Hove squatters cost bereaved family thousands (From The Argus)

They can count themselves lucky - the property doesn't look like it been damaged much. They can also count themselves lucky that they can spend £100 k renovating a property that they can then afford to leave empty.

Well what idiot gave squatters rights years ago? Change the law you bunch of idiots!

Sorry but the system will let you down on this one.

No government is EVER going to ever tell me that if squatters invade my home it’s tough and I have to go through the courts

God help them then if this was to happen to me

I will not pay thousands to remove Thieving scum like this. I will go round with a few friends and give them a good hiding!

I will not tolerate this!! And before anyone says to me you can’t take the law into your own hands well I say you can! If it’s a stupid law!

I have known people in this situation and some could not afford to get these scumbags removed so they rely on friends to go round and teach them a lesson!! And it works!!

It’s not your house so except the consequences|!! You bunch of leeching scumbags!

When squatters are found do the council charge them council tax for the period they have been there? Doubt it very much!!

I would have got them out for a monkey

The so called 'squatters rights' law is completely stupid and needs repealing. I though this government promised to do this, or is it yet another thing they have done a U-turn on?
gheese77 - you are an idiot, pure and simple.
When my parents died we had to clear the house and then pay to redecorate it to sell it. It was empty for a good 6 months before it sold.
Why is this wrong in your twisted world view, and why does it being empty give anyone the right to invade someone's PRIVATE property?

Anybody who has a problem with squatters might want to contact a certain Mr. Nicholas Van Hoogstraten for advice; I hear that he is in the 'removals' business...

tut tut to infer NvH is in the removals business is possibly unwise (legally ) however when asking for advice I would be surprised if he didnt know a man who is.
I do not believe he suffers from squatters,
a word in the ear as to whose property they have accidentally and mistakenly occupied would be enough to ensure any sane persons immediate vacation of the property
sometime having a (good) reputation is an advantage, also saves on unessacary legal fees

Glad to see the standard of Argus 'journalism' hasn't changed. You repeatedly say "Hove squatters cost bereaved family thousands" yet the £5,000 was actually spent on a security firm, and a pretty bad one by the looks of it.

I guess security firm charge thousands for shoddy job doesn't sell so many papers.

Lisa Cockin have every "right to ask them to leave" and they may well have agreed to go if she'd spoke to them. Also they weren't stopping you form entering your "own home", they were using as their home a building you've left empty for a year.

How exactly had Mike Weatherly "supported them in their campaign"? Has he offered to pay the families court fees or is he merely going to try and further his political career of their backs?

Mike Weatherly should have said that it is outrageous that previous governments have allwowed this law to remain in existence. It is his job to do something about it.

Where are the usual idiots saying how great squatters are now? And how did they 'improve' this property by damaging the carpet and having house parties inside?? Utter scum of the earth, don't think I would be able to do it the legal way. There are cheaper more direct ways to get these vermin out of your property and I think if I was going through a bereavement I wouldn't think twice about using other options.
I think makhno has completely failed to see the point here and unbelievabley seems to be defending these low life scum. I'm not sure he read the post right as it said the £5k was on security AND legal action (which can be very expensive). He says Lisa Cockin had every right to ask them to leave!!!! Of course she does but she shouldn't have to you idiot!!! Where did he read that the building was empty? I read that they were renovating it - two very different situations. I just hope the next house they squatters move into collapses on them.

i met these squatters. they were all really nice people.
Basically what happened was a bunch of people were homeless, found a building with an open window, went in and put up a section six. All completely legal. the police went there three times and never found any evidence of criminal damage.
the house had no for sale sign and didnt appear to be in use so it was only natural for people to think it was going to waste.
The company that the owners paid to secure the building were rubbish. the cockin's were fools to have paid them anything. the remainder of the 'thousands' could also have been avoided if they had just gone through the proceedure for a standard possession order rather than paying for the much more expensive interim possession order. it would have been cheaper still if they had just communicated directly with the squatters and come to a reasonable agreement. squatting is so hard in this town that squatters are desperate for a place to live and would have been grateful for an offer of only a few weeks while they looked for a new place. perhaps if the cockins had gone down this route the squatters would cleaned up after themselves even more. as it was there really wasnt very much mess, as these pictures show. if there had really been a squat party at this place the damage would have been a lot worse and there would have been noise complaints.
mike weatherly is just using the cockins and the argus as a tool for his ridiculous campaign against squatters rights which doesnt have a hope in hell of getting through parliament.

While I don't advocate violence, this is one area where what is legal and what is moral are at odds. I think it would have been fair for the home owners to have firstly told the squatters to leave and failing that, had them ejected with reasonable force. Why should the homeowners be out of pocket to support someone else's chosen lifestyle? I am generally for government welfare programs that aim to get people back on their feet, but if someone chooses a squatters lifestyle, private citizens should not have to pay the price. The squatters rights laws need to be reviewed to prevent this kind of thing happening.

Mr Hoogstraten would NOT have tolerated that.

smelly anarchist wrote:
i met these squatters. they were all really nice people.
Basically what happened was a bunch of people were homeless, found a building with an open window, went in and put up a section six. All completely legal. the police went there three times and never found any evidence of criminal damage.
the house had no for sale sign and didnt appear to be in use so it was only natural for people to think it was going to waste.
The company that the owners paid to secure the building were rubbish. the cockin's were fools to have paid them anything. the remainder of the 'thousands' could also have been avoided if they had just gone through the proceedure for a standard possession order rather than paying for the much more expensive interim possession order. it would have been cheaper still if they had just communicated directly with the squatters and come to a reasonable agreement. squatting is so hard in this town that squatters are desperate for a place to live and would have been grateful for an offer of only a few weeks while they looked for a new place. perhaps if the cockins had gone down this route the squatters would cleaned up after themselves even more. as it was there really wasnt very much mess, as these pictures show. if there had really been a squat party at this place the damage would have been a lot worse and there would have been noise complaints.
mike weatherly is just using the cockins and the argus as a tool for his ridiculous campaign against squatters rights which doesnt have a hope in hell of getting through parliament.

Ah, now that's where you are wrong. It DOES have quite a good chance of getting through parliament, now that Torys are in power.

Probable friends of that 'Crim' Sparky, he always thinks society owes him a living and his friends are exempt from the laws we all abide by!

smelly anarchist wrote:
i met these squatters. they were all really nice people.
Basically what happened was a bunch of people were homeless, found a building with an open window, went in and put up a section six. All completely legal. the police went there three times and never found any evidence of criminal damage.
the house had no for sale sign and didnt appear to be in use so it was only natural for people to think it was going to waste.
The company that the owners paid to secure the building were rubbish. the cockin's were fools to have paid them anything. the remainder of the 'thousands' could also have been avoided if they had just gone through the proceedure for a standard possession order rather than paying for the much more expensive interim possession order. it would have been cheaper still if they had just communicated directly with the squatters and come to a reasonable agreement. squatting is so hard in this town that squatters are desperate for a place to live and would have been grateful for an offer of only a few weeks while they looked for a new place. perhaps if the cockins had gone down this route the squatters would cleaned up after themselves even more. as it was there really wasnt very much mess, as these pictures show. if there had really been a squat party at this place the damage would have been a lot worse and there would have been noise complaints.
mike weatherly is just using the cockins and the argus as a tool for his ridiculous campaign against squatters rights which doesnt have a hope in hell of getting through parliament.

Smelly anarchist, you mention that had the Cockins`communicated directly with the squatters, rather than having to obtain an expensive interim possession order, a reasonable agreement could have been arrived at.
That being the case, if I were in the Cockin`s position this is what I would have considered to be a reasonable agreement:-
Full reimbursement for the cost of the clean-up including the cost of replacing any carpets that have been ruined.
Rent for the duration of the squatters`occupancy.

Reimbursement of Council Tax calculated pro-rata for the period of occupancy.
Finally, reimbursement for the use of all gas, electricity and water during the period of occupancy.
The above are basically the costs that normal tenants would incur. Do you think that your squatter friends would have agreed to this?

smelly anarchist wrote:
i met these squatters. they were all really nice people. Basically what happened was a bunch of people were homeless, found a building with an open window, went in and put up a section six. All completely legal. the police went there three times and never found any evidence of criminal damage. the house had no for sale sign and didnt appear to be in use so it was only natural for people to think it was going to waste. The company that the owners paid to secure the building were rubbish. the cockin's were fools to have paid them anything. the remainder of the 'thousands' could also have been avoided if they had just gone through the proceedure for a standard possession order rather than paying for the much more expensive interim possession order. it would have been cheaper still if they had just communicated directly with the squatters and come to a reasonable agreement. squatting is so hard in this town that squatters are desperate for a place to live and would have been grateful for an offer of only a few weeks while they looked for a new place. perhaps if the cockins had gone down this route the squatters would cleaned up after themselves even more. as it was there really wasnt very much mess, as these pictures show. if there had really been a squat party at this place the damage would have been a lot worse and there would have been noise complaints. mike weatherly is just using the cockins and the argus as a tool for his ridiculous campaign against squatters rights which doesnt have a hope in hell of getting through parliament.

Being a member of the family involved in this situation I find most of the comments encouraging.
At no stage did we say the squatters were nasty, however they entered our property unlawfully, they did damage parts of the property and we had to clean up the mess!
We are a hard working family who pay taxes and our lawful.
The house was renovated due to a major fire in January 2010 and the rebuild took some time. It was not an empty idle building. The renovation was completed in March / April time.
Prior to the fire this property was rented out as low rental bedsits mainly to individuals on low incomes. So we supported helping those who were looking for low cost accomodation.
Smelly anarchist - you think you know about the situation, clearly you don't!

@smelly anarchist

Having heard the full story, if I were you I'd be pretty embarrassed now. Or maybe I wouldn't, because I'd have a disproportionate ego and warped sense of justice.

I still would have got them out for a monkey

The views from smelly anarchist and a few others truly shows just how disgusting and selfish these type of people really are. They think the whole world owes them a living and that normal rules don't apply to them. This squatters rights law has to change - these people are simply criminals and deserve all they get.

Once again, utter madness of outdated, ridiculas laws which punish law abiding tax paying members of society. What gives these people the right to take over a property not belonging to them? It is about time these people contributed to society instead of just taking from it. We would all like to live rent free, not pay any taxes, do nothing all day apart demonstrate about the right to demonstate. Then given money from the tax payer so that they can buy their whackie backie, cans of special brew and the odd tin of pedigree chum for their faithfull friend by their side.
finally it's funny that all the victims of squatters always leave their premises insecure, there is always a window left open! They are nothing but criminals that want to live free and only by their rules.

Why are squatters always posh?
One of my friends became a squatter and her parents owned a £2 million house in Buckinghamshire. Her dad was some top civil servant.
She moved to Europe to live in squats and her parents would fly her home once a month to visit.
This family should make a legal claim for compensation against these people and if they ever own their own home, place a charge on the property. It could be good fun.
I would like The Argus to do some family research into these people.
In fact, I might just ask those bastards at the Daily Mail to look into it.

I am glad the family got their house back. Sadly this is likely to increase with Lucas MP and Green Councillors so much in favour of squatters, travellers and so anti hard working people who don't live off benefits and abide by the law. That group is the new scourge in the eyes of all people Green. Also seems a bit suspect that squatters 'found' a window open, what found it open after they jemmied it perhaps?

does anyone want to explain why squatters are never charged with criminal damage to any property they get into ?

They don't get charged because the Police prefer to arrest electricians and builders doing legit work at houses rather than criminals, also if Police DID arrest a squatter Caroline Lucas would come down on them like a ton of bricks.

smelly anarchist wrote:
i met these squatters. they were all really nice people.
Basically what happened was a bunch of people were homeless, found a building with an open window, went in and put up a section six. All completely legal. the police went there three times and never found any evidence of criminal damage.
the house had no for sale sign and didnt appear to be in use so it was only natural for people to think it was going to waste.
The company that the owners paid to secure the building were rubbish. the cockin's were fools to have paid them anything. the remainder of the 'thousands' could also have been avoided if they had just gone through the proceedure for a standard possession order rather than paying for the much more expensive interim possession order. it would have been cheaper still if they had just communicated directly with the squatters and come to a reasonable agreement. squatting is so hard in this town that squatters are desperate for a place to live and would have been grateful for an offer of only a few weeks while they looked for a new place. perhaps if the cockins had gone down this route the squatters would cleaned up after themselves even more. as it was there really wasnt very much mess, as these pictures show. if there had really been a squat party at this place the damage would have been a lot worse and there would have been noise complaints.
mike weatherly is just using the cockins and the argus as a tool for his ridiculous campaign against squatters rights which doesnt have a hope in hell of getting through parliament.

"squatting is so hard in this town that squatters are desperate for a place to live and would have been grateful for an offer of only a few weeks while they looked for a new place."

OH PULEEZE! "Squatting is so hard in this town..." Oh my heart bleeds that it's so "hard" to take something that doesn't belong to you, and live at someone else's expense. Boo hoo!

And they would've been grateful for a few weeks to find a new place... Oh really? So, if someone, say, steals your car, you could just say to them, "Hey, you keep it til you can buy yourself your own car, don't worry about me, and here's my debit card for when you need to buy some petrol or pay for parking."

What frickin' planet are these people on???!

They are usually posh kids who pretend to have had hard lives because it's more fashionable than admitting you enjoyed holidays in Tuscany as a kid and your parents still own a holiday home in Cornwall.
They are rarely people from poor backgrounds which is what really makes my blood boil.
Anyone who has come from a poor background or whose parents struggled have more self respect and will do any job to pay their way and have a home.
I wish they would all move back to their nice Shire homes with their parents.

TheInsider wrote:
They are usually posh kids who pretend to have had hard lives because it's more fashionable than admitting you enjoyed holidays in Tuscany as a kid and your parents still own a holiday home in Cornwall.
They are rarely people from poor backgrounds which is what really makes my blood boil.
Anyone who has come from a poor background or whose parents struggled have more self respect and will do any job to pay their way and have a home.
I wish they would all move back to their nice Shire homes with their parents.

You know there's a lot of truth in that! I lived in the same building as some squatters once, and they were all a bunch of middle/upper class kids, from well-off professional families and large family houses in the home counties. The thing that used to crack me up was the fake hair extension dreadlocks and how they all smoked roll-ups! :D Reminds me of a certain Pulp song...

Posh and thick most of them. I wish they would just go home to their middle class homes and leave hard working people alone and stop pretending they are part of some great social struggle when they aren't.
These idiots often end up with their own cosy flats paid for with a deposit from mum and dad.
Fraudsters most of them.

smelly anarchist wrote:
i met these squatters. they were all really nice people.
Basically what happened was a bunch of people were homeless, found a building with an open window, went in and put up a section six. All completely legal. the police went there three times and never found any evidence of criminal damage.
the house had no for sale sign and didnt appear to be in use so it was only natural for people to think it was going to waste.
The company that the owners paid to secure the building were rubbish. the cockin's were fools to have paid them anything. the remainder of the 'thousands' could also have been avoided if they had just gone through the proceedure for a standard possession order rather than paying for the much more expensive interim possession order. it would have been cheaper still if they had just communicated directly with the squatters and come to a reasonable agreement. squatting is so hard in this town that squatters are desperate for a place to live and would have been grateful for an offer of only a few weeks while they looked for a new place. perhaps if the cockins had gone down this route the squatters would cleaned up after themselves even more. as it was there really wasnt very much mess, as these pictures show. if there had really been a squat party at this place the damage would have been a lot worse and there would have been noise complaints.
mike weatherly is just using the cockins and the argus as a tool for his ridiculous campaign against squatters rights which doesnt have a hope in hell of getting through parliament.

Put it another way: What makes you think they've earned the right to live in such a beautiful house, simply by being 'homeless'?

I think you people are incredibly greedy; TheInsider is correct about the middle-class lefty squatters.

Why didn't 23 year old Luke Berkman go home when he lost his job?

Haha! Funny! I grew up in a "posh" house, with "posh" cars in the drive and, yes, went to a "posh" school where I learnt to ski and use the right knife and fork correctly.....and guess what (although I've never even been in a squat) I know so many of my contemporaries who have dossed around like this bunch. There is a certain "privilege" that *some* take as a given after this sort of upbringing - always to their emotional, financial and personal detriment in the end. I've always worked and got myself through uni, etc, and nearly everyone I am friends with now never went to a school like mine. Not all "posh" is bad, but a lot is.......

Lucky7 - agree completely! I'm of the same and have been working since I was 12 (paper round, to Saturday job in a hairdressers, supermarkets, to well paid job now) but my sister on the other hand - happy to live off everyone else and see's nothing wrong with it. Typical bleeding heart liberal.

I think a change is needed to teh squatters rights laws. It's unacceptable to enter a property that is not yours and then take up residency.

I'd be happy to offer these squatters a place to stay till they find somewhere else, if they want to pay for their lodging and board like everyone else!!!!

Ballroom, the tories were in power when I used to squat in 1980. They stayed in power until 1997 and did nothing to change the law in all that time. They are not about to now regardless of rentagob's noises.
No mention of how these squatters got in to the property. Another "open" window was it? Its called breaking and entering!