Changes to the Law on Squatting - Essay Example

? Changes to the Law on Squatting Changes to the Law on Squatting Squatting is the occupying of an unoccupied, unused or abandonedbuilding, usually residential, or portion of land of which the occupier neither has legal permission to occupy nor ownership or rental arrangement (Fitzpatrick et al 2012). Such persons are called squatters and their reasons for squatting include poverty, protests, recreation, politics and the need of a home. The high cost of housing in England, and the accompanying benefit caps, has also contributed significantly to squatting. A study established that there are approximately one billion squatters around the world, and also noted that squatting has not been sufficiently debated on academic or policy grounds. Section 144 of the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act, 2012 (S144 LASPO 2012), of the United Kingdom (UK), made significant changes to the law that criminalize squatting under some circumstances, including the intention to stay there. This paper will give a background of the law on squatting in the UK, explaining why it has been contentious and further analyze the changes that came into force on September 1st 2012, and consider their wider implications. Squatting in England can be traced back to 1381, where it was one of the major factors that led to the Peasants’ Revolt, and the 17th century when it was associated with the Diggers (Waterhouse 2005). They claimed ownership of common and waste land and cultivated it. It was the initial land tenure system that the peasants knew. With the passage of time, the development of agriculture and settlement necessitated land ownership and, hence, boundaries. In Wales, a tax policy as well as a population expansion in the 17th century forced a part of the population to move into the countryside. There, they squatted and built their own property on common land under fictional traditional assumptions, resulting in the development of small housing units. In 2010, the UK Bailiff Company, through its representative, placed the Welsh population of squatters at its highest in a 40-year period. The previous year, 2009, the UK Bailiff Company had recorded 100 cases on squatting in Wales, which was also the highest in 40 years. This was attributed to the large numbers of failing businesses in urban centers, which propelled squatting in Cardiff and Swansea, and was supported by statistics from the Advisory Service for Squatters (ASS) that squatting in Wales and England had doubled since 1995. In England, after World War I, many homeless people took up squatting as a necessity, but the post-World War II era gave rise to a bigger wave of squatting, which carried on into the 1960s’ wave of housing crisis. In 1946, servicemen returning from the war and their families were installed in empty properties by Harry Cowley, together with the Vigilantes (Roberts 2006). This was in retaliation to the severe housing shortage. Later in the 1960s, the Family Squatting Movement was developed. It aimed at mobilising people to seize control of empty and unused property and turn them into housing facilities for the homeless families that were on the waiting list of the Council Housing. Studies have suggested that it was common to respond to homelessness by squatting, with at least 40 percent of the homeless opting to squat. More recently in the early 1970s, a conflict grew between the initial Family Squatting Movement activists and a newer group of squatters who were simply opposed to the landlords’ right to demand rent. They claimed the seizing of property and staying without rent was their right and a revolutionary political action (Reeve 2011). They were actually young and single anarchists, not truly homeless families, strongly against the idea of seeking agreement with local councils on the use of idle property. In 1977, the Protection from Eviction Act and the Criminal Law Act were introduced, and amended in 1994 after media campaigns that claimed homes were squatted when the owners were away, tightening the law against squatters (Waterhouse 2005). Under them, as defined by section six, using violence and threatening to get into property that is already occupied by another person, who is opposed to such entry, was made an offence. This applied even if the person already occupying the property was a squatter. However, even with those changes in 1977 and 1994, squatting was predominantly left as a civil matter in England and Wales (Corr 1999). In Scotland, it was illegalised by the Trespass Scotland Act. Furthermore, in England, the introduction of section 6.1(A) and addition of new clauses in 1994 granted entry rights to protected intending occupiers and displaced residential occupiers, or people representing them. The law defined a displaced residential occupier as an owner whose home had been taken over by squatters, and a protected intended occupier as one who had already been planning a move into the squatted property (Corr 1999). As defined under sections 12 and 12(A), this group of persons may enter the occupied property legally, even by use of force, since the provisions of section six are not applicable to them. As soon as a notice is issued to the squatters about the displaced or protected owner’s intention to move in, it is an offence for them to continue occupying the property. A further effect the two laws had, to the landlords’ disadvantage, was to cut down on the powers held by the landlords in trying to evict trespassers from their property physically (Roberts 2006). Therefore, the best option they had to remove squatters was the time consuming and expensive civil procedure. For instance, Judge John Taylor adjourned a case at Central London County Court on 9th January 2009, asking the owner of a house he claimed had been squatted to provide more evidence that his property had been broken into. He claimed his house had been empty pending approval from the planning department before renovations could begin, only to be invaded by squatters. The case was later dismissed, with Judge John Taylor saying the squatters had not forced their way in. By the mid 1980s, squatters had seized considerable properties on Cheltenham Road of Bristol. Squatters from Brighton, in the 1990s, formed a group and named it Justice? They then squatted on an unused courthouse. Although the squatters were offered a level of protection in the empty properties, not all of them realized that the squatting was an offence, especially where their actions affected a lawful occupier’s or existing tenant’s rights. The new law was designed to enhance protection, more so for residential landlords with properties that stayed vacant and unused for a long time waiting to be sold or let again. S144 LASPO 2012, under which squatting is a criminal offence unlike the 1977 Acts, essentially makes the companies that invest in property and the local authorities the main beneficiaries (Roberts 2006). The new law is applicable under several circumstances. They include situations where it can be proved that the trespasser had intention to live on the property without permission from the owner, or a person getting into a residential building when they are aware that the action entails a trespass on that property. In this context, a residential building is one which has been adapted or designed to be used as a place for people to live. Such trespassers can be arrested and removed by the police, and are liable for six months imprisonment, a fine of ?5,000 or both. A 21 year old job seeker, Alex Haigh, was the first victim of the law one day after it came into force. He was found guilty of squatting on a property in Pimlico, as he was new in town, and sentenced to 12 weeks imprisonment by West London magistrates. Crispin Blunt, the ex-justice minister, said the move was intended to show squatters that their rights had come to an end. There are, however, certain exceptions to the law that are viewed by many as contradictory. From a landlord’s perspective, especially one who may have anticipated using the enhanced law as a platform to evict tenants who refuse to vacate upon notice or habitually do not pay rent, the overall effect of the new law is limited. This is because, firstly, it was not the law’s intended purpose and secondly, the relatively constricted definition it bears of a squatter. An individual would not be considered to be squatting if he has previously been a tenant of the property or at one time held a license to reside in the property. A person who does not have a way of knowing they are trespassing, although a very unlikely occurrence, is also not considered a trespasser. Likewise, a person who occupies property with the owner’s permission but continues staying after expiry of lease or tenancy agreement is not a squatter, even if he leaves and returns, just like one who is late on rent. This aspect is further complicated by the fact that licenses and tenancies do not always have to be in writing, and some may have been granted by an agent or the owner’s tenant, possibly without notifying the owner. The new law does not apply to all these cases. In such scenarios, in order to enter by force and execute an arrest and eviction, police officers would require reasonable and sufficient suspicion that a crime has been committed. The police would also face challenges in establishing the difference between tenants who are overstaying their tenancy and real squatters when requested by a landlord to remove a person from a property. To this end, most of the police forces are likely to be reluctant of involvement in squatting cases not openly clear if the accused is actually a squatter and instead, choose to concentrate on more urgent cases. Another exception is on non-residential land or building, whereby non-residential refers to that which is not designed or adapted to be lived in. However, although still pending, in January 2013, Mike Weatherley, a Member of Parliament, tabled an Early Day Motion to extend the sphere of the offence to commercial premises. On its own, squatting on such property without permission is not a crime, although specified acts while entering or staying on the property are defined as criminal and may lead to prosecution. Such acts include theft from the property, damage caused upon entry or stay, non-adherence to notices such as noise regulation or order to exit and illegal use of utilities such as gas or electricity. An analysis of the changes shows both positive and negative impacts starting from the debate before it was passed into law and also in the long run. It is bound to draw different reactions from the government, organizations fighting for the squatters, property owners and individual politicians within the government. Concerns were raised by a group of legal academics, barristers and solicitors practicing housing law and acting on behalf of the landlords, occupiers, owners and tenants. They argued that the widespread distortions fueled by the media were aimed at derailing the proper debate, passing of the law and its effects to criminalise the occupation of others’ property by squatters (SQUASH 2012). The legal academics believed that with the potential far reaching consequences the law would have on a large vulnerable population, more informed factual debates would be more needed than the sensual misrepresentation posed by the media. What the media was spreading was likely to confuse the law enforcers and create fear among the public. The media had a duty, as well as the ministers, of informing their readers on the correct implications of the law. It was up to them to rectify the notion they had led the public to believe, that they were not committing a criminal offence by refusing to get out of someone else’s home. One corporate body that has been vocal in its campaigns for the repealing of the S144 LASPO 2012 is the Squatters Action for Secure Homes (SQUASH). Originally formed in the 1990s, it aimed at resisting the then attempts of the Tory government to criminalise squatting under the Public Order Act and Criminal Justice Act of 1994. It has been restarted because it believes homelessness and squatting are under attack once again by both the corporate media and politicians. SQUASH terms the squatting law as ill considered and badly written by the government. They say it was debated inadequately and was also opposed by both the Metropolitan police and the Law Society and, hence, must be repealed (Johnson 2012). They also point out that the passing of the law avoided the necessary committee stage scrutiny by being debated by Members of Parliament only at the third hearing of the bill. They, therefore, disregarded established procedures of parliament. They opine that at the committee level, a detailed debate may have given ministers the opportunity to thoroughly examine the outcome of the consultation procedure of the government that saw 96 percent respondents against the criminalisation (Longstaffe-Gowan 2012). Those opposed to the criminalisation, including legal experts, the Metropolitan Police and Law Society, argued that the 1977 Criminal Law Act already in place provided sufficient protection to home owners whom squatters may displace, as clearly stated by section six (SQUASH 2012). It was also noted that the Metropolitan Police’s concurrent statement that the present law was widely in place, was conveniently and conspicuously left out of the debate. Also omitted was the fact that out of the individual respondents, only 10 claimed being victims of squatting. The media house that determinedly emphasised the government’s intentions exclusively focused on the families’ and individuals’ displacement from their homes by the squatters who were referred to as scroungers or parasites. They (squatters) were also constantly labelled as being of Eastern Europe origin. The media traded on the coverage filled with fears of the immigration position intertwined with anti-squatting narratives. SQUASH viewed such expressions as opportunistic and divisive, and the fact that they coincided with Weatherley’s Early Day Motion for the extension of S144 LASPO 2012 to include commercial property was not coincidental. The opposition, however, seems to be mobilising to prevent future rushed decisions that impose fear to the vulnerable. A report released by SQUASH, The Case Against S144, has received support from peers, Members of Parliament, homelessness charities, lawyers and academics (Johnson 2012). They categorically state that not a single individual has been arrested for displacing another from their property under the new law. Those who have been convicted under the new law were the homeless seeking shelter in buildings that have long been abandoned. Squash and Ass were strongly opposed to the putting into custody of two homeless persons who had no previous convictions. Such actions, they claimed, were against the initial assurances by the government to limit the new law’s effects on the UK’s homeless population. On the contrary, the concerns that caused fears during the consultation process by the government became visible with the law’s passing, and the vulnerable and homeless people excessively affected. The police forces’ and councils’ lack of storing data on previously accused squatters was greatly condemned for forcing squatters into more unstable and hidden forms of homelessness (Longstaffe-Gowan 2012). Both SQUASH and ASS concur that the growth in homelessness and the ongoing housing crisis England is facing have significantly narrowed the squatters’ options, while law is threatening to send them to prison for sheltering in empty buildings. The Case Against S144 by SQUASH, divided into four key parts, termed the new law as undemocratic due to the suspiciously short process it underwent in parliament. It is also described as unjust because, by the indisputable link between homelessness and squatting being a well known fact by the government, it is known who the law harshly affects; the squatters. The report also summarises the law as unnecessary, citing the sufficiency of the Criminal Law Act of 1977. Finally, it is believed to be unaffordable after taking into consideration the costs of arrests, evictions, prosecutions, housing benefits and rehabilitation (Longstaffe-Gowan 2012). A misrepresented notion by the media, together with politicians and corporate bodies and persons that sponsored the bill, depict squatters as living in luxury and enjoying rent-free, comfortable housing in other people’s property and at their expense (Johnson 2012). However, a study conducted by the Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research (CRESR), which is a reputable academic research body in the UK, and Crisis, which is a national charity supporting the homeless and single persons, suggested otherwise. They term squatting as among the most marginalised and least secure accommodation forms that the homeless population can adopt. They reported in Life on the Margins and The Hidden Truth about Homelessness that squatters seldom stay on squatted property more than a few months (Owen & Walker 2012). They often remain on the property for several days before they are arrested, moved or evicted at short notice. By the time they return, the property they had previously squatted on is already occupied and no longer accessible. Ironically, it is the same law that evicted them that still protects the new occupants of their squats, who are most of the time fellow squatters working an agenda for politicians. A truly homeless individual plagued by homelessness and forced into squatting is never aware of when he might find himself out in the streets. The Hidden Truth about Homelessness research, therefore, reported that squatting was rarely planned by many as a lifestyle (Owen & Walker 2012). The same research reported that people are exposed to risks daily by squatting. They are under risk of personal safety, arrest, imprisonment, poor environmental and housing conditions. As evidenced by The Complex Needs research, which was commissioned after the death of a homeless couple in a fire that engulfed an abandoned warehouse they had squatted, is a practical example of the dangers squatters are exposed to. Although not a crime as yet, squatting on commercial property also exposes squatters to risks of arrest because of acts that are stipulated as criminal while on the property (SQUASH 2012). A report by Crisis also emphasised on the risk facing squatter with a case study. A squatter in a commercial plot confirmed that they always kept a low profile because detection always meant an eviction and loss of shelter. They use less visible routes to access the squats and make no noise once inside. When they raise attention, they are put through harassment and violently evicted, yet the police conveniently look the other way. The key risk of such discreet squatting is that, as explained by one of the squatters, they are often boarded up inside buildings for demolition and narrowly escape before the demolition team swings into action. In conclusion, the new law only appears positive among the wealthy few who can afford to keep property idle for months while thousands of people languishing in poverty cannot afford the least of decent shelter (Reeve 2011). Crisis gave an account of how a squatter spends a day. A genuine squatter’s day starts early with the tidying up of the place, so that it appears like they had not been there (Fitzpatrick et al 2012). They then proceed to the churches or streets to beg for food, or any other activity that may engage them until dark. SQUASH also vows to make addressing the housing crisis its central campaign. Criminalising squatting is a direct blow on the next strategy of survival for the homeless when their numbers are increasing and options being snatched away. As ruled by Judge Fiona Henderson on 5th September 2011 in the case of Camden Council against squatters, squatters are not criminals, and no evidence can show they participate in anti-social behavior more than tenants who pay rent. She also dismissed claims by victims that they suffer losses and further ordered North London empty homes to be made public. The law only benefits owners of property by protecting their accumulating wealth. References Corr, A 1999, No Trespassing! squatting, rent strikes and land struggles worldwide, South End, London. Fitzpatrick, T, Pawson, H, Bramley, G & Wilcox, S, 2012, The Homelessness Monitor: Great Britain 2012, http://www.crisis.org.uk/pages/homelessnessmonitor.html Johnson, A 2012, Everything you need to know about the new squatting law, http://independent.co.uk/property. Longstaffe-Gowan, T 2012, The London Square: gardens in the midst of town, Yale University Press, New Haven. Neuwirth, R 2004, Shadow cities: a billion squatters, a new urban world, Routledge, New York. Owen, P & Walker, P 2012, Occupy London takes over empty UBS bank, The Guardian. Reeve, K 2011, Squatting: a homelessness issue, http://www.crisis.org.uk/data/files/publications/Crisis_SquattingReport_SEPT2011.pdf Roberts, C 2006, Heavy words lightly thrown: the reason behind rhyme, Thorndike Press, London. SQUASH, 2012, Can we afford to criminalise squatting?  http://www.squashcampaign.org/docs/Can_We_Afford_To%20Criminalise_Squatting%3F-SQUASH-March2012.pdf  Waterhouse, R 2005, The vision splendid: a social and cultural history of rural Australia, Curtain University Books, Fremantle. Read More