How can this be fair?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3589749/Pensioner-s-anger-squatter-wins-right-400-000-house-faces-losing-flat-pay-legal-bills.html

How can a squatter be allowed to stay in a house he has no right to?

thats the lefties for you

championing rights of layabouts and ner do wells over those of legitimate owners

there should be NO SUCH thing as "squatters rights" or "adverse posession" except under the greatest of control....

in fact a squatter should be treated as that which he is....a common thief

that said, considering that the owner effetively abandoned it...it SHOULD have been made the subject of compulsary purchase thus freeing it for the use of someone deserving....(though no doubt we know it would NOT be made available to someone REALLY deserving ...like a homeless ex soldier)

but then at least the OWNER would have recieved a resonable recompense for what is effectively HIS property....

It is the law.

Law or not, I one was in my property he would not stay.

My old man had some gypooz in the paddock, he drove the tractor and and bush hog into said paddock and gave them 10 minutes to leave, they did but you should have seen the mess after just 2 hours.
They had broken into the tack room to live so he thought yet plod would not press charges, not interested..........

Not long before he died gypos again broke in and nicked loads of tack/ some saddles, I insisted plod investigate which they did and got everything back and other stuff besides which was obviously the property of someone else, plod ignored us when we told them so we kept it, some good stuff.
One saddle was of Spanish/Mexican style, fantastic workmanship, someone famous now owns it.
They were reported to CPS yet nowt happened.

Syl, Miss Raggs may remember this incident from a while back.

mind you having looked again at photos from the article I can see WHY the decision was made as it was.......

Stormee wrote:It is the law.

Law or not, I one was in my property he would not stay.

My old man had some gypooz in the paddock, he drove the tractor and and bush hog into said paddock and gave them 10 minutes to leave, they did but you should have seen the mess after just 2 hours.
They had broken into the tack room to live so he thought yet plod would not press charges, not interested..........

Not long before he died gypos again broke in and nicked loads of tack/ some saddles, I insisted plod investigate which they did and got everything back and other stuff besides which was obviously the property of someone else, plod ignored us when we told them so we kept it, some good stuff.
One saddle was of Spanish/Mexican style, fantastic workmanship, someone famous now owns it.
They were reported to CPS yet nowt happened.

Syl, Miss Raggs may remember this incident from a while back.

Really, how sad, now would you like to return to the house in the op.

I DO NOTICE, though, that the owner hadn't visited that property in over 19 years !!!

WHO in their right mind would leave a valuable property like that vacant for nearly two decades ???

AS FOR that owner being labelled a "pensioner"  -- how the fuck could somebody get a pension, while owning a vacant property supposedly worth £400,000 ?   IF only it had been rented out, (and under an agent's management..), surely it should have been able to return some £20,000 a year in rent ?

METHINKS in this case, that thieving squatter knew what he was doing !

A SIMILAR law applies to certain vacant or deserted lands down here, where nobody has laid claim to it in the past 20 or 30 years (the couple of cases I've heard of were out in rural areas -- where farmers had ignored a back block for some 20 or 30 years..), and somebody else has been "squatting" on it for most of that time -- a good reason why it is a good idea to keep tabs on any unused property -- and simply don't assume that it will still be there in another 20, 30 or 50 years !    

Lord Foul wrote:mind you having looked again at photos from the article I can see WHY the decision was made as it was.......

Quite, at the very least it would be a total slum by now, would probably have had to be pulled down. If he wasn't going to use it, why didn't he rent it out or sell it, rather than letting it go to rack and ruin.

Squatuz rights should NEVER exist IMHO

Squatters are thieving filthy pigs in the cases I have seen and even read about, why should they get something which they have not earned which belongs to someone else.
Have you noticed that those who have made sweet bugga all of their own lives are jealous as hell against those who are better of than they are and EXPECT something for nothing a lot of the time.
Trailer trash is a prime example.
Women with hoards of kids with different  blokes are another exampul.
Then ya got those who ALWAYS blame someone else for their own downfall.
Get off ya arses and work if you are not ill.

The house belonged to his mother, who died without making a will. Colin lived there for a time, then moved out but continued paying rates till 6 years ago. He was then told by the council he did not need to pay them anymore. He was unable to visit, and sadly he just left the house.

He had been paying rates on the property for 13 years AFTER the squatter had started making renovations to the house......though obviously he was unaware of this.

Surely the house should have been put into administration with Colins mothers other assets...then fairly divided between the legal beneficiaries?? which would not have included a squatter.

Stormee wrote:It is the law.

Law or not, I one was in my property he would not stay.

My old man had some gypooz in the paddock, he drove the tractor and and bush hog into said paddock and gave them 10 minutes to leave, they did but you should have seen the mess after just 2 hours.
They had broken into the tack room to live so he thought yet plod would not press charges, not interested..........

Not long before he died gypos again broke in and nicked loads of tack/ some saddles, I insisted plod investigate which they did and got everything back and other stuff besides which was obviously the property of someone else, plod ignored us when we told them so we kept it, some good stuff.
One saddle was of Spanish/Mexican style, fantastic workmanship, someone famous now owns it.
They were reported to CPS yet nowt happened.

Syl, Miss Raggs may remember this incident from a while back.

I think I also remember you telling of this Stormee.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

I DO NOTICE, though, that the owner hadn't visited that property in over 19 years !!!

WHO in their right mind would leave a valuable property like that vacant for nearly two decades ???

AS FOR that owner being labelled a "pensioner"  -- how the fuck could somebody get a pension, while owning a vacant property supposedly worth £400,000 ?   IF only it had been rented out, (and under an agent's management..), surely it should have been able to return some £20,000 a year in rent ?

METHINKS in this case, that thieving squatter knew what he was doing !

A SIMILAR law applies to certain vacant or deserted lands down here, where nobody has laid claim to it in the past 20 or 30 years (the couple of cases I've heard of were out in rural areas -- where farmers had ignored a back block for some 20 or 30 years..), and somebody else has been "squatting" on it for most of that time -- a good reason why it is a good idea to keep tabs on any unused property -- and simply don't assume that it will still be there in another 20, 30 or 50 years !    

Everyone of a certain age (the age limit is changing) gets a state pension if they have worked and contributed for a certain number of years in the UK. Their personal wealth makes no difference to the amount they get.

sassy wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:mind you having looked again at photos from the article I can see WHY the decision was made as it was.......

Quite, at the very least it would be a total slum by now, would probably have had to be pulled down. If he wasn't going to use it, why didn't he rent it out or sell it, rather than letting it go to rack and ruin.

I dont think somehow we are quite on te same wavelength ......

Probably not.   However, I doubt you can think it wouldn't have been nearly falling down after being left to rot for 20 years.

I wonder why he left it standing unattended?
It doesn't make sense of whats happened but it is a bit odd to just leave yet continue paying rates for years.

Absolutely crazy.

We have some states that have such archaic 'squatter rights' on their renter laws; I think California is one and possibly some others on the east coast New Jersey {maybe}...but one thing that my state allows is if in your contract you state on say the 15 of each month you {as the land lord} will be in for a home inspection for maintenance/repair updates...the renters has to at least clean up the house prior to that once a month visit!  

But you'd be surprised how many landlords just don't bother to include that clause - don't do the drop in/follow up and then end up with a midnight move out that leaves them with a hoarders paradise of a years plus of garbage and damage because they {landlord} just wasn't proactive! 

Or hired a property manager that didn't give a shit and just wanted his/her pay check!

Syl wrote:I wonder why he left it standing unattended?
It doesn't make sense of whats happened but it is a bit odd to just leave yet continue paying rates for years.

Perhaps he was just too old to bother or there was some legal thing binding it, as it wasn't actually willed to him? Not sure. I tend to think it's more the former. It's an unfair law, but if you leave a house empty for that long, you're asking for trouble.

Stormee wrote:
Squatuz rights should NEVER exist IMHO

Squatters are thieving filthy pigs in the cases I have seen and even read about, why should they get something which they have not earned which belongs to someone else.

..............................
.....................

WHAT'S fair and just,  and what's legal are sometimes two quite different things...

AS that local MP says in that article :
"There is law and there is justice and they are, unfortunately, sometimes very different things."


IF I found someone "squatting" in/on a property that I had clear title or rights to, and they refused to leave, I would be inclined to go along with some mates, a couple of my cousins   ,  and a couple of sledgehammers and axes, change the locks, and scare the squatter(s) not only out of that property, but also out of town..  
But at the same time, I wouldn't leave a property alone for more than a couple of years --  not only because of what I have heard of happening to others,  but also  for the simple reason that I don't like the idea of a private property 'not earning it's keep' (which includes being managed for such legitimate things as conservation purposes, forestry and "offsets" (as often seen with mines and industrial estates these days..) --  and not only earning 'income' or being owner-occupied ..).