A family who had their dead mother's home taken over by squatters have had to pay thousands of pounds to get them out.Which they’ll never get back, of course…
Lisa Cockin and her family spent £100,000 on renovating her mother's house in York Avenue, Hove, after she died.We should bring back the stocks, or forced labour at least.
But on the first anniversary of the death of Mrs Cockin's mother, a group moved in, had house parties and left the new carpets ruined.
Mrs Cockin, 40, said that the legal action and the use of a security firm has cost the family more than £5000.And of course, the sort of people that the ‘Anything Goes!’ Green administration is going to attract latch on to the most significant thing about this case: that they have nice things, and won’t share with others…
She said: “We do feel let down by the system and wouldn't want this to happen to anyone else.
“Once they were in we had no rights to go and ask them to leave - we had no right to be in our own home. It left us feeling vulnerable and helpless.”
gheese77, hove says...Because probate only takes a day at most, and builders can renovate a house in a fortnight!
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.
Makhno, says...There’s the attitude of so many of the rent-dodgers and scroungers that infest Brighton – leave something unattended, and it’s your own fault when someone makes use of it, right?
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?
At least the next commenter chooses a correctly descriptive handle:
smelly anarchist, says...In other words ‘You deserve it for not rolling over and thanking us for relieving you of your property…’
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.
There are some dissenting voices:
AmboGuy, Brighton says...Hard to disagree. Maybe this is one the coalition would like to take on? If all it achieved was to make the likes of 'smelly anarchist' look over their shoulder a bit more, it'd be worth it
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.
14 comments:
Of course the real winners here were the legal profession - what a surprise, not!
Alternative solution: Get in, bang a few heads together hard and kick them out. Job done with minimal cost, whats not to like?
"They think the whole world owes them a living and that normal rules don't apply to them."
The squatters are quite wrong, of course. The whole world does not owe them a living. The UK taxpayer owes the whole world a living, as well as squatters.
The coalition take on, Julia? The coalition?
Sigh.
We always had security screens like these on our unlet properties. Until England gets our own version of the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1885 and the repeal of section 8 HRA, it's better to insure through security than be at the mercy of property thieves and lawyers.
Brian: "it's better to insure through security than be at the mercy of property thieves and lawyers."
Now there's a fine distinction!
"I met these squatters. they were all really nice people."
I bet most normal people wouldn't think so.
I thought that the coalition were tackling this issue.
No one else has for 100years so they might not really be.
But its a vote winner if only because all the squatters and anarchists who are against it... they aren't registered to vote.
People with jobs to go to, settled addresses and a respect(although declining rapidly) for authority will always be a softer target in resolving any dispute than the shiftless, usually violent, indigent ne'er-do-wells infesting our country. Could that be why the law always disregards any rights the former might have, in favour of the latter group of people?
It is this sort of thing that encourages vigilantism. Is your house or land occupied? Then don't bother going to the authorities because they will be of very little use, leaving very few alternatives.
A surreptitious infiltration of diphenylaminechlorarsine gas in the early hours of the day is normally quite efficacious in persuading people inside the premises that being outside the premises is a much better place to be.
A surreptitious infiltration of diphenylaminechlorarsine gas
Aha! Gas. Not spray but gas?
Just waiting for them to try that sort of caper in one of Nicholas Hoogstraten's properties. - Please.
"Of course the real winners here were the legal profession - what a surprise, not!"
Aren't they always..?
"The coalition take on, Julia? The coalition?"
I can dream, can't it? ;)
"Now there's a fine distinction!"
Heh!
"It is this sort of thing that encourages vigilantism. Is your house or land occupied? Then don't bother going to the authorities..."
Exactly. When the law no longer works for you, you are being encouraged to act outside the law...
Any and all violence against squatters, including lethal, should not only be legal but encouraged. Parasites must be purged.
Post a Comment