YEAH WE SHOULD CHANGE THE LAW TO HELP THE PROPERTY DEVELOPERS AND THE LAWYERS
Fuck the poor and desperate. Let's keep livable houses empty for tax avoidance and potential profit while people are literally dying of exposure on the streets.
(PsychoChomp, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:24, 3 replies, latest was 16 years ago)

Often it's the normal people who have worked hard for their home that are hurt by squatters
And so what if someone has bought a second, third or fourth home as an investment, that's their perogative.
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:26, Reply)

Yes but it's an investment and a risky one at that,
their money shouldn't be protected at the expense of other people, they should be aware of the risks and plan for it properly.
(PsychoChomp, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:35, Reply)

This is utter bullshit, the equivialnt would be your money being nicked from a bank
nothing gives those twats the right to someone else's property, irregardless of the property owner's wealth.
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:38, Reply)

oh you said irregardless
that upsets me because I agreed with everything else.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:39, Reply)

Just because someone is rich, doesn't make it ok to steal from them

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:41, Reply)

What did you read?
I was agreeing with you, except for the word irregardless because it's not a word.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:42, Reply)

Oh...I thought you meant the regardless of wealth bit

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:43, Reply)

no,
As a land baron, the idea of someone just breaking into my property and taking it over and then claiming to own it is abhorrent and I would be so upset if that happened to me.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:47, Reply)

What if Pschochomp broke in? She seems quite keen on the idea

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:48, Reply)

I would personally throw him out and take great pleasure in doing so.

( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:19, Reply)

I was aiming for irrespective
My brain is wonky this afternoon.
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:51, Reply)

How is it anything like that
the income from a empty property is only ever potential, it's never actually real. Empty properties are at best useless to society and the community but can be very lucrative for individuals.
(PsychoChomp, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:46, Reply)

So? Are you a communist?

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:50, Reply)

Nope, just generally dislike the property buisness.

(PsychoChomp, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:52, Reply)

Therefore individuals who enter into it should be punished?

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:53, Reply)

We should string them up, just like the squatters.

(PsychoChomp, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:54, Reply)

I am guilty I'm afraid; I have commited the terrible crime of working hard
saving a deposit, and taking a mortgage on a flat. I am truly, truly sorry.
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:56, Reply)

sorry but i have to disagree with you there!
it has a capital value for a start, which is raped by squatters if they trash the place!
( rachelswipe with a fork, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:50, Reply)

I have never said that I justified the "trashing" of a place
that's a seperate issue.
(PsychoChomp, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:52, Reply)

that is what most of them do sadly
esp the ones who take over car showrooms. i had to throw 150 hairy bikers out of an old vauxhall showroom, and it took the specialist cleaning unit at the council DAYS to remove all the needles!
( rachelswipe with a fork, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:54, Reply)

oh my god how awesome would it be to live in a car showroom?!

( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:59, Reply)

QUAZAR !
Oh man, just think about it, you could have a huge 24 hour battle, with shifts and stuff.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:05, Reply)

You could do that running slide thing that little kids do at weddings
you'd go for metres.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:20, Reply)

weeeeeeeeeeee... Ok, I want to stop now...... eeeeeeeeee...... seriously, breaks anyone?......eeeeeeeeee...... I think I'm going to........eeeeeeee.....be........I really don't feel.........eeeeeeeee......... oh god, it's gone in my helmet.......eeeeeeeeee
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:24, Reply)

wow
that's incredible
(The Incredible Sulk Finally remembered his password on, Sun 13 Jun 2010, 0:01, Reply)

So the spare room at your 'rents, shall I bung an advert up on CouchSurfing/Rainbow/Gumtree now, or do you want to do it so you can get photos first?

( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:01, Reply)

I could be impoverished
and dying of exposure, and sure, if that were the case I would probably try to shelter in an unused building. BUT I wouldn't be a cunt and trash it. It's not compulsory to be a twat when you're squatting, you know.
(berk, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:32, Reply)

I think you'd think differently if you owned a rental property
and it was an important source of income. Would you justify someone mugging you and stealing your phone and wallet if they said they did it to buy food?
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:37, Reply)

You're not going to be getting rent if your property is empty
and you're not going to get squatters if it's occupied.
(PsychoChomp, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:39, Reply)

Well obviously
but you can't get new tenants if there are squatters in it and you're also unlikely to get new tenants if its been trashed. The squatters are now claiming to 'own' the house, so how can you show tenants around it and have them move in?
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:40, Reply)

I thought the law stipulated that squatters were obliged to move on if asked to by either
the property owner or the local council? That is to say, the law doesn't stop them trying to move in, but it prevents them staying there as soon as someone else can convincingly lay claim to the property...I could be wrong.
(LongJohnBaldry, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:43, Reply)

I don't know to be honest
Rswipe should know, she started it.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:46, Reply)

Ms Swipe's OP suggests they need a court order to legally remove them
So I guess I was mistaken - unless that's just the procedure by which you're supposed to deal with it, even if you are able to staple a deed in your name to their forehead as proof that you own it...pls to clarify, rachel?
EDIT: Ta.
(LongJohnBaldry, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:48, Reply)

Yes, but you need a court order to evict them if they refuse to move.
Until you get a court order, it would be illegal to attempt to forcibly remove them or even enter the property, irrespective of the fact it is your property. Court orders take time and cost money.

Plus, a rather worryingly high proportion of squatters will have trashed the place, or at least *ahem* modified it.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:48, Reply)

it does
but you have to get a court order. these people are clever twats, and they know the law, and they know they don't have to go anywhere without a court order and then a writ from the high court entitling the bailiffs to tip them out. all this takes a few weeks and costs a lot. if the landlord is trying to do it himself, without legal advice, he can very easily get it wrong and get stuck with them for more weeks of trashing and expense!
( rachelswipe with a fork, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:48, Reply)

Would it be possible to bypass the system a bit
And ask a Judge in his spare time to sign an order? Seeing as there's a charity involved.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:50, Reply)

nice idea
but never gonna happen in practice!
( rachelswipe with a fork, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:51, Reply)

Get the charity to ask around it's big donors
One of them will likely be an oldboy with contacts. Even the most stern Judge would want to get the cunts out of the building, and would be happy to jot down a quick "GTFO, I'm a Judge".
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:55, Reply)

Or just march into the place, in full gown and wig
Bang his gavel on the door and shout
"I sentence you to kiss my arse."
(LongJohnBaldry, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:57, Reply)

I wonder
If you can't evict them with force, can they use force to stop you entering? Get some cops to 'squat', and arrest the other cunts if any illegal activities are witnessed.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:00, Reply)

that would be quite hilarious

(bamboozled Can hear you getting fatter, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:02, Reply)

Ok, with you now. But what about the damage?
Surely, once the court order is issued, the squatters are liable for vandalism?
(LongJohnBaldry, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:50, Reply)

yes
but they have no money. this is why the pikeys are squatting in the first place! you'd spend more pursuing them for the costs than you ever had any hope of recovering.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:51, Reply)

Are there no prisons?
Are there no workhouses?
(LongJohnBaldry, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:53, Reply)

Maybe they should die
and decrease the surplus population!
( Peej, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:30, Reply)

if you are using or taking something that is not yours
and you have not paid for it, it is theft. the world does not owe you a living. it is irrelevant if someone else owns 137 houses and never visits them, if they have paid for them!

plus in this case, there is a real risk of shortage of funds for people who are sick and dying through no fault of their own whilst these twunts are shovelling shit into their veins with needles and hurling the needles out of the windows to make the neighbours shit themselves even more!
( rachelswipe with a fork, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:47, Reply)

I think the fact it's a charity is irrelevant.
The problem with the moral high ground is that it's a fuck of a long way to fall. The simple facts as presented are these squatters are in the wrong whether it's Mother Teresa or Idi Amin's house.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:52, Reply)

I think it's pretty stupid for a charity to invest in that way to start with.

(PsychoChomp, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:55, Reply)

People leave their houses to charities all the time

( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:56, Reply)

how come?
If it brings in income, why is it stupid?
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:57, Reply)

because it's a big risk,
the property market can make you a lot of money, but it can crash and you can loose everything for a million different reasons. You know that.
(PsychoChomp, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:58, Reply)

This is true of almost all investment.

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:58, Reply)

Yes but you don't have to spend all your money in one or two places.
You can spread the risk a lot better with nearly every other type except maybe hedge funds.
(PsychoChomp, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:02, Reply)

It doesn't work like that.
one property value won't crash while another property rises, so you can't consider one property to be the equivalent of one companies' shares. One property is more like the equivalent of one stock market, so spreading shares around isn't lowering your risk compared to property, just lowering compared to putting all your money in one company.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:06, Reply)

there are local house price falls though
every time a new block of flats opens etc.
But it's not the variation in average house prices that's the biggest risk it's the flood/fire/structural problems that make properties a risky investment.
(PsychoChomp, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:09, Reply)

Haha, what are you on about, Chompy?
In the entire history of the UK property market you will be unable to find any two dates 5 years apart where a property hasn't be worth more at the end than the start. It's more or less the safest long term investment there is.

It's a risk if you have no control over when you might have to sell or you are after short term gain, but a charity has neither of those issues.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:01, Reply)

That's fine on the large scale
but not if they've got one or two properties where say they find asbestos in one and get squatters in the other.
(PsychoChomp, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:03, Reply)

ah, I see where you're going.
valid point. But "because it could happen" doesn't make it right or the charities fault. Thinking that way leads you into dangerous waters, chap.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:08, Reply)

Can I just point out here, TMB on /offtopic ! Yay !
I like these debates, it's the sort of thing that you don't really get that much on /talk.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:35, Reply)

yeah true,
but I'm assuming they own the property outright, such as those being left to them in probate, so that any income greatly outweighs the expenditure.

Also, lose has one o, come on.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:04, Reply)

Out of interest, why?
Can't see a problem with making money any way you like provided it's not illegal or something that wouldn't hold morally with your patrons
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:57, Reply)

Depending on the size of the charity,
(I'm assuming it's not a big one) the risk to return isn't that good.
Unless they do something like buy them do them up and sell them quickly, in which case I can't see how squatters got in in the first place.
(PsychoChomp, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:01, Reply)

Let's say you're intrusted with £250k, and you want to secure an income from it, how would you invest the money?
£50k in each group of banks collecting 2-3% if you're lucky on a 5 year bond?
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:04, Reply)

I'd buy shares,
I wouldn't buy a single £250,000 property.
(PsychoChomp, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:06, Reply)

but three properties for *does maths* £83k each
wouldn't be a bad investment.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:07, Reply)

83k wouldn't buy you a mobile home 'round here :(
£110k minimum for a tiny studio apartment in my town.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:08, Reply)

You can double those figures around here.
=(
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:10, Reply)

Christ, which bit of London do you live in?

( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:11, Reply)

A well specced new 1 bed near me sold for £320k...

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:12, Reply)

Jebus, what a rip off

( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:23, Reply)

Southgate.
It's quite a nice area, but it's no Hampstead.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:14, Reply)

*looks on RightMove*
www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/find.html?locationIdentifier=OUTCODE^1671&insId=1&sortByPriceDescending=false

Slight exasoration, but only slight.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:16, Reply)

We don't all live in the third world.

(PsychoChomp, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:10, Reply)

I forgot you weren't aware of anywhere outside of your lame ass town.

( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:20, Reply)

Shares can go down just as much as they can go up.
Shares, on that scale, with that responsibility, would be quite a bad choice. You're relying on another company to do well in order to make any sort of return.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:09, Reply)

You can sell short as well.
Plus you can get rid of shit shares much quicker than shit property.
And I wouldn't have to deal with estate agents.
(PsychoChomp, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:12, Reply)

For securing an income, I wouldn't mind speaking to an estate agent or two.

( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:22, Reply)

Far greater minds than his have suggested it is a good investment
so I'm more inclined to believe the charities are right rather than an opinionated paperclip salesman.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:22, Reply)

haaaaaaaa!
you made me laaaaaarf there!
( blaireau69 , the Cumbrian Travis Bickle., Sat 12 Jun 2010, 0:27, Reply)

Property is an excellent investment over the long terma nd would give the charity collateral against which to borrow money

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 15:57, Reply)

nononononono
most major charities/pension funds own huge property portfolios!
( rachelswipe with a fork, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:10, Reply)

Oh in that case boo hoo they're going to have to pay £10,000 and wait a few weeks.

(PsychoChomp, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:35, Reply)

but they do good in the world
these pikeys cause nothing but misery and cost and then do it again to the next landlord!
( rachelswipe with a fork, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:41, Reply)

Well you're not allowed to kill them
so just suck it up, and go on making the enormous sums of money that you do at the same time.
(PsychoChomp, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:43, Reply)

No, but say you get a mortgage based on the value of your property and the value is dropped dramaticly because of the infestation of human scum (on the most part)....
... you wouldn't count that as devaluation of your assets?
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:02, Reply)

A building is more than the structure too.

( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Fri 11 Jun 2010, 16:02, Reply)