The occupation of a person’s non-residential property without their permission is not a crime in England
slowblink.gif
edit: TIL! Thanks for reminding me that if something seems far out, chances are that my understanding just hasn’t caught up.
Probably it’s civil law/tort law, not criminal law. Like, someone can’t go to jail for it, but can be sued over it.
Crimes are only violations of criminal law.
googles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespass_in_English_law
Trespass in English law is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to goods, and trespass to land.
Sounds like that might be the case.
Trespass in English (and Welsh) law is mostly a civil tort rather than a criminal offence. The circumstances in which it is a criminal offence are usually trespass on educational premises, railway property, protected sites, etc.[failed verification]
Not the case here in the States:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespass_to_land
United States
In most states, a criminal trespass to land is defined by statute and constitutes a misdemeanor. In some states, it may be a felony under certain circumstances (e.g., trespassing on a research facility or school property). Remedies between private parties for trespass may include an injunction or money damages.
These are old laws, and maybe good ones depending on perspective. My understanding is that property should be used if abandoned.
He has an abandoned restaurant in Brisbane, Australia too—at least last time I was there not too long ago.
I went a few years back when it opened and it was a let down. Seemed to be run by someone that had no idea how to make a menu and run a restaurant. Solid 6/10. Just “some place”.
Maybe he needs to start a show called “Ramsey’s Kitchen Nightmares of Ramsey Kitchens” and fix all the restaurants he has started that have been mismanaged.
I have no idea what this image is about, but it strikes me as hilarious
According to government guidance, squatters can apply to become the registered owners of a property if they have occupied it continuously for 10 years, acted as owners for the whole of that time and had not previously been given permission to live there by the owner.
Interesting loophole. Can you prove the squatters were not given verbal permission by the owner?
Also, the fact that a group of people can help themselves to a property that is vacant for good reason and have legal protection is kinda bullshit.
I’d say its a lot less bullshit than having empty spaces while people are homeless.
It’s a restaurant, not exactly set up for accommodation.
You’re right of course, but the general point stands. Why can they squat in there if its used at all and not just collecting dust?
Largely because squatters usually trash and destroy any property they squat in, or at best leave it full of litter.
Very few actually take any care of the property whatsoever.
Citation needed. As someone who has lived in pretty well kept squats in the Netherlands, I wonder wtf bubble you are in
Interesting. The title says hotel
The British are weird with names.
Also, the fact that a group of people can help themselves to a property that is vacant for good reason and have legal protection is kinda bullshit.
If you have someone living on your property for 10 years without you knowing, that’s your fault. Clearly their presence isn’t that big of a deal.
They have legal protection well before ten years though, this website outlines it.
https://www.complete-ltd.com/landlord-library-squatters-rights/
If the squatter has been in the property for more than 28 days or is in a commercial property, the landlord will need to file a claim for possession in court. This is a more complex process and can take several months to complete.
It sounds like an absolute nightmare if you’re renovating or between tenancies with a commercial property.
That honestly aligns more with what I’ve heard in the past.
I thought the US had a similar set up, but I may be wrong.
I’m curious what the rationale is given for these laws. Is it just a remnant of squatter’s rights, when people could just up and stay in truly abandoned locations until they practically owned it?
Not practically, they actually can own it in the UK.
A lot of civil law in England is law created by judges in various law suits. Someone at some point convinced a judge that squatters deserve rights.
I would imagine somewhere in the legal history of English civil law would have the answer.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Squatters have taken over a pub in London leased by Gordon Ramsay that is up for sale with a guide price of £13m.
A group of at least six people locked themselves inside the Grade II-listed York and Albany hotel and gastropub, next to Regent’s Park, boarding up the windows and putting up a “legal warning” defending their takeover, the Sun reported.
In photographs taken before the windows were further boarded up, a person could be seen sleeping on a sofa in the bar, surrounded by litter.
On Saturday morning, two masked people wearing black tracksuits and carrying backpacks and carrier bags exited the property, running away from reporters before they could be approached for comment.
Ramsay called the police on Wednesday but was unable to have the people removed, it is understood.
The Kitchen Nightmares host unsuccessfully attempted to free himself from the lease in a legal battle at the high court in 2015.
The original article contains 513 words, the summary contains 155 words. Saved 70%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Lol, good.
Hopefully this starts to shed some light on the travesty that is ‘squatters rights’. Squatters shouldn’t have rights.
I’m almost certain that squatter’s rights aren’t applicable here. Those come up when someone has been openly living somewhere for a long period of time and where no action has been taken against them. The situation here deals with people who have been there a short time, where action has been taken.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession
In general, a property owner has the right to recover possession of their property from unauthorised possessors through legal action such as ejectment. However, in the English common law tradition, courts have long ruled that when someone occupies a piece of property without permission and the property’s owner does not exercise their right to recover their property for a significant period of time, not only is the original owner prevented from exercising their right to exclude, but an entirely new title to the property “springs up” in the adverse possessor. In effect, the adverse possessor becomes the property’s new owner. Over time, legislatures have created statutes of limitations that specify the length of time that owners have to recover possession of their property from adverse possessors. In the United States, for example, these time limits vary widely between individual states, ranging from as low as three years to as long as 40 years.
Although the elements of an adverse possession action are different in every jurisdiction, a person claiming adverse possession is usually required to prove non-permissive use of the property that is actual, open and notorious, exclusive, adverse and continuous for the statutory period. The possession by a person is not adverse during periods when they are in possession as a tenant or licensee of the legal owner.
The issue with the hotel and pub in London, I think, is what I described in a comment below. Trespass in England is mostly part of civil law, rather than criminal law. So it’s usually not a crime to trespassing. You can be sued, but not sent to jail for it. It doesn’t mean that the state is fine with it, just that it’s a different class of law involved.
On squatter’s rights, I think that the aim may be to try to keep the situation and law in line with each other, to discourage the two from drifting apart. You don’t want to wind up with a situation where situation of illegality is the norm, and then someone comes out and brings the law into force and it’s way more disruptive (and possibly unexpected). It’s not designed to provide free stuff to the squatter, but to ensure that landowners act sooner rather then later.
There are similar rules in some other areas. For example, a trademark holder must defend their trademark against infringing use, or they can lose rights over the trademark. They can’t wait until someone has built up a major brand based on the trademark and then try to start enforcing it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity)
In common-law legal systems, laches (/ˈlætʃɪz/ LAT-chiz /ˈleɪtʃɪz/; Law French: remissness, dilatoriness, from Old French laschesse) is a lack of diligence and activity in making a legal claim, or moving forward with legal enforcement of a right, particularly in regard to equity. This means that it is an unreasonable delay that can be viewed as prejudicing the opposing party. When asserted in litigation, it is an equity defense, that is, a defense to a claim for an equitable remedy. It is often understood in comparison to a statute of limitations, a statutory defense, which traditionally is a defense to a claim “at law”.
The person invoking laches is asserting that an opposing party has “slept on its rights”, and that, as a result of this delay, circumstances have changed (witnesses or evidence may have been lost or no longer available, etc.), such that it is no longer a just resolution to grant the plaintiff’s claim. Laches is associated with the maxim of equity: “Equity aids the vigilant” - not those who sleep on their rights. Put another way, failure to assert one’s rights in a timely manner can result in a claim being barred by laches.
When the corporations own all the properties, you’ll wish there were squatters rights.
I’m strongly in favor of laws restricting how many 1-3 family homes a company can own. I think that limit should go up and down the chain of corporate ownership including parents and subsidiaries. There should be exceptions for things like worker housing, but single family homes should not be an investment opportunity for large corporations. All that does is drive up the prices and makes it harder for average people to own a home. There is no overall benefit to society.
But think of the shareholders! /s
Yeah, a bunch of people should be disenfranchised arbitrarily by someone on the internet! Let’s go! Oh yeah who cares about people anyway!
Where the hell are you getting any of that from what I said? I am saying that if you don’t own a building, and otherwise have no rights to that building, just because you barge in and lock the door doesn’t mean you should own the building or have any rights to that building whatsoever. The police should go in and arrest you.
deleted by creator
I would agree with something like this, but focusing on residential properties. I also think there should be limits to how many residential properties a single company can own. I don’t mean like apartment buildings, I mean like single-family or two / three family houses.
1 to 3 family homes are a resource that should be for the good of the American people. I’m not against somebody making money as part of that, but when the opportunity for investing starts pricing people out of the market then we need to have a hard think about whether the investing market is more important than the people or not. I don’t think it should be.
Squatters absolutely should have rights, just like everyone else should.
Squatters should have civil rights. Rights to the property that belongs to somebody else which they are squatting in should not be among their rights. If you are squatting on a property and that property owner wants you gone, you should be removed immediately.
Immigrants aren’t people. you, probably
Where the hell are you getting that from? I didn’t say anything about immigrants.
This has nothing to do with race or nationality or citizenship. I am saying if you have no rights to a building, as in you don’t own the building and you don’t have a lease there, then barging in and locking the door behind you should not automatically grant you any sort of special treatment. You are an illegal intruder, and the police should go in and arrest you. I think that should apply in situations like this and it should apply in situations even if the owner of the building hasn’t been around in a month.
