Squash Ordered Out 1994

8/6/2019 Squash Ordered Out 1994

1/16

Ordered OutPublic Order and Housing ChaosA briefing on the effec ts of The Criminal Justiceand Pub lic Order I3i1l on the rights of squatters,tenants and th e homeless.

~ U A S H


2/16

l I


3/16

SQu"TTEPS ACTION FOR. SEWRE. ~ O " " t S

2 SI. Paul's Road,London N I 2QNTe l: 071 226 8938

Ordered OutPublic Order and Housing Chaos

Contents4. Introduction.S. Squatting - a growing threat?6. Are squatters jumping the queue?7. Do squatters exclude people from their

homes?8. Current criminal and civil procedures.9. A new Rent Act?10. TIle need for extension to the

Criminal Law.II. Abuse of the Criminal Law.

Public Order and the new proposals.12 . Homelessness, the real problem.13. The real squatters.


4/16

Ordered OutIntroduction

In October t99 1 th e Home Officepublished a consultation paperse tling out ilS reasons for wanting tochange the law on squatting. 216replies were received during theconsultation period, but the I lomeOffice ha s declined to publish them.All the housing cha rities includingSHEUER, SIIAC and CI IAII areopposed to strengthening the law,as are the Law Soc iety, The HousingLaw Pra ctitioners Association, TheAssociation of Metropolitan Authori-ties, The Police Federation and theAssociation of Chief Police Officers.Numerous law centres are alsoagainst any change to th e law.

Al l these organisations recognisesquatting for what it is: a symptom ofllritain's housing crisis and not a lawand order issue. They also recognisethat applying public order laws tohousing rights has serious implica-tions. In fact, the proposals beforeparliament are likely to create publicorder disturbances by removingpolice officers from potentiallyviolent situations.

It seems the consultation exercisewas a mere formality as the paperhas been followed by the inclusion ofclauses 56, 57 and new clauses 69 , 70and 71 in the Criminal Justice andPubliPublic Order Dill 1990 .

The Clauses(At the tim e o r going to press)

Clauses 56 and 57 will allowthe owner of a property to apply toa civil court for a new "InterimPossession Order" which will beheard ex-parte. This proposed

4

procedu re is without precedent inBrit ish Law as the occupier will not beallowed [Q attend or to makerepresentations LO the courlS. Once suchan ord er has been granted the occupierswill ha ve 24 hou rs to leave. Fa ilure todo so will result in a criminal offencebeing committed and the risk of arrest

New Clauses 69 and 70 areamendmcnlS to Sec tions 6 and 7 ofthe Criminal Law Act 1977 . The existinglaw provides crimi nal sanctions in anycase where a squatter deprives anowner, long-lease holder or PublicSector tenant of their home. (Thisincludes those intending to move in aswell as those displaced by squatters.)The new clauses extend these sanctionsto private tenants and leaseholders withconSiderably shorter leases.

New CL.\use 71 will allow peoplein the above situations (or their agents)to use violence to secu re evictions thusremoving the need for the presence ofthe police.

The removal of the right to a courthea ring will almost cenainly result inthe eviction (or even arrest) of innocentparties by unscrupulous landlords orinefficient local authorities. New Clause -71 will help such local authorities tokeep property empty in circu mstanceswhere corruption will nourish.

These proposals have been putforward in an atmosphere wheremisconceptions and myths associatedwith squatting have ca rried more weightthan informed debate and consultation .Thi s briefing is a response to some ofthe more com mon misconceptions inorder to provide M Ps, peers and otherinterested parties with a more balancedappraisal of squatting, squalters and theimplications of the new proposals.


5/16

Ordered OutSquatting - a growing threat to the rightsof the individual property owner?

A fundamental error in theConsultation paper (CP), which haslead to the adoption of new clauses 69and 70, lay in its emphasis onsquatting in homes owned by privateindividuals. thousand people" itis claimed in a summaI)' of oneparagraph (CP - para 17), apply 10 thecouns eadl year for a possessionorder. Equaling the number ofindividual property owners with thenumber of applications made in oneyear (9,698) disguises the facI thaI Ihevast majority of these applications willhave been multiple and made by asmall number of local authorities,housing assodations and commercialorganisations. In fact the great majorityof squats are in empty public sectorhousing (owned by local authorities orhousing associations). Of the

Local Authorities 741%

I lousing AssociatiOns 16.5%

remainder, some belong to otherpublic bodies (eg the Departmen l ofTranspo rt , The Ministry of Defence,I3ritish Rail etc. Others belong to largecommerdal concerns. These haveoften been empty fo r even longer th ancouncil stock, and are usua lly inadvanced states of decay.

'J11e Adv iSOry Service forSquallers (ASS) operales a daily adviceservice for squatters, licensees andother homeless people, advising aboutISO people every week. f rom April 10September 1991 it collated informationfrom over 2,


6/16

Ordered QuiAre squatters 'jumping the queue?'

"It is unfa ir tha t local authority propertiesshould be squatted when there a re suchlong housing lists in ce rtain areas."(Kenneth Baker. Hansard, page 160, 15/10/91.)It is often claimed that, by

squatLing, people are stealing a marchon those who have put their names oncouncil housing lists. In fact, in mostparts of the counLry, very few peopleare housed Simply because they are onthis list. Councils nowadaysaccommodate only those to whom theyhave 'statutory' duties, regardless ofwhether they are on the list or no1. Inaddition, the practice of 'choking offdemand' through rulings of 'intentionalhomelessness' has become a wide-spread and often cynically deployedinstrument of housing policy in manyboroughs.

nlOse able to establish that Lheyare homeless and in 'priori ty need' areplaced in temporary accommodationas a matter of course - which invariablymeans a long stay in a bed-and-breakfast hotel. 1\ is no su rprisc then

tha t many squatters have been on thewaiting list for years and a high proportionof squats (about one thi rd) contain familieswho have either not been apprised of theirstatutory rights, or have opted to s q u a ~ as3:n escape from an often intolerable andinterminable stretch in bed-and-breakfastaccommodation.

In fact the Government are proposingto scrar the obligation of local authoritiesto provide permanent housing for thosenot regarded as statutory homeless.Families will literally have to be on thestreet before they will be considered foraccommodation, and even then they willonly be offered temporary respite from thestreets, probably in bed and breakfast orprivate seClor insecure tenancies.

If these proposals arc adopted manymore families will have no other option butto squat in order to proVide a roof forthemselves and their children.

Some Heasons For Squatting. Percentage of squallers.Women escaping domc be tweenAp ri l an d September 199 1.

without children 13.7%


7/16

Ordered Out

Are squatters excluding people from their homes?

"No matter how compelling the squatters' owncircumstances are claimed to be by their apologists,it is wrong that legitimate occupants shouldbedeprived of the use of th eirproperty. " (CP para 5)

Section 7 of t.he Criminal LawAct (977) makes it a criminaloffence to refuse to leave a propenywhen asked to do so by or on behalfof a 'displaced residential occupier'.The same proccdure is available to a'protected intcnding occupier', ie anincoming tcnant of a local authorityor housing association, or somconewho has recentJy bought a propenyand intends to livc lhcrc.

Generally, squatters will notmove into properties that are in a

lettable condition because they knowthat their stay will be a shon one.Indeed, thousands of squatters havechosen to establish homes inpropcnies so fa r advanced indereliction that their owners have allbut given them up as beyond repair.Although local authorities claim thatsquaucrs prevcnt peoplc beinghouscd from the 'waiting list', it is afac t tbat eve!), loca l authority hasmany more homcs standing emptythan are squatted.

Estimated number of empty homes in i3ritain ; 864,000 (DOE).Estimated number ofsquatted properties in Britain ; 17 ,000 (ASS).

'/ want to help those responlib le people who bave put themselves into accomodalionbecause tbey bave seem tbat II is empty. I tbink II is fair to say tbat !Xiry deep in Con-seroative philosophy is that of self-belp mId ifpeople are prepared to try to help them-selves and if they see a property is empty and no aile is using II alld by moving inthey are not go ing to hu rt anYOlle, bw tbey will protect and help their oum family,surely we ought toencourage tbat..... ..you could argue they are perhaps more so-cially responsible in finding empty property and squatting ill there and giving theirfamily a home than putting tbem ill bed & breakfast."

(IJob Hughes, MI', speaking on The London I'rogrnmmc, May 1989.)

7


8/16

Ordered OutDo the current criminal and civil procedures for therecovery of squatted property really work to theadvantage of the squatter at the expense of the owner?

"Co ncern aboUithe civil remedies centres on th e time It can take toregain possession and th e expense. Squatters may well know andexploit the requirements of the civil process ..... " (CP para 33)

The consultation paper allegedthat exisLing civil procedures are slow,expensive and unwieldy but neglectedto menLion that in cases of urgency(and under expedited proceedings) thenoLice period of 7 days can he severelycunailed and an effcctive possessionorder obtained in substamially lessthan a week. (Even where urgency isnot proven, there is no reason whypossession should not be regained inthree weeks. 'lhis is dcmonstrated bythis advenisemcnt from the EstatcsGazelle, 30/ 11 /9 1).

'TRESPASS ERS OFFYOURLANDIN UNDER THR EEWEEKS""NEVER!"

If this is the advice you'vebeen getting, then isn'1 i1 1meyou consuhedCARTER LEMON?-1_-... . .-fOU,ll11. . . . . . . . . . . ' '1__

2,458 applications under summary(squatters) proceedings FAILED in theCounty COUll in 1989 (CI' para 17).'Ihis can on ly suggest that many al-leged squatters were in fact tenants orlicensees, and in addition that councilswere attempLing to evict families towhom they had a statutory duty.8

Mr. Maclean (Con): "111e l Ionour-able Member for Cardiff .... quotedstaLisLics to the effect that there were2,000 legal oc(1Jpiers under the presentciv il proceedings orders. 'Iha t is no ttrue. In most cases the squatters leftvoluntarily, so no order was sought.That perhaps is where he got the figureof 2,000. The number of legal defenceswas very small." (l iansard, StandingCommittee 13, 10th Feb. 94, col 675)

Squatted properties are rarelydefended in the courts and, far frombeing hoodwinked by squatters (as theCP see med to suggesu, judges have nodiscreLion LO dismiss an application forpossession unless a triable issue israised, and often do not do so eventhen. Contrary to Mr. Maclean's ill-informed speculaLion, squatters leavingvoluntarily will never lead to a casebeing dismissed.

'Ihe Home Office was particularlyconcerned with the- phenomenon of"shop-squatling" claiming it often involved "the use of electricity withoutpayment" (C I' para 32). Where thisoccu rs the police already have powersto arrest those responsible and chargethem with theft. Neither is it true that anowner is prevented by secLion 6 of theCriminal law Act 19n from b r e a k i n g apane of glass in his own front door toobtain entry" (C I' para 26a). An offencewould only take place i f there weresomeone on the premises opposed tohis cnlly. On fact a displaced res idenLialoccupier would not be commitLing anoffcnce even if the squaltcrs were inphysill occupation.) Thus the law fallsa long way short of making squalters"almost invulnerable" (CP para 8).


9/16

Ordered OutTenants, licencees and homeless families; A new Rent Act?

Neil Gerrard (Lab. Walthamstow):"Will th e honourable Lady clarify whether she means that aperson in rent an'ears should be treated as a squatter?"Lady Olga Maitland (Can .):"/ would indeed regard such people as squatters. "

(Hansa rd, Standing Committee 13, 10th Feb 94, co l 664.)

The prospect of ex paneproceedings in "squauing" cases isfraught with dangers. The abolitionof a cou rt hcaring prior to evictionwill certainly increase the temptationfor private landlords to try this quickroute to repossession. Tenams andlicensees who have not signed acontract, pay rent in cash , havewithheld renl in lieu of outstandingrepairs or simply have fallen intorent arrea rs will be espcciallyvulnerable to unscrupulouslandlords misrepresenting them assquatters.

The proposed offence of makinga false statement under the newprocedure (carrying a sentence of 2years imprisonment) is unlikely tobe effective . Landlords who try tomislead the courts under the presentsystem commit the much morcserious offence of perjury (whichcarries a sentence of 7 years inprison) but even this has not beenan adequate deterrent.

What may not be appreciated isthat public sector tenants will alsobe at risk. Almost every week theASS see cases of council tenants andoccasionally those of I lousingAssociations mistakenly proccededagainst as allegedly unknownsquatters. The protection of a courthearing is crucial to aUow such

errors to be rectified an d avoid theprospect of legitimate tenants beingthrown on to th e st ree ts.

The offence of making a falsestatement is unlikely to affectcouncils and housing associations asit is required to be done "knowinglyor recklessly" and this is unlikely LOcover the common situation ofadministrative muddle.

Families unlawfully deniedhOUSing by th ei r local authoritiesand those fleeing intolerableconditions of harassment will alsobe hard hit by the proposedlegislation. Families in suchcircumstances account for one thirdof squatters, and the coun hearingbefore an eviction can prove vital.Defendants can apply to havethei r case adjourned whilst they takejudicial review proceedings againstthdr local authority to assert theirright to app ropria te housing.Ge nerally the council witl face up totheir obligations at this point andallow the proceedings to lapse. Theproposed legislation would denythese people the opportunity tohave such issues resolved in opencourt whilst retaining a roof overtheir heads, and thus removes a lastline of defence for some of th e mos tvulnerable in housing need.

9


10/16

Ordered Ou t

Is there a need to extend the scope of the Criminal Law?

The existing provisions ofSeclion 6 of the Criminal Law Act1977 make it an offence for a personlO use violence to secure entry toany premises, providing there is aperson on the premises opposed tothe ent ry. It protects owners andtenants as well as squatters.

However, the offence can not becommitted by a "Displacedresidential occupier" (ORO). Onceentry has been obtained, trespassersmay be evicted using ureasonablcforce" .

Seclion 7 of the same Actdefines ~ l e status of DRO and alsoprovides for cenain persons to be~ P r o t e c t c d intending occupiers"(PIO).

A Pia is someone who requiresthe premises for his/ her residence "atthat lime". It is already an offence fora trespasser to fail to leave on beingasked to do so by or on behalf of aORO or Pia, and the police havepowers of arrest.

There are two types of PIO,which may be described as "privateseClQr" and ~ p u b l i c sector".

(a) A private Pia must currentlybe a freehold owner or hold a leasewith at least 21 years remaining, andmust sign a certificate stating thebrief facts in the presence of aJuslice of the Peace or Commissionerfor Oaths. The Act includes penaltiesfor a private Pia who makes a falsestatement.

(b ) A "public sector" PIO needsto have been "au th orised to occupy "

IO

the premises "at that t ime by a localauthority or housing association.The significant difference lies in thecenificate. It is simply issued by thelandlord body, there is norequirement for it to be signed inthe presence of a Justice of thePeace, nor arc there any penalties incases where a false statement ismade.

!\'cw Clauses 69 and 70 seem toextend the existing act to coverprivate tenants, licensees andleaseholders with 2 years or moreremaining. It is unclear why thesenew clauses arc needed, consideringthat there is no evidence whateverof private tenants being preventedfrom occupying their homes bysquatters.

In 17 years of monitoring theAct, ASS ha s not recorded a Singleinstance of the use of a ~ p r i v a t e " type of PIO certifi cate, nor ofanyone being required to leave by agenuine DHO, indicating the verylow incidence of squatting in suchproperties. The proposed clausesare therefore unlikely to have anyar>plication in genuine cases. Theywill , however, create a temptationfor unscrupulous landlords to grantshort term tenancies ( 0 theirassociates specifically to takeadvantage of the legislation andremove unwanted occupiers, whomay not be trespassers at all orwhose status may be in doubt andrequire the determinalion of thecourts.


11/16

Ordered Out

Abuse of the Criminal Law at present and in the future.

In the public sector the existingAct is systematically abused by anumber of local authorities, wholake advantage of the lack ofpenalties to routinely issue allegedP[O certificates whenever premisesare squatted. The abuse is mostclearl y evidenced by the fact thatla rge numbers of properties affectedremain empty indefinitely, and notenant moved in. Indeed, in somecases the properties have beenva ndalised by the council toPREVE;,\,T ocrupation. It is clear thatat prese nt the public sector PIOprovisions are abused to enableinefficient local authorities to keerlarge numbers of their rrorertiesempty.

In the light of such widespreadabuse, there is no logical reasonwhy local authorities and housingassociations should Ix: exempt from

the penalties imposed on privateP[Os who make false statements,particularly as it is in the public sectorthat established abuses ocrur. Nor isthere any reason why therequirements for private PIOs to signa certi ficate in front of a Justice of thePeace shou ld not be extended tolocal authorities.

The PIO procedure is a drasticone, enabling the supervision of thecourts to be bypassed, and it isimportant th at its use is confined togenuine cases.

[n 1989, the Advisory Service ForSquatters monitored 26 flats in theLondon Borough of Ilackney whichhad been subject to PIO ce rtificatesissued by that local authority. All thesquatters ld t in order for theincoming tenants to move in . Theevictions took place between 14/9/89and 30/ 5/9 1. On the 21/7/91 ten ofthe nats were st il l empty.

Public Order and the new proposals.;\!ew Clause 71, which will

enable PIOs of both tyres or theiragents to use violence to evicttrespassers will render such abuseseven more dangerous. There is agrave danger that this extension orth e frecdom to carry Ollt violententry to PIOs and their agcnls (iethe landlord body itself) will resultin the creation of a new breed ofprivate bailiffs employed for thepurpose. Thi s is totally unnecessaryas the police can cu rrently arrest

occupiers who fail to leave ingenuine cases and the property ca nthen be repossessed. Such bailiffswill be unaccountable to anyone butthe landlord .

The removal of the police fromsuch situations is bound to result inbreaches of th e peace, and maybeeven assaults. It is indeed ironic thatthe proposals of a Pub lic Order J3illmay be removing the police frompotential threats to public order.

I I


12/16

Ordered OutHomelessness, The Real Problem

"/ ca n forsee police involved in thefo rcible evictionf rom premises and th oseprem ises remaining emply, boarded up and people saying: "Was it necessary?"I can see the problem ofmaking crim inals ofpeople who are desperate toget theirJives back in balance. So meone who has been made redundant, someone whosquats in premises - who pays jorgas, electricity and water. Along comes apoliceman and evicts them. That 's not wh at Ijoined the po lice fo r and I don 't thinka lot ojpeople did. "Sgt Mike Bennctl, Cha irman of the Metropo li tan Police Federation.

The inclusion of measures tocombat squauing in a Criminal Justiceand Pub lic Order Bill is ill-conceived.Squatting is not a law and order issuebut a short term solution to an everescalating housing crisis.There are many factors affectinghomelcssness including; thc sale ofcouncil properties, the closure ofhostels, the introduction of the 1988Housing Act, the discharge of patientswith mental health problems into thecommunity , the w ithd rawal of HousingBenefit for students an d teenagers,prohibitively expensive deposits forentrance to the private rented sectorand the eviction of home owners whohave been unable to meet theirmortgage repayments.

Apart from this we also have:, Proposed changes to benefit

regulations will exclude manythousands of people from I lousing13enefil. The proposed reduction of7,000 personnel in the armed forceswill res ult in more homelessness.Hesearch shows that 25% of peoplesleeping rough have formerly been inthe armed services. The Government's I lomeless-ness Review wi ll remove obligat ions onlocal authorities to provide permanenthousing for homeless families inpriori ty need., Single people are beingprogressively squeezed out of "shortlife" housing, as housing associationsand co-ops are forced to close their

12

waiting li sts to cope wi th councilreferrals. Government proposa ls affec tingplanning permission applications for

hotels taking in rcsidents dcpendcnt onbenefits will threaten the very existenceof such hotels and cause widespreadhomclcssncss, especially in coastaltowns.

The only way to eradicate squattingis to tackle the underlying issues thatcause it , ie empty property andhomelessness .

Some pos itive meas ures would be: The extension of licences to theoccupiers of disused and neglected

property. The reinstatement of security oftenu re and realistic rent levels for privatetenants. The rechanelli ng of fundsreceived by the Government from thesale of ] .2 million council homes, tobuild new homes and re novate publiclyowned empty property. The ex pansion of self buildschemes to those unable to afford sha redownership and of mortgage-ta-rent

schemes for those in mortgage arrears. The restoration of I lousingBenefit and Income Support to studentsand those aged 16-19. The crea tion of an independentdeposits authority to prevent landlords

withholding deposits under falsepretences. The introduction of DSS loans toprospective tenants to cover deposits andentry costs.


13/16

Ordered Out

Who are the squatters?

"/s the Home Secretary C/wa re that many of thosewbo engage in squCltting .... are often aggressive,intolerant and intimidating?"

(S ir John Wheele r, MP. Hansard, Page 155 , 15/ 10/9 1.)"Anti-social parasites" (Kenneth Bak er)" that 's why we'll gel tough on amzed robbers, ge t laugh on rapists and gettough On squauers." (Kcnncth Baker in response to rising crime figures.)

We hope that the following case histories will go some way torebalancing what legal Action Magazine described as "false stereotypes"(November 91). These, and thousands of others, are the real squatters;

Anja (23) and Peter (31), piC-tured with Freia (3) and Finn ( -1months) have been squatting in acouncil property in Lambeth for thelast four years . Before giving birth I : : : ito Finn, Anja qualified as a cabinet l.imakerj Peter is studying to becomea tcacher. When they first movedin, the property had been guttedby fire and lacked evcn the mostbasic amenities. They invested agreat deal of their time and energy,as well as the little money theyhad, in making it habitable oncemarc. Struggling to bring up twochildren without the income derivedfrom full or even parHimc employ

ment, they havc not had th e means torent pr ivately. Thcy have rece ntlybecome licensees of Lambeth Council.

13


14/16

Ordered Oul

Terry (28), pictured withJulius and Kieren (both aged 8),has been squalling in a HackneyCouncil flat for two years. Shemoved from Sheffield in order to

Joh n (28) and Sophie


15/16

Hod (22) works in a pizzarestaurant. l ie squats in a council flat inCamden which has ocen untenanted forat least a decade. l ie earns 100 a week.l ie is not eligible to be housed by thecouncil and cannot afford the hugedeposits being asked by local landlords.

Patrick (25) squats in a councilflat in Camden after being evictedthree times in one year. I lis presenthome has chronic subsidence and hasbeen empty for five years. lie is on aGovernment training scheme isentitled to 50 a week ocncfil, andhopes to occomc a joiner. WAs anable-bodied single person I have nocha nce of being housed by theCou ncil, and there 's no way I couldhope to save the money required topay a deposit for private renting outof the money [ get each week . Andthat 's even if r could rei}' on the DSSto make housing benefit paymentspromptly."

Ineligible for housing fromher local council, Carol (29),pictured with Zachary (J I m o n t h ~ ) , moved into a squatted councilpr9PCny in Lambeth which hadex tensive fire damage. After thebinh of Zachary, she fell within thecategory of 'priority need' but choseto rema in where she was inpreferen ce to a long stay in bcd-and-breakfast. Like Anja and Peter,she has recently become :1 licenseeof Larnlx:th Council.

Ordered Out

15


16/16

SQUASH 199-1.

Squash Ordered Out 1994

Documents

Transcript of Squash Ordered Out 1994