It's a bit more than simply trespassing though isn't it? It's a step further. I see squatting as another form of burglary. You're trespassing and then essentially appropriating the property by using it as if it were your own.

I'd think the logical - and therefore not likely to happen - version would have been for anyone wanting immediate possession of their property to be able to demand action to remove squatters - see the largely hypothetical, Daily Mail type, scenario of 'coming home from holidays and finding your house has been taken over by a bunch of lazy students' sort of squatters. Even if you own a property that you intend to use in the near future, then you should be able to evict.



But for those properties left empty and run down, where is the harm in allowing them to be used? Yes, if they are damaged then sue for that by all means - perhaps it would have a positive consequence in that the property would be left undamaged.

BTW, I remember in one of the papers a few years back - possibly The Daily Telegraph? - a story about a squatted property in a 'good' area that had been left to rot, but whose squatters restored to good condition during their stay... Anyone else remember this?







But hey... We all know that the homeless all choose that lifestyle anyway don't we, so what's the concern? They can always go back to mummy and daddy in Ken.

One of my former colleagues has just got a job in London working for Tesco as a technical adviser. His rent is £800 per month for a room in a shared house. How can someone on a minimum wage, or worse still on the dole, afford that sort of rent? No wonder London has a large number of squats!

Been talking about this today, I guy I work with has been in the same 'squat' for nearly 10 years, no one approached him or questioned him, it's in Crouch End and it's a decent property.



Apparently there's an amount of time in which if you can prove you've lived somewhere for so long you can claim it as your own, it's looking like that may happen for him, and if it does wow a 3 bed house for free.

Oh right, I see. I disagree with you so OBVIOUSLY I don't have a clue about the subject.



Grow up, and get yourself up to date.

I find any defence of squatting to be very illogical. If I found a car not being used on a street, broke in to it and went for a scenic country drive for the day you'd quite rightly call me a car thief and expect me to arrested.



That said this law should have been accompanied by something that heavily incentivised/forced property owners not to leave their properties empty for extended periods of time.

If you disagree, then why not present an argument as to why you disagree, rather than simply telling me I'm wrong.



You have proved in the past that you haven't got the faintest idea about LVT and almost child-like, your reaction to the unknown is to pull a blanket over your head

Its a poor example though, for the example to work properly you'd have to have abandoned the car for a significant period and for there to be a serious lack of affordable cars available - so no, squatting is not the same as stealing a car.

It's not a poor example - the primary justification for squatting is that nobody else is utilising the building. Once you accept that the rest of it is just the fine print.

Maybe because any 'debate' with people like you, after 5 posts in you automatically claim to have 'handed out s on a plate', or want to murder people....



All child-like.

Usually after an extended period of time - try leaving your car on a street over an extended period of time and see how many days it takes for a "Police Aware" sticker to appear and a few days later for it to be towed and the bill sent to the registered owners address.



Now if that sort of system worked with property ...

What about my 60 berth super yacht moored in Cornwall, do i have to worry about some smelly teenage hippy types breaking the lock and taking over or is it classed as transport and not an abode?