Squatting The age-old problem of squatters has recently come into public focus. Charlotte Bijlani and Catherine Patterson consider the issues
In recessionary times, squatting is rife because more properties remain vacant for months or even years. Commercial property owners may have incentives to ensure their properties are occupied (receiving rent and avoiding empty rates), but it can be difficult to secure a sale or letting in a depressed market. Squatters also target vacant homes, especially high-value properties whose owners choose to leave empty.
Groups that squat for political and social reasons exploit the so-called “soft touch” law, exposing owners to an unacceptable level of injustice and irrecoverable expense.
The relative ease with which “serial” squatters can take over and remain in commercial and residential properties has received particular criticism. Under the existing system, an owner cannot forcibly remove squatters (this would be an offence under section 6 of the Criminal Law Act 1977) and will usually have to bring a claim for possession (pursuant to CPR 55) in the county court or the High Court.
Historic phenomenon
Squatting is classed as trespass and is therefore only a civil wrong. However, following a spate of recent cases, the coalition is promising to introduce a new law that will make squatting a criminal offence. This would allow the police to force entry into occupied properties and exercise powers of arrest.
In 1649, Gerrard Winstanley, the founder of the Diggers, said that “the poorest man hath as true a title and just right to the land as the richest man”. The mass squatting that began in 1946 was recognised as a “national phenomenon”. The severe housing crisis meant that many working class people, including ex-servicemen and their families, were homeless. They began to occupy former military and other vacant sites. Since 1975, the Advisory Service for Squatters has provided advice. Its booklet, the Squatters Handbook, is now in its 13th edition. This emphasises that squatting is not a crime and advises on how to squat and defend possession actions by property owners.
Recent examples
A number of substantial and expensive properties have recently been occupied by large squatter groups motivated by political and social beliefs.
In 2008, Hammerson, a leading property company, fought to remove squatters from a derelict Victorian workshop in London the squatters wanted to prevent redevelopment and preserve the site for the local community. More recently, the activist group Topple the Tyrants took over Saif Gaddafi’s home in Hampstead. It justified this on the ground that “we didn’t trust the British government to properly seize the Gaddafi regime’s corrupt assets, so we took matters into our own hands”.
Guy Ritchie’s £6m vacant mansion in Fitzrovia was taken over by the Really Free School. Its intention was to use the house to “cultivate equality through collaboration” and provide “free” education in response to the government’s decision to increase tuition fees.
The publicity surrounding these squats has raised concerns in parliament that the current system is perceived as a soft touch. Jason Ruddick, who travelled to the UK from Latvia to squat, agrees. On being evicted from a £10m Highgate property, he said: “I like it around here. We will move to a bigger place. I have found somewhere only 15 minutes away and we want more people to join us.”
Existing law
The coalition recognises that the act of squatting must be criminalised.
Under the existing law, an owner cannot evict a squatter without obtaining an order for possession and instructing the court bailiff to enforce it. If the proceedings are unopposed and using the standard procedure, it will usually take around four to eight weeks to obtain an order and a further two to four weeks to arrange for the bailiff to evict the squatters. The process can be quicker if the claim is issued in the High Court rather than in a county court. However, the claim can be issued in the High Court only in certain circumstances for example, if there is a substantial risk of public disturbance or serious harm to persons or property. If a claim is issued in the High Court without justification, the court has the power to strike out the claim.
If the squatters are experienced, they may seek to prolong the process by taking procedural points and raising spurious defences that the court must consider, thus delaying any eviction.
Some squatters clearly want to preserve or enhance the properties they take over. Others cause intentional damage, leaving the owner to meet potentially substantial repair costs.
Proposed new law
If squatting is criminalised, squatters could face a prison sentence. This would bring England and Wales in line with Scotland, where the courts can imprison squatters for to up to 21 days. This may be good news for landlords and owners, but it could create its own problems: stretched police resources and criticism because properties remain vacant when homeless levels are high, among them.
Questions will also be raised as to whether the police can and will be selective in enforcing the law. Will they be more willing to arrest and prosecute serial squatters as opposed to the genuine homeless? The debate surrounding the new law is set to continue.
Charlotte Bijlani is a partner and Catherine Patterson is an associate in real estate dispute resolution at Norton Rose LLP
