Why squatting shouldn't be illegal

The government wants to make squatting illegal from next year. Robert Powell considers why they shouldn't...

How do you afford to live in an £10m North-London mansion if you have no money and no job?

Well, if your name’s Jason Ruddick then the answer is easy – you just squat in it.

Yes, this ‘posh-squatter’ has lived in a £10m mansion in Highgate, a £2m house in Hampstead and a £4m property belonging to the Congolese government that he later criticised for ‘not being posh enough for him’.

However, he may have to squat while he still can, as the Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke has made it a priority to make the practice illegal as soon as possible.

But while I cannot condone the actions of this posh-squatter, I am still convinced that he is the exception and not the rule – and that by issuing a blanket ban on squatting, the government stands to do more harm than good.

Here’s why.

A few squatter myths…

Squatters are all waste-of-space druggies: The well-perpetuated myth about squatters is that the reason they are all without homes is because they are all lazy, alcoholic wasters. Now, I obviously cannot vouch for every single squatter in this country; but many reports do actually indicate that squatting is rapidly becoming a way for students, interns, immigrants and the unemployed or low paid to put a roof over their head at little cost. It becomes an especially viable option when you consider the astronomical levels of rent charged in many cities – particularly London.

Indeed when the ‘Belgravia squatters’ (occupants of a £12m property near Roman Abramovich’s home) were evicted back in 2009, many of them were found to be working on the Olympic 2012 site!

Squatters always ruin the properties they live in: Trashing properties, connecting electricity and using water supplies can see squatters easily kicked out of a property for theft or criminal damage – hence many don’t do it! In fact, back in 2009, documentary maker Mark Guard ended up in court facing charges of stealing 0.003p of electricity when he switched on a light while filming squatters entering a disused house.

Forcing entry to a property can also land squatters in jail as they are only legally allowed to occupy a building if they have gained entry through an unlocked door or open window.

Squatters have rights: Legally ‘squatter’s rights’ do not actually exist. The closest the law comes is the right of ‘adverse possession’ whereby a squatter can apply to legally own a property if they have had continuous, exclusive and public access to the building for ten years straight. Unsurprisingly, occurrences of adverse possession are rare.

The legal rights that allow squatters to occupy properties actually emerge from a loophole in homeowner law stipulating that a court order is needed for an owner to re-possess their property from inhabitants. This is exactly the same loophole that prevents landlords from kicking non-paying tenants (effectively squatters!) out of their property.

Squatters also have to avoid moving into a property that a resident ‘actually occupies’ or ‘intends to occupy’ – as this would amount to criminal trespassing and see them immediately evicted and arrested by the police. It’s this law that protects homeowners from squatters occupying their property while they are away on holiday.

So as you can see, in order to legally occupy a property, a squatter has to satisfy several criminal and civil clauses – it’s certainly not a case of simply finding an empty house and moving in.

And these tighter regulations are obviously working; the number of squatters is currently at an all time low of between ten and fifteen thousand – that’s despite rising rents, high unemployment and public service cuts.

So why has the government chosen a period of widespread financial hardship as the time to consider banning squatting?

Political squatting

Over the last decade or so the concept of squatting has changed dramatically. What started as a purely practical solution to expensive living costs has turned into an overt political statement – a middle finger to the rich and ruling class.

There are an estimated 3,000 empty homes in the affluent London borough of Westminster. And these derelict properties aren’t shabby abodes – multi-million pound mansions around Park Lane and Mayfair lie permanently empty, a product of owners who purchase them not as a home, but as an investment.

The squatter’s logic is that if shadowy offshore investors can afford to shell out for plush properties and not even live in them – then they certainly will!

Prestigious addresses have been turned into art galleries, cinemas and schools – ultimately culminating in the occupation of Colonel Gaddafi’s son’s mansion last month. The anti-Gaddafi group that entered the Hampstead property proclaimed their posh-squat as ‘Libya’s new free embassy’.

But it is these reactionary ‘political squatters’ who are bringing public disdain and legal action against a traditionally shy group that has always shunned the limelight for the very reason that publicity undermines their cause.

Not-so-posh squatters

Just as it is a myth that all squatters are drug-addled wasters, it is also fiction that all squatters are political radicals seeking to prove a point. In fact, a quick look at any squatter forum or message board reveals a close-knit community of individuals mainly forced into squatting out of necessity.

These people have no desire to inhabit plush Central London properties, take over foreign embassies or steal the homes of normal holidaying folk. Why would they when tight legislation would see them quickly evicted from such properties and once again homeless?

The goal for these squatters is to locate and legally inhabit an abandoned property and to cause no adverse affects to the building’s owner (and hence be able to stay for a long period of time). What’s more, squatting does not always have to be a parasitic practice – many squatters occupy abandoned buildings with the owner’s knowledge, acting as de-facto caretakers.

But it would be naïve of me to assume that all squatters have this aim. And it is indeed undeniable that no homeowner should have to spend time and money evicting unwanted and unauthorised occupants from their property.

However, this is not a problem that should, or indeed can be solved by making squatting illegal. If anything, a complete ban on squatting would spur on the political squatters by giving them another law to rebel against. Many 'posh-squatters' have already gone on record to say that no blanket ban will stop their home-hopping antics.

Rather, a change in tenancy law is needed to close down and criminalise the loopholes exploited by unreasonable squatters and unruly tenants who refuse to voluntarily leave properties.

This would put an end to the headline grabbing, home-stealing style of squatting that has taken off recently. Yet it would also still allow those people pushed to the fringes of society by an increasingly expensive country access to a form of accommodation that has, for many, become a vital lifeline.

What do you think

Should squatting be made illegal?

Let us know your opinion on this contentious topic in the comment box below.

More: The street where homes cost £6.4m | The best and worst celebrity neighbours | Top 10 property websites