Gordon Ramsay's £13M pub taken over by squatters
thesun.co.uk
thesun.co.uk
It is irritating a lot of people but we are in a massive housing crisis and there are credible sources saying we have a million vacant homes.
I'm a bit torn on this - my grandfather moved into aged care almost a year ago. His home is vacant up to three months at a time, then family come and visit from the US to look after him and they stay there.
We need more pressure to get truly vacant homes back into the market. There seem to be a lot owned by international investors just for sitting on housing to have it appreciate.
The house isn't being lived in, rental income could easily pay for temporary accommodation, or it could be shared with roommates etc.
I don't disagree - I find it terrible that it's being kept off the market, especially as someone that is struggling with the housing crisis myself (my partner and I considered buying it, but my grandfather built it as a townhouse for him to live out retirement in and it's not really suitable for us with a young child).
There are complicating family factors for us but at the end of the day I would absolutely rather this house be on the market where someone could take advantage of it.
I think the reality is there are vastly more totally unused homes that are simply not being rented because they're just being sat on by (presumably mostly overseas investors).
Having previously lived overseas in an expat hotspot / money laundering hub, I'm far more skeptical that international "investors" are buying homes for capital appreciation. They are:
- Sheltering cash (legit and or ill-gotten) from their home regime
- Laundering cash... where even a capital loss doesn't really matter. A newspaper in said former country of residence loves to report on big loss making transactions. Normies chuckle that a rich a person is "losing money." The fact is that someone is just taking a loss on cash that is now completely legitimate.
Why mention this? Because viewed through the lens of a home buyer / occupier, the market participants mentioned above pay a premium which distorts the markets. Massive capital losses are no big deal when the alternative is no capital.
It's an old law to dissuade vacant properties effectively, but people don't often use it within fair use, resulting in situations like this. It'll need to go to court, and they'll be evicted, but they'll claim it under squatters right (wrongfully.
This is an old practice in the UK, older than the US by many centuries, and it's why many states in the US also adopted it in some measure when the union was formed. Most countries have similar laws, and people are often surprised by that fact. Squatters were a common sight across the UK because no one effectively owned land - the monarchy or the church owned it. Traditionally in an English village, there were several classes of people. At the lower end were the incomers known as borderers or squatters, who would erect a cottage or a hovel on common or waste ground to house themselves and would pay rent to the Manorial lord or would work on his demesne several days a week. The building of the cottage was generally tolerated or even sanctioned under customary rights.
To understand the spirit of the law, I recommend reading about the 17th-century Diggers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers
Your personal property is protected. Reframe the intent. Imagine if Blackrock or Vanguard came in and bought out a county, land property and all, then just left it completely unused and untended. The place would fall to squalor. Squatters' rights mean you could continue to live and work that land without their permission. It was common in the 60s and 70s for communes to move into unoccupied mansions in London (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squatting_in_England_and_Wales). Many of these homes were (still are) owned by oligarchs who had no intention of living there. They own it because it's an appreciating asset that drives up house prices in the area, forcing out local families, buying up the subsequent properties, and making ghost towns. Without a vacancy tax, there's no disincentive for people to own empty houses in places where people want to live besides the squatting laws.
It should be noted, that squatting in residential property became a criminal offence in 2012. "Professional" squatting happens now in vacant commercial buildings (like Ramsay's restaurant), or on disused land. The restaurant they're occupying has been vacant since 2015 - 9 years now. Squatters can apply to become the registered owners of a property if they have occupied it continuously for 10 years, acted as owners for the whole of that time and had not previously been permitted to live there by the owner. I guess these people will suggest that they have lived there continuously for the last 9 years (they likely haven't, which is why it'll get thrown out in court) and live there for the next year to try and take ownership.
They have a couple of Instagram accounts up about the whole thing it looks like: https://www.instagram.com/camdenartcafe/ https://www.instagram.com/autonomouswintershelter/
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-03-12/out-squa...
Even if you don't own it, how can anyone prove which party was established firstly in any building?
> "...if you want to get us out you will have to issue a claim for possession in the county court or in the high court."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/apr/13/squatters-yo...
How do other business in England prevent this? When a store closes in the evening, what is stopping someone from breaking in and claiming occupancy? It doesn’t seem like society can function like this.
I normally don’t advocate for violence, but in cases like this, it seems necessary.
I'd expect that both "causing damage" and "not leaving when they’re told to by a court" are doing the heavy lifting in practice.
They obviously often know each other, but as far as I known, they have never found them being explicit accomplices.
Are they itching to spend time in prison?
It's a core example of how the foundations of western society were not built for, and failed to evolve for the population and socioeconomic problems of today.
Generalizing the GP's desired outcome here would be a civil liberties nightmare: the police would either need to be informed of every private deal I make (no thanks), or would be empowered to determine on the spot whether I'm "rightfully" living where I say I do. Most people would rather have a society with occasional squatters and winding legal decisions than one where the police can snoop your lease agreement or unilaterally kick you out of your house in the middle of the night.
The police can’t prove I didn’t have an informal agreement to be the sole operator of your car, for example. For kidnapping, how can they prove I’m not just a baby sitter?
If we are going to take people at their word, why would buildings be put in a different class than people or things?
I get not wanting people with a legitimate claim to a building to be kicked out, but in the case of a building like this, wouldn’t zoning issue prevent it from being used as housing? Even if there was an agreement, I’d expect zoning laws to override it. Obviously IANAL, but this doesn’t make a lot of sense and it seemed like it should be a solved problem by now.
(The underlying "why" here is that calling the police for a theft or a kidnapping results in a criminal accusation, while just having a dispute over rightful ownership or occupancy is not itself criminal.)
Them saying something like "If you don't get out of here in the next 20 seconds you'll never leave" or something would be a more clear cut example. The problem is getting someone to say something silly like that is a lot harder than just getting shot at which is what makes stand your ground laws for dealing with squatters not only iffy but risky.