?If you see a house, take it and let the law do its damned?est? ?(Dwor?kin, 1988:?13)
?Remem?ber???try?ing to stop squat?ting is like stamp?ing on a greasy golf?ball??(All Lam?beth Squat?ters,?1974)
As of 1 Septem?ber 2012, under Sec?tion 144 of the Legal Aid, Sen?ten?cing and Pun?ish?ment of Offend?ers Act 2012 (?LASPOA?), it became illegal in Eng?land and Wales to squat a res?id?en?tial build?ing. ?Accord?ing to the?Act:
?(1) A per?son com?mits an offence if?
(a) the per?son is in a res?id?en?tial build?ing as a tres?passer hav?ing entered it as a tres?passer,
(b) the per?son knows or ought to know that he or she is a tres?passer, and
(c) the per?son is liv?ing in the build?ing or intends to live there for any period.(2) The offence is not com?mit?ted by a per?son hold?ing over after the end of a lease or licence (even if the per?son leaves and re-??enters the building).?
Des?pite the fact that dis?pla?cing someone from a build?ing that had obvi?ous signs of being their home without the per?mis?sion of the legal owner has been illegal since the Crim?inal Law Act 1977, the neces?sity for a duplic?ate law just goes to demon?strate the accel?er?ated dei?fic?a?tion and reific?a?tion of indi?vidual prop?erty rights, over the social util?ity and shar?ing of resources held within the philo?sophy and prac?tice of squat?ting. This recent shift in media-??aggravated legis?lat?ive change is a defin?it?ive move fur?ther in favour of the landowner as opposed to those who have no land, and those who sup?port the redis?tri?bu?tion of?land.
Any?one catch?ing the Lon?don Under?ground home after work in the past two or three years will have been sub?ject to a neg?at?ive media cam?paign that affected put?ting squat?ting in a bad light.? The num?ber of ?I just went to the shop to buy some milk and came back and my house was squat?ted? is near non-??existent, and yet read?ing cer?tain news?pa?pers, it seemed as though a national epi?demic was tak?ing place, put?ting unne?ces?sary fear in the minds of unas?sum?ing homeown?ers and loyal read?ers.? This toxic media infu?sion has been stated as unfairly mis?rep?res?ent?at?ive of squat?ting prac?tices in Eng?land and Wales, sup?port?ing a polit?ical brief that seeks to cas?tig?ate the age old phe?nom?ena of usu?ca?pio, an inher?ited phe?nom?ena that speaks of the very basics of law itself.? Accord?ing to the media, there has been an?alleged?increase in instances of fam?il?ies return?ing home to their homes only to find unwanted res?id?ents inside, and given the extant eco?nomic cir?cum?stances, the num?bers of those los?ing their homes and squat?ting for hous?ing reas?ons has increased its pre?val?ence and vis?ib?il?ity, fuel?ling fear levels and polit?ical will to change the law.? Accord?ing to the Hous?ing Min?is?ter?Grant Shapps on Friday:
?No longer will there be so-??called ?squat?ters rights?. Instead, from next week, we?re tip?ping the scales of justice back in favour of the homeowner and mak?ing the law crys?tal clear: enter?ing a prop?erty with the inten?tion of squat?ting will be a crim?inal offence.?
Back in Septem?ber 2011, legal aca?dem?ics, soli?cit?ors and bar?ris?ters in the prac?tice of hous?ing law, wrote a joint let?ter stat?ing how they were con?cerned how a sig?ni?fic?ant num?ber of recent media reports had been exag?ger?at?ing and mis?rep?res?ent?ing the incid?ence of squat?ting in the UK, stating:
?[These state?ments are] leg?ally incor?rect, as the guid?ance pub?lished by the Depart?ment for?Com?munit?ies and Local Gov?ern?ment in March [2012] makes clear. We are con?cerned that such repeated inac?cur?ate report?ing of this issue has cre?ated fear for homeown?ers, con?fu?sion for the police and ill-??informed debate among both the pub?lic and politi?cians on reform?ing the?law.?
Des?pite the fact that the change in law affects only res?id?en?tial prop?er?ties, this tri?umph of mis-??information will lead to the assump?tion of all squat?ting to be a crim?inal and not civil offence.? Accord?ing to the Advis?ory Ser?vice for Squat?ters (ASS), it will be dif?fi?cult for those squat?ters who are using com?mer?cial prop?er?ties to remain where they are des?pite the fact that they are still per?fectly in their rights to do so, as the pub?lic will assume that squat?ters? rights have been out?lawed entirely.? And yet the social util?ity of squat?ting will con?tinue to be over?looked, and at a time when 720,000 homes are unaf?ford?able to those on low incomes in Eng?land, 60,000 in Scot?land, and 30,000 in Wales due to caps on local hous?ing allow?ance (Evic?tion Res?ist?ance, 2012), the con?quest of private landown?ers over the vul?ner?able becomes ever more tangible.
Squat?ting as a legal right has not always been a con?tro?ver?sial area of law, its brack?et?ing under the remit of adverse pos?ses?sion saw the syn?chron?ous emer?gence of prop?erty rights over?all.? Were it not for the stop valve of adverse pos?ses?sion and the tak?ing of land by seizure, it would have been dif?fi?cult to bal?ance com?pet?ing claims to land over?all.? Time lim?its on claims to land date back to as early as the Lim?it?a?tion Act 1623, intro?du?cing arbit?rary time lim?its on the asser?tion of claims.? As a res?ult, there developed the novel area of pos?ses?sion by suc?cess?ful tak?ing.? The bring?ing in of Lim?it?a?tions Acts saw pos?ses?sion based on the efflux?ion of time as one of the found?a?tional con?cepts of Eng?lish land law, at once enclos?ing one?s right to land and at the same time open?ing out the begin?ning of another?s based on a sys?tem of relativ?ity of?title.
Adverse pos?ses?sion remains a cent?ral para?dox within Eng?lish land law, stat?utory lim?it?a?tion as that which presses the relativ?ity of title to its extremity (Gray and Gray, 2011: 1159).? Seizure of land is there?fore the basis of indi?vidual prop?erty rights, and the claim to an under?stand?ing of own?er?ship.? The mix?ing of labour with the land and the cur?tail?ment of the true owner?s rights through aban?don?ment and mis?use is a very Lock?ean pro?viso, and given the fun?da?mental role of adverse pos?ses?sion and squat?ting (as the con?trol of land) as shap?ing prop?erty rights over?all, legis?lat?ors will do well to con?sider what the removal of this doc?trine means to the strength of rights to prop?erty in sum.? At the same time, the social util?ity to squat?ting is lost with these swift, undemo?cratic changes to the law and mis?rep?res?ent?a?tions of squat?ting on the ground.
Since the 1970s and 1980, and in the lead up to 2011, there has been an encroach?ing shift towards the removal of squat?ters? rights from UK law.? The Crim?inal Justice Act 1994 made some sub?stan?tial changes to the law relat?ing to squat?ting, bring?ing in ?interim pos?ses?sion orders? on behalf of the owner and giv?ing squat?ters a con?sid?er?ably reduced amount of time to remain and thus a reduced ver?sion of squat?ters? rights. The then Home Sec?ret?ary and mind behind the Act, Michael Howard, said: ?There can be no excuse for seiz?ing someone else?s prop?erty for how?ever short a time? ?, and thus meas?ures in the Crim?inal Justice Bill were then designed to deal a great deterrence to squatters.
The Land Regis?tra?tion Act 2002 fun?da?ment?ally altered the law of adverse pos?ses?sion, whereby after ten years of phys?ical pos?ses?sion, a squat?ter has to apply to the Land Registry to have their title recog?nised as owner, ren?der?ing a sys?tem of title by regis?tra?tion (and in the case of the squat?ter, title by applic?a?tion) as opposed to one of regis?tra?tion by title.? Sec?tions?96 to 98 and Sched?ule 6 give the ?paper owner? the right to be noti?fied that of an instance of adverse pos?ses?sion and as a res?ult, recover possession.??This ulti?mately means that the occur?rence of a squat?ter adversely pos?sess?ing title to land they have been occupy?ing for years will become a thing of the?past.
It seems as though the law does not learn from the squat?ters and the causes they rep?res?ent, the author?it?ies embed?ded in a global sys?tem of prop?erty trans?fer and appro?pri?ation that beclouds both polit?ics of the right, and so too of the left. The drive to curb any altern?at?ive and self-??managed use of space, through the death of squat?ting laws, is just another tech?no?logy of enclos?ure, a mani?fest?a?tion of market-??driven eco?nom?ies of prop?erty and the prop?erty of the economy.
As in any other legis?lat?ive shift, there is always the under?ly?ing force of state viol?ence. Any squat?ter will under?stand the viol?ent force of prop?erty rights, either by being sub?ject to the pain and wrench?ing of evic?tion, or just by enter?ing an empty space and sur?vey?ing the destruc?tion of the intern?als of a build?ing.? Part of the deterrent that coun?cils use to stop squat?ters enter?ing is to des?troy any means of basic amen?it?ies that those look?ing for an emp?tied space may wish to use.? This includes ?gut?ting?, the smash?ing up of all the plumb?ing, the destruc?tion of stair cases ren?der?ing floors other than the ground floor inaccessible.
Accord?ing to Andrew Corr, as he sum?mar?ises the anarchist-??tinged lit?er?at?ure on prop?erty, land own?er?ship ?? exists when an indi?vidual has the viol?ent forces neces?sary to evict or sub?due the inhab?it?ants of a given piece of land and claims ?own?er?ship?? (Corr, 1999: 12???15). ?This is a pro?cess that has taken place again and again, along dif?fer?ent stratas, within dif?fer?ent jur?is?dic?tions, at altern?ate times and spaces, whereby such a rep?lic?a?tion,??? will remain that way inas?much as the sys?tem and ideo?logy of spa?tial prop?erty is the sali?ent inter-??human rela?tion to land? (Corr, 1999: 12???15).? What took effect from the start of Septem?ber 1st is merely another example of this age old pro?cess of law and res?ist?ance that reoc?curs and imit?ates itself across the globe.? Nich?olas Blom?ley propounds:
?Space gets pro?duced, invoked, pul?ver?ized, marked, and dif?fer?en?ti?ated through prac?tical and dis?curs?ive forms of legal viol?ence. And property?s viol?ence is itself instan?ti?ated and legit?im?ized, yet also com?plic?ated and con?tra?dicted in and through such spaces? (Blom?ley, 2003:?135).
And yet, whether or not squat?ting is legal or illegal, space will still be pro?duced and re-??used by those who squat, whether illegal or oth?er?wise.? Given the use of private law in order to curb the stu?dent protests of 2010 and 2011 and the removal of the ?squat?ters out?side St Paul?s?, law will always attempt to cat?egor?ise, and res?ist?ance will con?tinue to reset the bound?ar?ies.? What will be of interest over the com?ing months is exactly what effect clause 144 of LASPOA?will have on squat?ting in Eng?land and Wales.??As the ?All Lam?beth Squat?ters? once said:???Remember???try?ing to stop squat?ting is like stamp?ing on a greasy golf?ball? (All Lam?beth Squat?ters,?1974).
Lucy Finchett-??Maddock is Lec?turer in Law at the Uni?ver?sity of Exeter
Ref?er?ences
Blom?ley, N. (2003), ?Law, Prop?erty, and the Spaces of Viol?ence: The Fron?tier, the Sur?vey, and the Grid?, 93,?Annals of the Asso?ci?ation of Amer?ican Geo?graph?ers, 121???141
Corr, A. (1999), ?No Tres?passing:? Squat?ting, Rent Strikes, and Land Struggles World?wide, Lon?don, Southend Press
Dwor?kin, G. (1988), ?The The?ory and Prac?tice of Autonomy?, Cam?bridge, Cam?bridge Uni?ver?sity?Press
Evic?tion Res?ist?ance, found at http://?evic?tion?res?ist?ance?.blog?spot?.co?.uk/.
urban meyer adam shulman adam shulman nfl power rankings week 13 nfl power rankings week 13 patrice patrice
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.