Squatters take over Gordon Ramsay hotel and pub in London

juicy@lemmy.today to World News@lemmy.world – 205 points –
Squatters take over Gordon Ramsay hotel and pub in London
theguardian.com
35

You are viewing a single comment

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

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.