fields, verges etc.) then the implications would undoubtedly create a national chaos…for reasons which will be obvious to those familiar with the practicalities of adverse possession, proprietary estoppel and potentially, even impinge upon the acquisition of prescriptive easements over the land of another.
Interesting. Note that with the occupation of land, you can use certificated bailiffs to remove them as an alternative to going to court. If you are a private individual that is. Things are different if the land owner is a local authority (hence Dale Farm).