I'm personally quite happy that it is no longer legal for an intruder to enter your house & claim it for themselves, have you ever heard a happy story about squatters? Usually they enter the house and systematically wreck it, costing the owners thousands of pounds in legal fees and repair costs.
On a constructive note, there now needs to be some sort of legislation in place that will allow the authorities a 'Compulsory Rental' of a home that has been empty for more than 1 year, there are currently about 720,000 empty houses in England alone. This is a social injustice when there are so many families that are displaced due to lack of affordable homes.
Self build in the UK isnt defined by building it yourself....its defined by being a single plot purchased by the person wishing to live in it and who organises the building of it themselves. Even the plots are described as for self build...Im not sure if kit homes are popular in France, but certainly they are hugely popular in the UK and they are erected by the kit house company, and finished off by yourself or your chosen artisans. Have you noticed how in the UK the government have directed councils to stop being obstructive regarding planning permission, ditto with home extensions. We are hoping to buy a plot and build...and I dont mean us physiclally building it!
Digression fine, it is a good illustration of the contradictory nature of the housing market. People will say buy land, build your own and whether England or France the majority are not DIYers and cannot do it, but will say it is a solution to the housing 'problem'. I've heard that one: "If they can't afford a house, why don't they build it themselves". Magic wands will be handed out by Homenase, Wickes, etc...
I think that is why so many foreigners get caught out in France...the Brits look at self build in the Uk which is relatively cheap...as is DIY and dont realise how much more expensive it is here. We have friends down the road building their dream bungalow...they have a bungalow in the UK too and sensibly are back and forth and bringing their trailer over each trip with everything from the UK....saving a fortune.
The guy owning land next to us cannot accept that if he has a house built, it will instantly be worth less on the resale market than the build cost. So it is not a good investment. The logic does not sink in for him, but then he has no idea about the cost of materials, architects and all the rest of it...
Agreed. I think adverse possession is very much the exception and more fool owners if they allow a place to be occupied that long and then when notified do nothing about it. If anybody sticks it out that long and with such low chances of success they deserve to own the place.
Commercial property speculation is only marginally more tolerable. However, most speculators are interested in the land value as a site for development. So, on the whole not very palatable either because it means that if planners want to develop an area that already has too much industrial or office capacity for other use, the speculators are going to stay very quiet for a long time until they get what they want which is the highest return on their investment. As for the housing market in the UK, it has made itself into a monster that is rampaging out of control.
London rents are unbelievable and since most of the formerly council owned stock was sold off or put in the hands of housing associations there is a lot of substandard property being let at ridiculous rents. The UK needs to sort it out before the government simply allows a crisis to develop for which there will be no ready solution exactly when it is needed. No doubt if it comes that far, then they will have their hands more than full with squatters given the numbers of people who will have nowhere else to go.
Ironically, immediately after WW2 they had such things reasonably well under control, my father as a housebuilder had his order book full a couple of years ahead. We actually lived on an estate for one particular reason, that was because there was a shortage of good quality, cheap property to buy until around 1970 when my parents did just that.
When the Financial Times looked at the ownership of empty properties about two years ago, they noted the example of over 600 empty properties in Mayfair alone that were owned by a company registered in Moscow. Beyond the name of the company and a mail box they could find out no more. Boris Johnson was not happy. I imagine that when the surface is scratched this replicates itself in one form or another many times over.
The law in Ireland stipulates that you cannot claim adverse possession unless you have been occupying the property for 12 years or more, and the owner of the land has not done anything to assert his ownership. You can then apply to have your name entered on the register in the Land Registry. In the UK, the Land Registry there must write to the registered owner and the legal clock will start ticking for two years within which time the legal owner must assert ownership and take practical steps to restore possession of the property to himself, i.e., eviction proceedings. However, from what people have said here, your "average" squatter does not enter a property with the intention of claiming ownership but sees it as a free place to live. Where are the owners of many of these 700,000+ empty properties? Wouldn't it make more sense to have ownership of these abandoned properties automatically vest in the State after 10 years. And in the event of injury to a squatter, who is responsible?
Barbara - I think Brian's comment about telling off was jokey - hence the wink emoticon. In any case, I think you have both misconstrued each other. I appreciate that Brain's 'drop it' could have been perceived as threatening if you took it to mean 'you' rather than the subject, but he has made it quite clear that he meant the subject and besides, you 'know' Brian well enough to know that he is the least threatening person on the planet. or one of them!
In any case, James has already asked that we stick to 'squatters' - I suggest you both agree to disagree and kiss and make up! I'm sure you are both big enough to apologise to each other should you feel the need to do so. Thanks!
Now lets move on from this and have a lovely weekend! Enjoy the sun whilst it lasts! xx
The discussion moved on to alcohoism and drug addiction...it flowed in
that direction.
I mentioned great people who had been affected by that in accordance to
information which the press had printed about these people in biographies, newspapers and other sources. It is not information created or elaberated on
by me.
Your words to me were of a threatening nature and I feel very upset.
I Will probably get to the bottom of all this as I am getting in touch with
Penguin books and Wikipedia for a start to look for the answers.
Brian, you used the words “taken to task”. That definitely implies some kind of remonstrance at best and also that it would be a multiple approach. Maybe it was not a threat but a promise?
It is not a threat Jane, I have asked her to please drop it because it is too sensitive and she will not. It is upsetting me for reasons I cannot go into. Others can.
Brian, however sensitive a subject this might be to you personally, threatening Barbara is totally unacceptable.
Please reconsider, withdraw your comments and apologise to Barbara.