A balancing act between landowner and squatter

The group claimed to have rights to subsist on unused land under the medieval Charter of the ?Forest, but the High Court ?held otherwise, confirming the possession order. Bailiff action was necessary to remove the group from the woodland.

It has been three years since the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) received royal assent.

Section 144 of the Act ?created a new criminal offence of squatting in residential buildings, stating an individual is committing an offence if they:

• Are in a residential building as a trespasser, having entered it as a trespasser;

• Know or ought to know that they are a trespasser; and

• Is living in the building or intend to live there for any period.

Squatters can be arrested by ?the police and, if convicted by ?a court, can be sent to prison ?for up to six months, fined up ?to £5,000, or both.

Shelter, the housing and homelessness charity, states ?on its website that someone cannot be convicted of squatting if: 

• They are squatting ?in commercial premises;

• Are a tenant or licensee remaining in a property after the tenancy or licence has ended;

• Have entered the property genuinely believing themselves to be a tenant; or 

• Are a gypsy or traveller living on an unauthorised site.  

The same website publication states: ‘Squatters have a right ?to be connected to utilities ?such as gas, electricity, and water, but using them without contacting the supplier first ?is illegal.’

Although ‘squatting’ in residential property has ?been an offence since 1977, ?this legislation has rarely ?been enforced. 

Desperately seeking shelter

The enforcement of section 144 of LASPO  has led to a fall in ?the number of squatters in residential properties, but ?an increase in squatting in commercial premises.  

This undeniably natural reaction from squatters, which must have been foreseen by the legislators, has led to calls for the law to be extended to cover commercial premises.  

The success of LASPO in relation to residential properties has led many to believe it should be extended to commercial properties. Activists, however, refer to the undeniable claims that there are 1.5 million ?vacant properties and 110,000 homeless people looking desperately for shelter.

Squatters seem wise ?in relation to their rights. ?A landowner who seeks to rid their property of squatters is still likely to be faced with a number of obstacles, with police unlikely to assist a landowner without clear and unequivocal evidence that a criminal offence has been committed.  

Cumbersome procedure

The procedure that commercial building owners have to go through to remove squatters is rather cumbersome and costly, as it involves having to obtain a possession order and, in some cases, a writ of possession. ?For those cases awaiting a court date, costs are steadily being incurred, while damage is likely being caused and contractual deadlines missed. Although an interim possession order could remove occupiers quicker, this ?is only possible in certain cases and can still take longer than the landowner requires. ?The fact that a number of the county courts have closed, ?and a significant number now have no counter service, has ?led to much frustration in the property world. 

So, where does this leave everyone? Given the number ?of people convicted for a ?crime pursuant to section 144 ?is minimal, there is mounting support for parliament to extend the criminalisation ?of squatting in residential premises to include commercial premises. What will the legislator say? With an evident balancing act between the interests of the landowner ?and those of the squatters, ?a tough decision may need ?to be made. Is a spike in the number of people sleeping on the street justified to protect vacant property?

Kate Andrews is a partner in the real estate litigation department at Hamlins @HamlinsLLP www.hamlins.co.uk

Copyright & permissions