The ArgusHousesitters paid to protect Brighton mansion from squatters (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

Housesitters paid to protect Brighton mansion from squatters

Housesitters are being paid to occupy an 18th Century mansion to prevent squatters from moving in.

Grade II* Listed Patcham Place in Preston Road, Brighton, has been empty since 2007 when the Youth Hostels Association’s lease expired.

Since then, Brighton and Hove City Council has paid private firm Camelot Property Management to ensure the £2 million building does not become overrun by squatters.

The London-based firm has recruited a group of seven people who pay a “peppercorn rent” to live in the property.

While it is the only public building in the city to be currently housed in such a way, it is thought other buildings in the city are “occupied” by private companies for similar reasons.

The revelation follows news that squatters had moved into a £1 million house near Preston Park, leading some to claim the council had not done enough to maintain their empty properties. For full report see today's Argus

Comments (10)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:11pm Tue 21 Sep 10

mtmoocher says...

Why are the Council paying a private company from London to run this scheme? There is a housing list with people who would jump at the chance to live in these sort of buildings for a peppercorn rent & maintain them to a good standard. It would give them some respite & self-belief whilst easing the housing list.
Beggars belief!
Why are the Council paying a private company from London to run this scheme? There is a housing list with people who would jump at the chance to live in these sort of buildings for a peppercorn rent & maintain them to a good standard. It would give them some respite & self-belief whilst easing the housing list. Beggars belief! mtmoocher
  • Score: 0

2:17pm Tue 21 Sep 10

GrumbleAlong says...

I know one of the people living there. He gets low cost rent, the owners get an occupied property whilst it's being renovated. I don't see a problem with this.
And how come it's taken this long for the Argus to find out?
I know one of the people living there. He gets low cost rent, the owners get an occupied property whilst it's being renovated. I don't see a problem with this. And how come it's taken this long for the Argus to find out? GrumbleAlong
  • Score: 0

3:23pm Tue 21 Sep 10

dunderheads says...

GrumbleAlong wrote:
I know one of the people living there. He gets low cost rent, the owners get an occupied property whilst it's being renovated. I don't see a problem with this.
And how come it's taken this long for the Argus to find out?
it is the Argus!
[quote][p][bold]GrumbleAlong[/bold] wrote: I know one of the people living there. He gets low cost rent, the owners get an occupied property whilst it's being renovated. I don't see a problem with this. And how come it's taken this long for the Argus to find out?[/p][/quote]it is the Argus! dunderheads
  • Score: 0

3:26pm Tue 21 Sep 10

Ballroom Blitz says...

mtmoocher wrote:
Why are the Council paying a private company from London to run this scheme? There is a housing list with people who would jump at the chance to live in these sort of buildings for a peppercorn rent & maintain them to a good standard. It would give them some respite & self-belief whilst easing the housing list. Beggars belief!
Simple. The company that provides the occupiers will have a contract with the council that means they can be moved out whenever the council wants.
If they had proper tenants in there, ther would be all sorts of legal hurdles and hoops to jump through if they wanted to regain occupancy of the property quickly.
And best of all, it keeps the freeloading squatters out.
The people living there are still 'people' being housed.
What's the problem?
Sounds like a win-win situation to me.
[quote][p][bold]mtmoocher[/bold] wrote: Why are the Council paying a private company from London to run this scheme? There is a housing list with people who would jump at the chance to live in these sort of buildings for a peppercorn rent & maintain them to a good standard. It would give them some respite & self-belief whilst easing the housing list. Beggars belief![/p][/quote]Simple. The company that provides the occupiers will have a contract with the council that means they can be moved out whenever the council wants. If they had proper tenants in there, ther would be all sorts of legal hurdles and hoops to jump through if they wanted to regain occupancy of the property quickly. And best of all, it keeps the freeloading squatters out. The people living there are still 'people' being housed. What's the problem? Sounds like a win-win situation to me. Ballroom Blitz
  • Score: 0

2:31am Wed 22 Sep 10

jimjim79 says...

Housesitters are being paid to occupy an 18th Century mansion to prevent squatters from moving in.

The London-based firm has recruited a group of seven people who pay a “peppercorn rent” to live in the property.


This article contradicts itself, only one of these statements can be factual.
Housesitters are being paid to occupy an 18th Century mansion to prevent squatters from moving in. The London-based firm has recruited a group of seven people who pay a “peppercorn rent” to live in the property. This article contradicts itself, only one of these statements can be factual. jimjim79
  • Score: 0

11:33am Wed 22 Sep 10

pun master says...

jimjim79 wrote:
Housesitters are being paid to occupy an 18th Century mansion to prevent squatters from moving in. The London-based firm has recruited a group of seven people who pay a “peppercorn rent” to live in the property. This article contradicts itself, only one of these statements can be factual.
How dare you criticise the quality of journalism in the Argus.... Don't you know that they've been nominated for awards... AWARDS I tell you!!!! AWARDS!!!!
[quote][p][bold]jimjim79[/bold] wrote: Housesitters are being paid to occupy an 18th Century mansion to prevent squatters from moving in. The London-based firm has recruited a group of seven people who pay a “peppercorn rent” to live in the property. This article contradicts itself, only one of these statements can be factual.[/p][/quote]How dare you criticise the quality of journalism in the Argus.... Don't you know that they've been nominated for awards... AWARDS I tell you!!!! AWARDS!!!! pun master
  • Score: 0

3:00pm Wed 22 Sep 10

ssilkystone says...

We have over 10K on the housing waiting list how come this property was'nt converted years ago to house some of those waiting, how about investigating how many empty properties the council has.
We have over 10K on the housing waiting list how come this property was'nt converted years ago to house some of those waiting, how about investigating how many empty properties the council has. ssilkystone
  • Score: 0

1:26am Thu 23 Sep 10

jimjim79 says...

ssilkystone wrote:
We have over 10K on the housing waiting list how come this property was'nt converted years ago to house some of those waiting, how about investigating how many empty properties the council has.
my guess is it wouldn't be cost effective for the council. For the cost of conversation into flats many more could homes could be built from scratch that would house many more people.
[quote][p][bold]ssilkystone[/bold] wrote: We have over 10K on the housing waiting list how come this property was'nt converted years ago to house some of those waiting, how about investigating how many empty properties the council has.[/p][/quote]my guess is it wouldn't be cost effective for the council. For the cost of conversation into flats many more could homes could be built from scratch that would house many more people. jimjim79
  • Score: 0

9:40am Fri 24 Sep 10

mtmoocher says...

Ballroom Blitz wrote:
mtmoocher wrote: Why are the Council paying a private company from London to run this scheme? There is a housing list with people who would jump at the chance to live in these sort of buildings for a peppercorn rent & maintain them to a good standard. It would give them some respite & self-belief whilst easing the housing list. Beggars belief!
Simple. The company that provides the occupiers will have a contract with the council that means they can be moved out whenever the council wants. If they had proper tenants in there, ther would be all sorts of legal hurdles and hoops to jump through if they wanted to regain occupancy of the property quickly. And best of all, it keeps the freeloading squatters out. The people living there are still 'people' being housed. What's the problem? Sounds like a win-win situation to me.
If it's that simple - which was implicit in my original point - why pay a London agency for this? Operate it on the same basis & get best "value for money" whilst deriving the same benefits!
[quote][p][bold]Ballroom Blitz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mtmoocher[/bold] wrote: Why are the Council paying a private company from London to run this scheme? There is a housing list with people who would jump at the chance to live in these sort of buildings for a peppercorn rent & maintain them to a good standard. It would give them some respite & self-belief whilst easing the housing list. Beggars belief![/p][/quote]Simple. The company that provides the occupiers will have a contract with the council that means they can be moved out whenever the council wants. If they had proper tenants in there, ther would be all sorts of legal hurdles and hoops to jump through if they wanted to regain occupancy of the property quickly. And best of all, it keeps the freeloading squatters out. The people living there are still 'people' being housed. What's the problem? Sounds like a win-win situation to me.[/p][/quote]If it's that simple - which was implicit in my original point - why pay a London agency for this? Operate it on the same basis & get best "value for money" whilst deriving the same benefits! mtmoocher
  • Score: 0

5:37pm Tue 28 Sep 10

jimjim79 says...

Lets see you're best value for money option is for the council to setup a new department, have lawyers write contracts and mirror all the services camelot property management already offer, just to manage and protect one property.

I'm with the council on this one, they have saved this historic house. Look what has happened to the former towner art gallery in eastbourne which has been empty for since 2007.
Lets see you're best value for money option is for the council to setup a new department, have lawyers write contracts and mirror all the services camelot property management already offer, just to manage and protect one property. I'm with the council on this one, they have saved this historic house. Look what has happened to the former towner art gallery in eastbourne which has been empty for since 2007. jimjim79
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree