Rushcroft road: notice to quit

[wurlycurly]

Have you got any evidence of this,if so name and shame them Lee stylee.

I'd rather not thanks, although it's hardly a secret

 

[peterkro]

In my involvement in squatting I've only know this to happen once (my present upstairs neighbour as it happens).I surprised and angry if this is more common than I thought.Cunts.

 

[Rushy]

In my involvement in squatting I've only know this to happen once (my present upstairs neighbour as it happens).I surprised and angry if this is more common than I thought.Cunts.

I bought my first flat in Brixton from the people who had originally squatted the building. They were very proud to tell me that they had gone to the council and expressed an interest in buying two neighbouring six bed houses which they were currently occupying. The council (not knowing that they were living there) advised them that the properties were squatted and agree to sell them for a massively discounted price of 10k each. Fairly soon after, they subdivided one of them and sold it off as two flats for about £150,000. Then their arty pursuit turned into a successful business and they moved to the country side, but kept the second house and rented it to sharers at close to market rent. And then they sold it for 33x what they paid for it.

To be honest, my only issue here is with the council for mismanaging the properties and agreeing to sell them off so cheaply (even for the early 90s). But there was certainly never any idealism in any of the squatters actions.

I also know people who had several coop properties in Brixton at once and rented the others out at market rates for a profit. They were eventually caught out but still have one property.

 

[wurlycurly]

I bought my first flat in Brixton from the people who had originally squatted the building. They were very proud to tell me that they had gone to the council and expressed an interest in buying two neighbouring six bed houses which they were currently occupying. The council (not knowing that they were living there) advised them that the properties were squatted and agree to sell them for a massively discounted price of 10k each. Fairly soon after, they subdivided one of them and sold it off as two flats for about £150,000. Then their arty pursuit turned into a successful business and they moved to the country side, but kept the second house and rented it to sharers at close to market rent. And then they sold it for 33x what they paid for it.

To be honest, my only issue here is with the council for mismanaging the properties and agreeing to sell them off so cheaply (even for the early 90s). But there was certainly never any idealism in any of the squatters actions.

I also know people who had several coop properties in Brixton at once and rented the others out at market rates for a profit. They were eventually caught out but still have one property.

I think subletting is a strange concept when it comes to squatting. It's very unethical. I could maybe understand it if the rent was very cheap but £400 a month for a room is fairly standard.

 

[peterkro]

My community is being decimated at the moment and yes I'm surprised by the number of people who've gone for self interest.Some people (all middle class) have bought at Lambeth's discount (leveraging their families capital) some have gone for adverse possession (I've got more reason to be successful at this than any of them but politically I can't stomach it) and it breaks my heart that some of those who were the loudest about property rights are now those playing the system.There are a few brave people who won't compromise and I am amazed by them (working class to a person).Fuck them all I was serious,I don't want to "own" property I'll take my chance.I was an idealist and still am.

 

[wemakeyousoundb]

To be fair I've always heard stories of people letting out squats or room within, never looked into it but always thought it was wrong if true, never went for it when I was squatting despite actually having been offered money by people, it's just wrong. Same as stories of people "selling" squats.

 

[Gramsci]

Wasn't the point of the piece that the original community would have their housing needs assessed by the same yardstick that is used to assess everyone else's? Do you disagree with that principle?

In effect using that yardstick means they wont get rehoused. Over the years social housing has been decimated. Assessing needs in the context of little or no social housing being built over the past ten years or so is a joke.

 

[Winot]

In effect using that yardstick means they wont get rehoused. Over the years social housing has been decimated. Assessing needs in the context of little or no social housing being built over the past ten years or so is a joke.

I'm sure you're right, but that's a different issue isn't it - the absolute amount of social housing that's available (or not).

I was talking about how that social housing is distributed. Your post gave the impression that you thought former occupants should go to the front of the queue for the small amount of housing available. I'm not sure that's fair.

 

[Gramsci]

I'm sure you're right, but that's a different issue isn't it - the absolute amount of social housing that's available (or not).

I was talking about how that social housing is distributed. Your post gave the impression that you thought former occupants should go to the front of the queue for the small amount of housing available. I'm not sure that's fair.

I see extremely wealthy people living in big houses in London. Thats not fair. Getting into a discussion about who or who should not get affordable housing in a country like this where it would be possible to build enough housing for all is not fair.

 

[Winot]

I see extremely wealthy people living in big houses in London. Thats not fair. Getting into a discussion about who or who should not get affordable housing in a country like this where it would be possible to build enough housing for all is not fair.

OK I'll leave it there

 

[dappergent]

According to the lawyer I spoke to,the adverse possession law only counts upto 2003,therefor everyone would have had to have claimed since 1991 to qualify.My big problem with lambeth council is the fact tht this decision has been hanging over us all since 2003 and was'finalised' in 2006,yet bugger all was actualy done,Many of my friends bailed out then in fear and yet here we are again 6 year later in the same situation with yet another councillor 'getting tough' on squatters.We IMPROVED the hovels we inherited and surely must fight this again? They have tried to frighten us out again with May's letters but on looking at it closely,why was this extension of the possession orders taken in Cardiff? To prevent any of us attending..? And why did Steeles Law not give any of us prior notice,as required by law? We may be fighting a losing battle,but I at least,intend to fight...

 

[peterkro]

According to the lawyer I spoke to,the adverse possession law only counts upto 2003,therefor everyone would have had to have claimed since 1991 to qualify.My big problem with lambeth council is the fact tht this decision has been hanging over us all since 2003 and was'finalised' in 2006,yet bugger all was actualy done,Many of my friends bailed out then in fear and yet here we are again 6 year later in the same situation with yet another councillor 'getting tough' on squatters.We IMPROVED the hovels we inherited and surely must fight this again? They have tried to frighten us out again with May's letters but on looking at it closely,why was this extension of the possession orders taken in Cardiff? To prevent any of us attending..? And why did Steeles Law not give any of us prior notice,as required by law? We may be fighting a losing battle,but I at least,intend to fight...

No,after 2003 the law was tilted further in favour of the councils,after a few years of courts just rubber stamping councils claims it has now swung back in favour of the claimants ,so some of the cases now going down in Lambeth may result in successful claims for adverse possession. Personally I think those doing it are shits.Finally I've been accepted for another housing co-op in south London,so it's goodbye Brixton but I'll only be a shortish walk away.(by the way it's a defence to go to the European court to stay under the Human rights act)

 

[wemakeyousoundb]

No,after 2003 the law was tilted further in favour of the councils,after a few years of courts just rubber stamping councils claims it has now swung back in favour of the claimants ,so some of the cases now going down in Lambeth may result in successful claims for adverse possession. Personally I think those doing it are shits.Finally I've been accepted for another housing co-op in south London,so it's goodbye Brixton but I'll only be a shortish walk away.(by the way it's a defence to go to the European court to stay under the Human rights act)

Would the bolded statement be a blanket condemnation of anyone going for adverse possession or is this specifically aimed at those going for it when squatting social housing stock?

 

[peterkro]

Would the bolded statement be a blanket condemnation of anyone going for adverse possession or is this specifically aimed at those going for it when squatting social housing stock?

Just social housing,people who occupy properties owned by absentee owners and keep occupation for twelve years deserve to have rights to the property.

 

[Rushy]

Just social housing,people who occupy properties owned by absentee owners and keep occupation for twelve years deserve to have rights to the property.

It doesn't quite work like that anymore. After 10yrs occupiers have the right to apply to register the property into their name. The registered owner will be notified by the Land Registry and given a period (not sure whether it is 6 months or 2 years) in which they can reassert their ownership.

I'm not a fan of squatting as I don't think it should be up to an individual acting in their own interest to decide what property is fair game for occupation. That said, given that land and houses are under so much pressure in the UK, I agree that if a property owner neglects their land / building to the extent that someone else can occupy it unchallenged or without an implied agreement for 10yrs then the property owners rights should be wide open to challenge.

 

[wemakeyousoundb]

AFAIK it's register after 10 years so that they have 2 years to seek the registered owner.

 

[peterkro]

It's six month's after notification AFIK.

 

[wemakeyousoundb]

found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession#England_and_Wales
"Where land is registered, the adverse possessor may apply to be registered as owner after 10 years[18] of adverse possession and the Land Registry must give notice to the true owner of this application.[19] This gives the landowner a statutory period of time [65 business days] to object to the adverse possession, and if they do so the application fails. Otherwise, the squatter becomes the registered properietor according to the land registry. If the true owner is unable to evict the squatter in the two years following the first application, the squatter can apply again after this period and be successful despite the opposition of the owner. The process effectively prevents the removal of a landowner's right to property without his knowledge, while ensuring squatters have a fair way exercising their rights."

So I was wrong.

 

[Rushy]

found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession#England_and_Wales
"Where land is registered, the adverse possessor may apply to be registered as owner after 10 years[18] of adverse possession and the Land Registry must give notice to the true owner of this application.[19] This gives the landowner a statutory period of time [65 business days] to object to the adverse possession, and if they do so the application fails. Otherwise, the squatter becomes the registered properietor according to the land registry. If the true owner is unable to evict the squatter in the two years following the first application, the squatter can apply again after this period and be successful despite the opposition of the owner. The process effectively prevents the removal of a landowner's right to property without his knowledge, while ensuring squatters have a fair way exercising their rights."

So I was wrong.

I think it should be easier than it currently is to evict squatters in the first 6 months of an occupation but harder than it is for the registered titleholder to reject registration after 10yrs unchallenged occupation has been proven. AFAIK Lambeth has made a point of reaffirming their interest on a fairly regular basis, even if squatters were not actually evicted, so I doubt there is any case in law for the current occupants.

 

[peterkro]

As I said in an earlier post things have changed,Judges are now requiring more evidence from councils than their usual sending out of letters.For instance they did a street envelope program on my street which included in their communication "this does not imply a right to occupy" this undermines their theory they where establishing their rights as owners.I don't think many are going to get adverse possession but it's certainly more likely than it has been for the last decade.

( this makes moot that those claiming no connection with head licences are covered in communications because it admits some houses may not have been included in head licences)

 

[Rushy]

As I said in an earlier post things have changed,Judges are now requiring more evidence from councils than their usual sending out of letters.For instance they did a street envelope program on my street which included in their communication "this does not imply a right to occupy" this undermines their theory they where establishing their rights as owners.I don't think many are going to get adverse possession but it's certainly more likely than it has been for the last decade.

( this makes moot that those claiming no connection with head licences are covered in communications because it admits some houses may not have been included in head licences)

I thought I'd read a post on here from a Rushcroft resident that Lambeth had carried out proceedings a few years ago but never followed through with evictions? I can't find it now so may have imagined it!

What's a street envelope program?

 

[peterkro]

Street envelope is a program to ensure weatherproofing and Maintenance painting,the point being they did all houses but felt it was important they used the the clause "this doesn't infer right to occupy" which means at that time they were unsure which houses came under the head licence.

 

[wemakeyousoundb]

I think it should be easier than it currently is to evict squatters in the first 6 months of an occupation but harder than it is for the registered titleholder to reject registration after 10yrs unchallenged occupation has been proven. AFAIK Lambeth has made a point of reaffirming their interest on a fairly regular basis, even if squatters were not actually evicted, so I doubt there is any case in law for the current occupants.

I only know a couple of resident there and they do not have a claim.
I think even the really long term resident would have been part of the co-op when it was running so I doubt they'd have a claim either.
The 2 lots of squatters I know who got adverse possession were in private buildings and the owner were untraceable, in fact in one case all we could find out is that they'd had to leave the country due to some sort of wrongdoings, the house was squatted by different groups for about 18 years before someone could put a claim to it, I sure wish I'd had the faith to go and squat it myself so I could be a proud landowner and look down on all those illegal immigrants and benefit spongers.

 

[wemakeyousoundb]

I have a new plan to become part of the landed class:
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article-2184334/Empty-houses-sale-1-Britains-cheapest-street.html