posted April 13, 2010 12:04 PM         

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jan/28/london-squatters-mayfair-mansion

"Mayfair squatters ordered to leave London mansionAre squatters resourceful individuals or 'scroungers' who bend the law?
(3)Tweet this (1)Comments (10) They call themselves the Temporary School of Thought and describe themselves as artists running workshops "of mutual learning, leftwing bias and free lectures".

They're also squatters occupying a Grade II listed, £22.5m central London mansion and, during the course of today, bailiffs are due to evict them.

They moved into the property, which consists of two linked buildings in swanky Mayfair, one in Charles Street and one in Clarges Mews, last November. The owners, Timekeeper Limited, were not amused, and were granted a county court order for immediate possession yesterday.

In a blog posted yesterday, one of the squatters, calling himself luckyjim, says the group accept they must move on and have started packing their bags. He justifies their actions by saying they've added "value" by occupying the building.

He writes: "We've turned a private space into a public one, bringing a long-dead building back to life whilst respecting its heritage.

"We've introduced a free community space to an area which didn't have one, inviting in and seeking the respect of the neighbourhood.

"We've made people think about communal living and alternatives to wage slavery by showing them it's possible to live off the city's discards."

Luckyjim says the group has provided "something positive to several hundred people, against an imperceptibly small inconvenience caused to a super-wealthy few".

He adds that the group has not damaged the property, nor are any of its members dependent on state benefits.

It's a different image from the one protrayed in the Sun, which described squatters who moved into a building in nearby Park Lane as "scroungers" and "loafers".

The paper said: "The 20 crusties, some of whom sneaked in through an open basement door, are living rent-free yards from Madonna's luxury pad.

"They spend their time strumming guitars while letting three huge dogs foul the rooms."

As the paper points squatting is not illegal, but breaking in or causing damage is.

Are squatters resourceful individuals who are making legitimate use of otherwise neglected properties, or are they "scroungers" who destroy the properties they move into and are bending, if not breaking, the law?

Have you ever lived in a squat or had squatters move into your neighbourhood? Let us know your views."

posted April 13, 2010 12:20 PM         

don't know if the law has changed ..

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
can't imagine being homeless in the uk ..
most uncomfortable climate i've ever known ..

posted April 13, 2010 12:43 PM         

"Contact the Advisory Service for Squatters (ASS) for advice."

posted April 13, 2010 01:00 PM         

also in the 70s it was mostly council property that was up for grabs. many many houses had been bought out from under their owners for a small fee and then were left standing to rot of neglect, meanwhile thousands were homeless...you may know or guess what happened. breaking and entering was definitely ILlegal but being inside was not. i lived in one myself and the funny thing was that the electric company was not allowed to cut you off if you were in possession, but NEITHER were they allowed to charge people there without a lease!! so free housing AND electricity was available to anyone who had the guts to walk in...ours had a hole in the back wall but otherwise was sound and we made it better...i lived there for 4 years in a fairly central neighbourhood a stone's throw from the west end AND notting hill, a musician's ideal location.

the reason it comes to mind is all the foreclosures going on right now that the banks have no intention of selling until the "price is right" again...neglected houses go to rack and ruin, so in some ways squatters with a sense of responsibility can do the future owners a favour by taking on the upkeep...

i am looking into california law on the subject..

in the western states at least squatter's rights were strong. it was about staking a claim to untended land, and if you could stay there long enough it was yours.

posted April 13, 2010 01:13 PM         

true and fair-enough :-) .. i'm just in an odd mood today .. a harsh lillithian mood by the feel of it

posted April 13, 2010 01:22 PM         

first find.

@HD no i think a cap dsc means you attract people who are hard on you..

posted April 13, 2010 03:54 PM         

If squatting were legal here, people would be making money off it. Either they'd pose as owners and charge rent, or they'd make it into a shabby bed and breakfast. Actually, there are a lot more ways that they could exploit the space.

Some Americans have second homes in holiday locations. They would be mortified to find that law in place. Not only has their home been taken over by squatters, but they are legally disallowed from entering the premises without the tresspassing tenant's consent.

posted April 13, 2010 05:40 PM         

I expect as a general rule most people don't want squatters because they tend to destroy the property and may provide liability issues in this sue-happy nation (a lawyer may take it up on behalf of someone homeless in exchange for the majority of the settlement).