Thursday, December 29, 2011 2:15:14 AM
If the building is left empty and is not in use as an actual home, and there is no forced entry into the property, then it's fair game as far as squatters are concerned.
I rented a house for a year in Buckinghamshire (a HUGE detached house with a football pitched sized garden) as the owners were waiting for a deal to go through with a property developer and they`d moved out, only to find someone had tried to force entry into the house. So, rather than leaving it empty they decided to lease it out. It had been empty for months. We got it for a VERY reasonable monthly rent, considering it`s size.
Thursday, December 22, 2011 9:58:57 AM
if the owner is not maintaining a building then the squatters aren't required to leave until they`re asked by the owner. In England, they`re sometimes not even required to leave even when they ARE asked by the owner, as long as they broke no laws entering the premises and always keep one squatter on the property. Or something like that. The rules are very complicated.
Thursday, December 22, 2011 8:07:52 AM
Part of me says GET A JOB.
But the more reasonable part says, why the hell are we building on green belt land to provide 'affordable housing` when there are places like this empty cause no-one can afford to buy it?
Thursday, December 22, 2011 7:58:56 AM
if the owner is not maintaining a building then the squatters aren't required to leave until they`re asked by the owner.