Pensioner's anger as squatter wins right to keep his £400,000 house...

[h4rm0ny]

Squatters rights just sounds funny to say, sounds so daft that it is an actual thing, it's up there with finders keepers, losers weepers.

It's old laws based on the idea that if land or property isn't being used by someone and another person builds a life there over time, someone can't just turn up and say "I don't care about using this myself but I'm going to stop you using it." They only kick in after quite some time, iirc. Ultimately, we were all squatters once. From the point of view of the King of Spain, the Falklanders are squatters because he once draw a big circle on a map and said "I own this.". But the Falklander's rightly say "nobody was living here, we turned it into a home."

Squatter's Rights are the same thing writ small. It takes a decade of occupation and "acting as the owner" for that time. It's not a casual thing that just happens.

 

[Roar87]

I don't think people should be allowed to own property they aren't using, I'm also against buy to let but that's for a different thread. Houses aren't like other commodities in that we can't just make an unlimited amount of them, we only have so much space. On the other hand I don't think this guy should get a £400k house for free.

 

[SkeeterUK]

Bit disgraceful. True if he didnt want to use it he should have just sold it but it was his by rights imo. The mother left it to him, true no will to say this but its implied come on. Just because he didnt know he had to get admin rights on it doesnt mean it wasnt really his. Stupid law if thats how it goes these days tho.

Squatter should be kicked out, that or offer to buy it off him or pay rent. Underhanded that he never felt the need to try to find out who it belonged to and sort somit out instead of being a deceiving ...

 

[Hathaway]

No matter which way you swing it, this just feels totally wrong. No one can claim to understand his reasons for leaving the property.
I'm all for properties being used but there's a right way to approach someone who's left a property alone for so long and this isn't it.
It's also curious that this guy started renovating so soon after he left the property. He wouldn't have done that if he didn't already know he was unlikely to return soon. Sounds like he cooked up a scheme and the law rewarded him.
It's just not right...

 

[h4rm0ny]

I don't think the wrong in this case is the squatter. I think the real wrong is that just because his mother didn't leave a will, the house didn't automatically come to her child.

 

[muon]

I don't think the wrong in this case is the squatter. I think the real wrong is that just because his mother didn't leave a will, the house didn't automatically come to her child.

Even if it was registered in his name, the same rights apply. It's just his appeal wouldn't have been dismissed instantly. The article is unclear as to whether he lodged the appeal in time, although he would probably have been informed automatically sooner.

 

[muon]

The justgiving page set up I think gives a very fair summary

https://crowdfunding.justgiving.com/colin-curtis

 

[StriderX]

The guy is practically on his deathbed, why does he care?

 

[muon]

The guy is practically on his deathbed, why does he care?

An interesting (although irrelevant) point made elsewhere is that if the Daily Mail hadn't contacted him, he would probably never have known. Would be no £60k in legal fees caused by the appeal and counterclaim either and award against him.

 

[Jokester]

An interesting (although irrelevant) point made elsewhere is that if the Daily Mail hadn't contacted him, he would probably never have known. Would be no £60k in legal fees caused by the appeal and counterclaim either and award against him.

I'm somewhat suspicious of the solicitors actions here, they must have thought to check that he actually owned the property before proceeding with the case?

The fact this had been sat on someone's estate for 20 years without action is a good reason why squatters should be allowed to do what they did in this case. If anything it provides a social benefit to return abandoned properties back to use.

 

[Sankari]

‘It’s not fair. The law is an ass,’ Mr Curtis said. ‘It’s like someone getting in your car then saying it’s theirs because they’re sitting in it.’

********. It's like someone getting in your car after you've left it out in a field somewhere, fixing it up over the next 12 years while you pretend it doesn't exist, then claiming ownership of it because they've spent all the time and money on it. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

If you don't care enough about your possessions to care for them properly, I can't feel sorry for you when somebody else shows more care and claims ownership after the allotted period.

 

[thep02]

Squatting is just plain theft. But until an MP's house gets taken nothing will get done about the pathetic laws surrounding it.

Board the doors up and torch it with the squatter inside, do the world a favour.

Squatting was put into law because it used to be the passtime of the aristocracy, now it's being used by the common man.

 

[dowie]

The fact this had been sat on someone's estate for 20 years without action is a good reason why squatters should be allowed to do what they did in this case. If anything it provides a social benefit to return abandoned properties back to use.

nah but it would be a good reason for local authorities to actively take possession of or force sale of empty/derelict properties

the idea that some random individual can just come along and take possession is antiquated

 

[sanaxe1]

It's strange that the same people who say it's disgusting are the same people who in other threads are fine with the 30 day rule when handing money into a police station. Why are they fine with that but not a abandoned house? Is it the amount of money involved which is the issue? Is it only OK upto a certain amount?

I personally have nothing against squatting laws in unused buildings and then claiming them. We are in a housing crisis where Greenbelt land which belongs to everyone and affects everyone's standard of living are being built over for new houses. So if a building has been left unused for 12+ years someone should live in it.

 

[Jokester]

nah but it would be a good reason for local authorities to actively take possession of or force sale of empty/derelict properties

the idea that some random individual can just come along and take possession is antiquated

I don't disagree, but that was the system at the time. As far as I'm aware there's still no method for local authorities to do this, whilst at the same time we're always sat discussing the so called housing cost crisis.

 

[dowie]

It's strange that the same people who say it's disgusting are the same people who in other threads are fine with the 30 day rule when handing money into a police station. Why are they fine with that but not a abandoned house? Is it the amount of money involved which is the issue? Is it only OK upto a certain amount?

Who is that then and what thread are you referring to? Bit pointless to just make general points like that which are partly based on your recollection and which might not be contradictory positions - but without actually being specific no one can answer the point and it becomes a bit of a baseless accusation against no one in particular.

 

[dowie]

I don't disagree, but that was the system at the time. As far as I'm aware there's still no method for local authorities to do this, whilst at the same time we're always sat discussing the so called housing cost crisis.

Apparently they do, Glaucus mentioned it earlier in the thread and a quick google reveals this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_Dwelling_Management_Orders is one power they have though rarely used

they can also force a sale or compulsory purchase of a derelict property

 

[Jokester]

Apparently they do, Glaucus mentioned it earlier in the thread and a quick google reveals this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_Dwelling_Management_Orders is one power they have though rarely used

they can also force a sale or compulsory purchase of a derelict property

It's a shame these aren't used more often, the oft quoted value of 200k empty houses in England and Wales come to mind.

 

[Calabi]

No matter which way you swing it, this just feels totally wrong. No one can claim to understand his reasons for leaving the property.
I'm all for properties being used but there's a right way to approach someone who's left a property alone for so long and this isn't it.
It's also curious that this guy started renovating so soon after he left the property. He wouldn't have done that if he didn't already know he was unlikely to return soon. Sounds like he cooked up a scheme and the law rewarded him.
It's just not right...

Yeah it only took 10 plus odd years to come to fruition, the guys was just playing the long game new exactly what he was doing. Watch out all the poors are hatching plans right now to get all your things.

Threads like this and its responses remind me why I dont post much in this forum.

 

[Glaucus]

They do use it, but it still takes a lot of time. I know in Bristol they basically give them an ultimatum. You sell it or we will purchase it. There's even a website you can see empty properties fir sale, although only land available at the moment.
Still why not just let someone claim it, its not being used, it's not being looked after, it would slowly crumble to nothing. Whilst being a danger and brining down the local area.

Especially as it was a flat. Imagine being in the other flats and having that flat full to bits.