Today, 3 Squatters get....

..the keys to the house they have PAID NO RENT IN for 30 years

In 1974 these 3 scroungers moved into someone elses house, and have sat tight ever since.

and today, they get the keys.....its worth £500,000 estimate.

So...lets get this straight here.....

a 3 room house in London costs way in excess of £1000 per month in todays market, and 30 years ago was probably more like £100 per month.....

sliding scale upward....£100 to £1000 in a 30 year period.....

PLUS now they get to KEEP IT!

Why I bother paying Tax, council tax, stamp duty, National Insurance, Income tax on savings, tax disks, Insurance Premium tax, interest on Mortgage payments for 25 years and VAT on everything bemuses me.

Go steal a house, stay put and avoid eviction......dont pay anybody for 30 years....and get half million pound house.



Oh joy :(

sucks the large one don't it? :(

That is ****ing disgusting. I work 45-50 hours a week to be able to afford a home (well a BIG mortage) with my GF and all they gotta do is sit on their arse's :mad:

That's ridiculous. How the hell did they manage it???!

Saddening :( it seems as though everything is set up to help these scrounging barstewards. 30 years... bloody red tape i'l bet

Well at least when i get a house i won't have to pay VAT on anything :D

Anyone know exactly where the house is? I wouldnt mind "visiting" them and damaging them a bit. It's people like that that makes this country one big mess. HOW INFURIATING!! GRRRRR....

Ben... :mad:

30 years of sitting in one placeand proving you've maintained it is sufficient to claim it.

People used to do it with Gardens...kinda "maintain" a bit of hedgerow that backs onto your house for long enough and then put in a claim and prove you've maintained it for long enough.....its an old law.

But 30 years in a house withno rent and then to own it!

:(

Its sickening how people can get away with crap like that, they should be made to sell it at a loss then back date all the taxes, rent areas etc leaving them with major debt

You could equally argue the case for "who the heck let them do this?"

Some scrouger sits in my house and I'd have them out in 30 seconds, not 30 years.

Exactly. And if you live somewhere for 30 years of your life, who has the right to throw you out on the street?

Anyone does.

I dont think you realse how messed up this country is, and if you are advocating STEALING a house, which is affectivly what it is, then you too are part of this country's mess.

What happened to equal rights? Why should some people spend the money that they earnt by doing some dead end job on a house whilst some bloody tramps get given a house for free? Why should those who get off their arse and get a good job and make something of their life be taxed through the roof just because they earn more?

Oh and NOBODY "let" them do it, they no doubt broke in to the empty house and set up shop like most squatters do. It's not like someone said hey theres an empty house for any squatters that want it, please go live in it! :rolleyes:

Ben :(

i think the council shout use their house as a local refuse dump...cause asking them for 30 years woth of tax just isn't going to get very far, probably more than the house is worth. squatters, kind of gives you the image of someone trying to take a dump in the woods doesn't it...

Before we all get into a nice little lather about this, I'd like to see the source of the story. Even without that, a couple of thoughts occur:

1. If the owner(s) wanted them evicted, they could have had that done at any point. That they haven't done this for 30 years rather suggests that there was no-one who gave a monkey's about the property in question. The phrase "someone else's house" implies that the squatters in question forced someone out of their home, which is frankly bull. They moved into an unoccupied and unused property.

2. If the house was unmaintained when they moved in and they have spent their own money and time maintaining it*, then they've probably done their neighbourhood a favour; unless you regard it as preferable that the house remain an unoccupied derelict shell frequented by smackheads, which would REALLY improve the tone of the neighbourhood, right? A far greater problem than squatters might be said to be absentee landlords who allow large swathes of property to fall into disrepair to the detriment of surrounding homes and businesses.

""I want to help those responsible people who have put themselves into accommodation because they have seen that it is empty. I think it is fair to say that very deep in Conservative philosophy is that of self-help and if people are prepared to try to help themselves and if they see a property is empty and no one is using it and by moving in they are not going to hurt anyone, but they will protect and help their own family, surely we ought to encourage that?you could argue they are perhaps more socially responsible in finding empty property and squatting in there and giving their family a home than putting them in bed & breakfast."

Bob Hughes, Conservative MP

"it is in the public interest that a person who has long been in undisputed possession should be able to deal with the land as owner. It is more important that an established and peaceable possession should be protected than that the law should assist the agitation of old claims."

Megarry & Wade's Law of Real Property

Unmaintained and unoccupied property, especially in high population density areas, is a risk to the public and an affront to both common sense and decency, especially when this country has 3/4 of a million people who are claasified as homeless. The principle of adverse possession has been established in this country for many hundreds of years. It imposes a duty upon landholders to care for their properties or to dispose of them - or someone else will. It has long been held that such maintenance of property was in the public interest, and with this I agree.

*Proof that you have maintained the property is required to establish title under adverse possession.

I agree with nichomach.

Yes, they're lucky bastards but it seems that if they hadn't been living there then the house would have been empty for 30 years, and probably even longer.

London has a housing crisis and developers really don't help the situation. At the moment in London, developers are buying up huge plots of land and then doing nothing with them. They're waiting for house prices to go up even further before building houses so they can make more money. There's even talk of Ken Livingston forcing them to build straight away but I don't see how they are going to enforce it.

At least with squatters rights, they can't pull the same trick with pre-existing houses. The laws encourages people with empty houses to actually do something with them, and that can only be a good thing, IMO.

Got to agree with Nichomach and Aaron.

Frankly if the owner of the house couldn't be arsed to do anything about the occupants, whats the problem ?

Although I don't agree with squatting in principle, if the owner couldn't give a damn, then good luck to the occupants who were lucky enough to get in there.

Maybe if someone in the government actually got off their arse and addressed the problem of affordable housing in the UK we might see less instances of this.

Good on 'em I say.

Yeah, good job Nichomach. Most people's initial reaction would be 'greedy scrounging bastards' but that's almost certainly not the case. The housing situation in London 30 years ago was almost certainly very different to what it is today; it could well be that the house was derelict when they moved in. I pay an extortionate rent for a tiny one bed flat in London, and I can't see how I'll be able to afford to buy one any time soon. The government's program to build more houses can't start soon enough for me. I'm idly considering building a house myself or something. It irritates me that people a few year older than me, who were able to get on the housing ladder before prices went stupid, own their homes whereas I don't have a chance. My other option is to move abroad; if this country won't allow me to have the chance to own my own house, then maybe I'll take my talents to a country that will:mad:. As a proud Briton it pains me to say that, but I am that angry about the situation.

Rich :¬)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jiff Lemon

You could equally argue the case for "who the heck let them do this?"

Some scrouger sits in my house and I'd have them out in 30 seconds, not 30 years.

---

Agreed mate.
If people couldnt get law the law to move some, i'd get a few mates

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rave

I pay an extortionate rent for a tiny one bed flat in London, and I can't see how I'll be able to afford to buy one any time soon. The government's program to build more houses can't start soon enough for me. I'm idly considering building a house myself or something. It irritates me that people a few year older than me, who were able to get on the housing ladder before prices went stupid, own their homes whereas I don't have a chance. My other option is to move abroad; if this country won't allow me to have the chance to own my own house, then maybe I'll take my talents to a country that will:mad:.

---

Exactly; modern day Rachmanns squeeze the last few drops of blood out of the lending market, closing off the bottom rungs of the property ladder. The biggest buyers in the "starter homes" bracket now aren't people buying houses to live in, they're people buying multiple properties as buy-to-let. It inflates prices in that bracket and stops people like you buying houses except at absolutely stupidly high levels of credit gearing, and thats if you can get them at all. People bemoan the lack of affordable housing, but conveniently forget that the great and wise British public eagerly caused the problem by amongst other things voting for "right-to-buy", the net result of which was that affordable council housing HAD to be sold off, and the councils couldn't even use the proceeds to replace the sold off stock. By law. Talk about chickens coming home to roost, eh?

Its sheer greed that has driven the price of houses to the level it is. I can't wait for it all to come tumbling down.

And it will ;)

House prices: Blame estate agents, they constantly reclassify shyte areas as desirable and they constantly raise prices. These unqualified leeches actually dictate prices, to a degree, which is wrong.

Squatters? Depends, dunnit? There's squatters and squatters. If some people have maintained a property for that length of time when the owner couldn't be arsed with it, it's maybe for the better.

Can't help feeling a little jealous though, which is perhaps the overriding feeling expressed here ;)

Apparently it was a council property.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...ekingx_203.jpg

Full story here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...on/3599889.stm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nichomach

Exactly; modern day Rachmanns squeeze the last few drops of blood out of the lending market, closing off the bottom rungs of the property ladder. The biggest buyers in the "starter homes" bracket now aren't people buying houses to live in, they're people buying multiple properties as buy-to-let. It inflates prices in that bracket and stops people like you buying houses except at absolutely stupidly high levels of credit gearing, and thats if you can get them at all.

---

I should make it clear that my landlord actually bought the flat for himself, but is letting it out while he works abroad. Still, he charges the going rate, and the going rate is extortionate. I can't even blame people for buying houses to let, it's a legal, and so far easy way of making money, but the government should step in and regulate it now it's got so out of control.

I'm hoping that there's a correction in the market, but it's so far a long time coming, and there's no significant indicators that we're heading for an economic slowdown. While I was thinking about this on the train home, I realised that I'd almost certainly benefit hugely if there's a recession. I'm a civil servant, so my job should be safe whatever happens, and if there's a recession and a lot of people lose their jobs, house prices will probably tank and I'll be in a good position to buy. What kind of state has the country got into when many of its citizens have no incentive to keep the economy going, and every incentive to withdraw from it as much as they can?:rolleyes: I'm going to be living as frugally as possible for a while, that's for sure.

Quote:

---

People bemoan the lack of affordable housing, but conveniently forget that the great and wise British public eagerly caused the problem by amongst other things voting for "right-to-buy", the net result of which was that affordable council housing HAD to be sold off, and the councils couldn't even use the proceeds to replace the sold off stock. By law. Talk about chickens coming home to roost, eh?

---

Hehe. Well, I was a month too young to vote in the '97 general election, so I can hardly be blamed for Thatcherism now can I?;) Most of the people who took advantage of their right to buy are probably still sitting pretty now, a situation they'll be happy with until it's time for their kids to move out:).

Rich :¬)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pantheous

Apparently it was a council property.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...ekingx_203.jpg

Full story here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...on/3599889.stm

---

GOOD FIND Pantheous....and welcome to Hexus, home of the riotous squabble :)