6 ms·

It's great that someone is finally disrupting the squatting market. The contracts that these so called guardians have seem strange though. Are they standard r

It's great that someone is finally disrupting the squatting market. The contracts that these so called guardians have seem strange though. Are they standard rental contracts, because the conditions described wouldn't be legal where I live. I wonder if courts will at some stage decide that there people really are renting, and are therefore entitled to all the legal protection of renters.

citricsquid 13y ago
Tenants in England do have a lot of rights (for example a tenant can only be evicted by a court) but these aren't tenants, they're "licensees" who do not have any of the legal protections afforded to tenants. You raise an interesting point though, and according to this article there are potential conflicts between these arrangements and the law that may eventually lead to court involvement: http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2013/03/11/property-guardians-what-is-the-law/ http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2013/03/11/property-guardia...
- Pxtl 13y ago
  Defining them as licensees instead of tenants strikes me as something that won't stand up in court. They're tenants in every function other than name.
nwh 13y ago
They certainly wouldn't be legal in Australia, we have a pile of protections for renters that by the sounds of things these places don't fulfil. No hot water, no power?
wanda 13y ago
"finally" This has been going on for a while now. It's nothing new.
Joeboy 13y ago
> It's great that someone is finally disrupting the squatting market. It's good that there's a more legit way that empty properties can provide homes for people. The fact these properties are no longer providing homes for other people is not the best thing about this.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
darkr 13y ago
> It's great that someone is finally disrupting the squatting market. You mean _anti_-squatting market? These kind of companies have thrived in Europe over the past few years due to a wholescale clampdown of squatters rights, with the Netherlands and England* making it outright illegal in 2010 and 2012 respectively. *In England, the term "squatting" is defined in legal terms to mean "the act of knowingly entering a _residential_ building as a trespasser and living there". Entering a non-residential building without permission is still not illegal, provided you don't cause any damage.
- blueskin_ 13y ago
  Squatters' rights? What's next, muggers' rights? I'm glad to see a turn back from punishing the victims of crime to punishing the perpetrators. Perhaps now the government can do something about prosecutions of people for attacking burglars in their own home, another longstanding victim-punishing law.
  - runarberg 13y ago
    Mugging is an act of violence. It violates the victims freedom of action and causes great damage. Squatting is a non-violent act. It provides shelter to someone who didn't have it before. The owner of the shelter can be unaware of the fact that his property is being used for several months, emphasizing the lack of damage by the act. Evicting a squatter, on the other hand, causes damage to the victim in fact, it removes a shelter from someone. So mugging and squatting are two very different acts
    - blueskin_ 13y ago
      Not always though. There are cases where people have gone on holiday and had their homes invaded and damaged, their possessions stolen (and often sold for drugs), and have been stuck with long and costly legal battles to regain what is rightfully theirs. Squatting violates the victims' freedom of property. If insulting someone verbally can be referred to as violent, so should stealing their home and possessions. I'm less concerned with invasion of business properties - while it should still be illegal, there is less loss to a business, who also typically have the legal staff and expertise as well as funds to get rid of them more swiftly and easily.

citricsquid 13y ago

Tenants in England do have a lot of rights (for example a tenant can only be evicted by a court) but these aren't tenants, they're "licensees" who do not have any of the legal protections afforded to tenants. You raise an interesting point though, and according to this article there are potential conflicts between these arrangements and the law that may eventually lead to court involvement: http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2013/03/11/property-guardians-what-is-the-law/ http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2013/03/11/property-guardia...

Pxtl 13y ago
Defining them as licensees instead of tenants strikes me as something that won't stand up in court. They're tenants in every function other than name.

nwh 13y ago

They certainly wouldn't be legal in Australia, we have a pile of protections for renters that by the sounds of things these places don't fulfil. No hot water, no power?

wanda 13y ago

"finally" This has been going on for a while now. It's nothing new.

Joeboy 13y ago

> It's great that someone is finally disrupting the squatting market. It's good that there's a more legit way that empty properties can provide homes for people. The fact these properties are no longer providing homes for other people is not the best thing about this.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

darkr 13y ago

> It's great that someone is finally disrupting the squatting market. You mean _anti_-squatting market? These kind of companies have thrived in Europe over the past few years due to a wholescale clampdown of squatters rights, with the Netherlands and England* making it outright illegal in 2010 and 2012 respectively. *In England, the term "squatting" is defined in legal terms to mean "the act of knowingly entering a _residential_ building as a trespasser and living there". Entering a non-residential building without permission is still not illegal, provided you don't cause any damage.

blueskin_ 13y ago
Squatters' rights? What's next, muggers' rights? I'm glad to see a turn back from punishing the victims of crime to punishing the perpetrators. Perhaps now the government can do something about prosecutions of people for attacking burglars in their own home, another longstanding victim-punishing law.
- runarberg 13y ago
  Mugging is an act of violence. It violates the victims freedom of action and causes great damage. Squatting is a non-violent act. It provides shelter to someone who didn't have it before. The owner of the shelter can be unaware of the fact that his property is being used for several months, emphasizing the lack of damage by the act. Evicting a squatter, on the other hand, causes damage to the victim in fact, it removes a shelter from someone. So mugging and squatting are two very different acts
  - blueskin_ 13y ago
    Not always though. There are cases where people have gone on holiday and had their homes invaded and damaged, their possessions stolen (and often sold for drugs), and have been stuck with long and costly legal battles to regain what is rightfully theirs. Squatting violates the victims' freedom of property. If insulting someone verbally can be referred to as violent, so should stealing their home and possessions. I'm less concerned with invasion of business properties - while it should still be illegal, there is less loss to a business, who also typically have the legal staff and expertise as well as funds to get rid of them more swiftly and easily.