Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think anyone is trying to justify the squaters.
Party A comes to their empty home finding Party B living in it saying that they 'paid for it'.
Party A goes to the police complaining about Party B (Im sure they used more colourful wording) is in their house.
Police go to house, and Party B shows papers that they 'live there'.
Police tell Party A to go take it to court. (as they have no choice in the matter at this point)
We will see what the court says.
It should (and will) throw Party B out, and may force some restitution to Party A. (but that won't be spread around the globe, since there is nothing to get outraged about, when the system works correctly)
Quote:
She showed a tenancy agreement but could not provide a contact number for the landlord or say when they had moved in.
Ok, first Party B did not have proper legal papers of ownership. Party A needs only supply this and the deal is done. The police do stay involved because this is a case of fraud, not a civil dispute.
That means Party B is removed from the premises and Party A's involvement is finished aside from any followups the police might have.
Party B must then work with police in finding the fraud. As I said, Party A is out of the picture now and owes nothing to party B. Party B is responsible for Party B's dealings with the fraudulent landlord.
I am interested though.... How is it that you come to the conclusion that Party A needs to pay restitution?
Also why must Party A go to civil court to dispute ownership?
If you think "that system" is working, then I am completely flabergasted.
So, let me get this straight. While at work today, some guy picks my lock and rents my condo to some family with a written agreement. I return from a long hard day of work to find a family in my house.
The logical and resonable response in your eyes is that I have to take them to court while they continue to live there and I have to go to a hotel for who knows how long? Is that really the logical response in your eyes?
Rather, being that I hold the mortgage to the property, and it isn't my signature on the lease agreement, that family should be removed at once with further investigation if they really were defrauded or if it was a simple breaking and entering. While they are at the police station, I resume my life in my house.
THAT is logical.
Expectation that somebody has to go through the court process to recoup their home is unreal. That is like somebody being sold a stolen car and continuing to drive it while the owner sues them in court. That isn't how it works. Sorry.
Neither you or I are lawyers,
What is logical to us, really doesn't matter, when it falls to the court.
With the car, if you have both have paperwork, until one is proven fraudulent, it will be up to the court, with neither party having the car.
Until the document is proven to be fraudulent, its up to the court, not the police. It's only been few days (since they found the people in their house), so it's not like its being dragged along.
Last edited by plannine; 01-13-2010 at 04:09 PM..
Reason: day or two
Ok, first Party B did not have proper legal papers of ownership. Party A needs only supply this and the deal is done. The police do stay involved because this is a case of fraud, not a civil dispute.
That means Party B is removed from the premises and Party A's involvement is finished aside from any followups the police might have.
Party B must then work with police in finding the fraud. As I said, Party A is out of the picture now and owes nothing to party B. Party B is responsible for Party B's dealings with the fraudulent landlord.
I am interested though.... How is it that you come to the conclusion that Party A needs to pay restitution?
Also why must Party A go to civil court to dispute ownership?
Did you notice how the paper keeps changing their headline.
Restitution to Party A (read it again!). They "squatters" may have to pay for the changing of the locks, any damages, and possibly 'rental' of the property, if they can figure out how long they were there.
Party A has to go to court, to state, that they did not rent the property, or have a agent, rent the property.
The squatters need to go, but, just because the family went running to the press with their story, doesn't mean they are telling the truth. Im sure they are. But most people thought so with Balloon Boy.
Beware. This doesn't just happen in the UK. This story reminds me of the people I have now in a Texas rent house who I graciously allowed to move in prior to their paying the deposit or rent and now are squatting in the house refusing to pay anything, or move. The female and children of this "family" are illegals but I have been told that has no relevance to the situation.
More on this story after Monday at which time I will have to visit the local JP. I am having to pursue this via a lengthy and costly eviction process after unsuccessfully arguing with the squatters for several weeks.
Beware. This doesn't just happen in the UK. This story reminds me of the people I have now in a Texas rent house who I graciously allowed to move in prior to their paying the deposit or rent and now are squatting in the house refusing to pay anything, or move. The female and children of this "family" are illegals but I have been told that has no relevance to the situation.
More on this story after Monday at which time I will have to visit the local JP. I am having to pursue this via a lengthy and costly eviction process after unsuccessfully arguing with the squatters for several weeks.
Our court system moves much slower then the Brits.
Our court system moves much slower then the Brits.
Luckily this is in a very small conservative west town and the Judge called the squatter on my behalf already. Had this been Dallas or Houston with all their lawyers, I would still be trying to figure out what sort of loops I had to jump through. Anyway I'm hoping the Judge's call will put the "fear of god" into these people and they will vacate my house by this weekend. The call did cause the man to call me when he would not answer his phone before. Figures are crossed and a hard lesson is learned.
The very title of the link is racist because it refers to them as gypsies. These are Romanian residents who are as European as anyone else. These "Romani" have roots from areas outside of India but that was several generations ago. They are Christians. They have multiple generations that were born and raised in Romania and other parts of eastern Europe. They grew up speaking Romanian and know no other language. Yet despite all of this, they are still referred to as Gypsies. There is widespread racism in Europe toward these people that Europeans downplay particularly since Europe is often misthought of as being more progressive and less racist than the United States.
After reading this account, I will agree that there was NO RACISM in this account whatsoever. Mr. Mosedale had every right to be suspicious and ask if the people occupying his home were Romanians since their appearance and accent substantiated that suspicion.
Seriously after reading this account, don't you guys feel glad you live in the United States. The fact that someone can simply occupy a home that is owned by someone else and then when the police are contacted, nothing is done about it. It just makes the UK look bad if anything. Does the UK not have some type of verification system that can say "Sorry but the deed that you purchased is not legitimate and hence not legal" What the hell kind of concept is this "Squatter's rights" Give me a break! This isn't an infomerical scam. Either you buy the house from the proper owners or you don't own the house. It's as simple as that! Why the hell can't the British simply force those people out when they clearly don't own the home?
If I go on vacation for a month and I arrive back to see that people are occupying my house, they are as good as gone the next day! Like I said, I'm glad to live in the United States. This is the best country in the world. Seriously, maybe I should plan a vacation in London. I will just break into someone's house. I will occupy it. And then when the police ask, I will provide them with a document I forged and say I bought it. And when the police ask for the source, I will do what these people did and say I can't find him. Then while the British courts take two month to figure out the true owner, I will be back in the United States. Seriously, how pathetic is the UK?
Beware. This doesn't just happen in the UK. This story reminds me of the people I have now in a Texas rent house who I graciously allowed to move in prior to their paying the deposit or rent and now are squatting in the house refusing to pay anything, or move. The female and children of this "family" are illegals but I have been told that has no relevance to the situation.
More on this story after Monday at which time I will have to visit the local JP. I am having to pursue this via a lengthy and costly eviction process after unsuccessfully arguing with the squatters for several weeks.
Thats unreal.
You know how we got to this non-sense. From people more interested in compassion than logic. Thats how.
I can't believe the stall and racist tactic responders in this thread. This is what PC does for you. Liberalism is indeed a mental disorder, indeed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). They "squatters" may have to pay for the changing of the locks, any damages, and possibly 'rental' of the property, if they can figure out how long they were there.
