In light of the imminent changes to squatting law that have been fast-tracked by the government during October and November 2011, Lucy Finchett-Maddock from the SQUASH campaign (Squatters’ Action for Secure Homes) and a squatter from the ASS (Advisory Service for Squatters) look at how the changes to the law will affect the future of squatting and the right to housing.
Squatting is not currently a criminal offence in the UK. However, on 13 July 2011 the Ministry of Justice produced a consultation paper entitled 'Options for Dealing with Squatting' with the 'consultation' itself running until 5 October, the shortest possible time. It was aimed at 'victims' of squatters in residential premises, and was accompanied by screeches from the right wing press about 'plagues' and 'invasions' of squatters. Over 2,200 people responded to the consultation, 95% of whom were not in favour of criminalising squatting. Seven of the respondents were. The Magistrates’ Association, NUS, University and College Union, Criminal Bar Association, Law Society, High Court Enforcement Officers, ASS, SQUASH, all the major homeless charities and even the police were against any further attempts at criminalisation.
The consultation process was clearly devised in the interests of property owners and their allies, rather than those in need of housing. The first paragraph reads: “The Government has become increasingly concerned about the distress and misery that squatters can cause. Law-abiding property owners or occupiers who work hard for a living can spend thousands of pounds evicting squatters from their properties.”[1] The reality of squatting, homelessness and multiple exclusion was ignored by the consultation.[2]
Clause 26 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, sneaked through Parliament at six days notice, makes a criminal offence of squatting in residential premises. The majority of empty property is residential. Commercial or otherwise non residential premises would supposedly not be affected by the law change, but instances of police misconduct become more frequent when homelessness is treated as a public order or criminal issue, as has been seen in the wake of the law changes brought in by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Clause 26 was voted in with a majority of 283 to 13. Paragraph 4 of Clause 26 means that even if someone is a victim of fraud (i.e. they were given a tenancy by someone who had no right to grant it) they could still face eviction and arrest under the new law. The new offence of squatting in residential premises carries a £5,000 fine and/or 51 weeks in prison on conviction. The Bill is currently going through the House of Lords. The new squat ban will make life harder for homeless people as much as it will make business easier for anti-squat companies.
Current Laws and Proposed Changes
Section 12 of the Criminal Law Act 1977, as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, lays out the distinction that underlies a trespasser and a squatter. As long as there are no clear signs of the owner of the property living in a building, then Section 6 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 can be used, acting as the legal document through which squatters’ rights are upheld. Eviction can only legally take place after a ‘Possession Order’ has been made by the owner, to remove the unwanted residents from the property. The squatters then have the right to remain until this Order has been agreed by the local or High Court. Thus, eviction can only take place after it has been agreed civilly within the courts.
The government tabled a number of proposals to criminalise squatting:
Option 1 – Create a new offence of squatting in buildings;
Option 2 – Amend Section 7 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 to extend the offence to other types of premises;
Option 3 – Repeal or amend the offence in Section 6 of the Criminal Law Act 1977;
Option 4 – Leave the criminal law unchanged but work with the enforcement authorities to improve enforcement of existing offences;
Option 5 - Do nothing: continue with existing sanctions and enforcement activity.[3] Options 1, 2 and 3 have the greatest impact on squatting. Option 1 entails the creation of the crime of ‘intentional trespass’, whereby there is no reliance on the sanctity of court before a squatter can be forcibly removed. With regards to Option 2, Section 7 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 currently states that it is an offence for a person who is on a residential premises as a trespasser to refuse to leave when required to do so by a ‘displaced residential occupier’ (DRO) or a ‘protected intending occupier’ (PIO) of the property.[4] Option 2 would extend this so that it applies to squatters who refuse to leave other types of property, such as commercial buildings: “Commercial property owners would therefore have a similar level of protection to displaced residential occupiers and protected intending occupiers.”[5] This shows the intention to protect commercial buildings as well as residential ones. Option 3 deals directly with squatters’ rights and Section 6 of the Criminal Law Act 1977, which makes it an offence for a person, without lawful authority, to use or threaten violence to enter a property where someone inside is opposed to their entry. Currently only DROs or PIOs can legally remove someone from a residential building, however, the wish is to extend this to other categories of property owners. Option 3 threatens the safety and security of the homeless, and would grant further police powers. Why Now and for Who? The Tory party have been well-documented over the years as wishing to remove squatters’ rights, and given the coalition government, they are now attempting once again to push this through. During the widespread occupations of university buildings as part of the student protests in late 2010 and early 2011, squatting rights were an issue of contention for the authorities. Despite the legal right to remain, some universities used private law to remove demonstrating students. Given the fact that any removal of squatters’ rights would contravene a range of rights (those that affect the right to housing, as well as the right to protest), means the proposed criminalisation will have wide implications. We are seeing a planned political drive to criminalise squatting.[6] In the past, there has been widespread and successful resistance to previous attempts to criminalise squatting (see the SQUASH Campaign Spotlight) and there is now a growing anti-criminalisation campaign.[7] This is partly why there has been a barrage of negative media coverage of squatters in recent months. The stories being chosen are very unusual cases of squatters refusing to leave properties they occupied while someone was on holiday, rather than the most common situations whereby squatters occupy otherwise unused buildings and improve them by doing repairs etc. The government agenda is to generate a general misconception of squatting. Given the express interest in granting the same rights to commercial property owners, as DROs and PIOs, it is clear that the move to change the law protects political and corporate interests: the interests of property speculators and landlords at the expense of tenants’ rights and homeless people who, in the midst of a housing crisis, have little option but to squat.[8] The Real Story The proposed changes to the law vehemently represent issues that go far beyond the reach of squatting. They are also about the criminalisation of protest occupations, as well as the extension of powers to the police. The changes would empower unscrupulous landlords and property speculators, and burden the justice system and be heavy on the public purse.[9] The real story of squatting is one of a housing resource for the hidden population of homeless people in the UK, which is entirely distorted by the media. A report conducted recently by homeless organisation Crisis demonstrated how participants with a long history of homelessness use temporary housing in the form of squatting much more than that provided by local authorities or support agencies.[10] If squatting rights are taken away, the right to housing would be trumped by the commercial interests and effects of gentrification.
References
[1] Ministry of Justice, (2011), “Options for Dealing with Squatting”, Consultation Paper CP12/2011, www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/consultations/options-dealing-with-squatting.pdf.
[2] Reeve, K. (2011), “The Hidden Truth About Homelessness: Experiences of Single Homelessness in England”, Crisis and CRESR (Centre for Regional and Economic Social Research)
[3] Ministry of Justice, (2011), “Options for Dealing with Squatters”, Consultation Paper CP12/2011, www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/consultations/options-dealing-with-squatting.pdf.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] SQUASH Representative, 2011.
[7] Please see the campaign organisation Squatters’ Action for Secure Homes (SQUASH) for ways in which you can participate in the anti-criminalisation campaign, and help stem the proposed changes, www.squashcampaign.org/
[8] SQUASH Representative, 2011.
[9] SQUASH (2011), “Criminalising the Vulnerable: Why we can’t Criminalise our Way out of the Housing Crisis (A Parliamentary Briefing”, found at www.squashcampaign.org/.
[10] Reeve, K. (2011), “The Hidden Truth About Homelessness: Experiences of Single Homelessness in England”, Crisis and CRESR (Centre for Regional and Economic Social Research).
Option 2 – Amend Section 7 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 to extend the offence to other types of premises;
Option 3 – Repeal or amend the offence in Section 6 of the Criminal Law Act 1977;
Option 4 – Leave the criminal law unchanged but work with the enforcement authorities to improve enforcement of existing offences;
Option 5 - Do nothing: continue with existing sanctions and enforcement activity.[3] Options 1, 2 and 3 have the greatest impact on squatting. Option 1 entails the creation of the crime of ‘intentional trespass’, whereby there is no reliance on the sanctity of court before a squatter can be forcibly removed. With regards to Option 2, Section 7 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 currently states that it is an offence for a person who is on a residential premises as a trespasser to refuse to leave when required to do so by a ‘displaced residential occupier’ (DRO) or a ‘protected intending occupier’ (PIO) of the property.[4] Option 2 would extend this so that it applies to squatters who refuse to leave other types of property, such as commercial buildings: “Commercial property owners would therefore have a similar level of protection to displaced residential occupiers and protected intending occupiers.”[5] This shows the intention to protect commercial buildings as well as residential ones. Option 3 deals directly with squatters’ rights and Section 6 of the Criminal Law Act 1977, which makes it an offence for a person, without lawful authority, to use or threaten violence to enter a property where someone inside is opposed to their entry. Currently only DROs or PIOs can legally remove someone from a residential building, however, the wish is to extend this to other categories of property owners. Option 3 threatens the safety and security of the homeless, and would grant further police powers. Why Now and for Who? The Tory party have been well-documented over the years as wishing to remove squatters’ rights, and given the coalition government, they are now attempting once again to push this through. During the widespread occupations of university buildings as part of the student protests in late 2010 and early 2011, squatting rights were an issue of contention for the authorities. Despite the legal right to remain, some universities used private law to remove demonstrating students. Given the fact that any removal of squatters’ rights would contravene a range of rights (those that affect the right to housing, as well as the right to protest), means the proposed criminalisation will have wide implications. We are seeing a planned political drive to criminalise squatting.[6] In the past, there has been widespread and successful resistance to previous attempts to criminalise squatting (see the SQUASH Campaign Spotlight) and there is now a growing anti-criminalisation campaign.[7] This is partly why there has been a barrage of negative media coverage of squatters in recent months. The stories being chosen are very unusual cases of squatters refusing to leave properties they occupied while someone was on holiday, rather than the most common situations whereby squatters occupy otherwise unused buildings and improve them by doing repairs etc. The government agenda is to generate a general misconception of squatting. Given the express interest in granting the same rights to commercial property owners, as DROs and PIOs, it is clear that the move to change the law protects political and corporate interests: the interests of property speculators and landlords at the expense of tenants’ rights and homeless people who, in the midst of a housing crisis, have little option but to squat.[8] The Real Story The proposed changes to the law vehemently represent issues that go far beyond the reach of squatting. They are also about the criminalisation of protest occupations, as well as the extension of powers to the police. The changes would empower unscrupulous landlords and property speculators, and burden the justice system and be heavy on the public purse.[9] The real story of squatting is one of a housing resource for the hidden population of homeless people in the UK, which is entirely distorted by the media. A report conducted recently by homeless organisation Crisis demonstrated how participants with a long history of homelessness use temporary housing in the form of squatting much more than that provided by local authorities or support agencies.[10] If squatting rights are taken away, the right to housing would be trumped by the commercial interests and effects of gentrification.
References
[1] Ministry of Justice, (2011), “Options for Dealing with Squatting”, Consultation Paper CP12/2011, www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/consultations/options-dealing-with-squatting.pdf.
[2] Reeve, K. (2011), “The Hidden Truth About Homelessness: Experiences of Single Homelessness in England”, Crisis and CRESR (Centre for Regional and Economic Social Research)
[3] Ministry of Justice, (2011), “Options for Dealing with Squatters”, Consultation Paper CP12/2011, www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/consultations/options-dealing-with-squatting.pdf.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] SQUASH Representative, 2011.
[7] Please see the campaign organisation Squatters’ Action for Secure Homes (SQUASH) for ways in which you can participate in the anti-criminalisation campaign, and help stem the proposed changes, www.squashcampaign.org/
[8] SQUASH Representative, 2011.
[9] SQUASH (2011), “Criminalising the Vulnerable: Why we can’t Criminalise our Way out of the Housing Crisis (A Parliamentary Briefing”, found at www.squashcampaign.org/.
[10] Reeve, K. (2011), “The Hidden Truth About Homelessness: Experiences of Single Homelessness in England”, Crisis and CRESR (Centre for Regional and Economic Social Research).
Download