The scandal of empty Council properties in Brighton

SQUATTERS NETWORK OF BRIGHTON PRESS RELEASE JANUARY 31 2012

We at the Squatters Network of Brighton are scratching our heads over Brighton and Hove Council’s policy on housing.

The Council-owned building on Albion Street is still rotting away after having had a group of people evicted from it over a year ago. The roof has been repaired, but all the windows are covered in Sitex metal shutters and the door is boarded up. Is there a plan for it? We haven’t heard of anything.

Last week, a cottage at 176c Ditchling Road was evicted by thugs, who smashed their way in using metal poles to break unprotected windows. We think these unnamed people were Council employees. A woman standing next to the window was covered in breaking glass and could have been badly injured. The County Court bailiffs (the only people legally allowed to use reasonable force) were standing back, watching. Four people were then arrested by the police, who also had been loitering outside, simply watching the violence unfold. Two people were immediately released and “allowed” to get some of their stuff out of their home, the two others were taken to Hollingbury police station and held for 14 hours, one without access to a real solicitor. They were then charged with the normal catch-all of “assaulting the police.” Plus swearing!

It’s doubtful these charges would stand up in court, just as with the three people arrested last week for burglary after squatting an empty house. Their alleged crime was later changed to ‘vagrancy’ (which shows that the police really were clutching at straws) before all three were released without charge, after being held for eighteen hours. Unfortunately, the police weren’t so eager to intervene the next day when a freshly squatted house was illegally evicted by three heavies who ended up throwing metal radiators out of windows at the squatters. Such things happen all the time in Brighton and no-one hears about them. We don’t have a very high opinion of Sussex Police but it does seem strange that they don’t actually follow the law, properly whereas squatters do.

Back to the cottage. It is council-owned and used to be temporary housing, consisting of four self-contained flats. It’s been empty for over two years, and now the bailiffs have smashed up the toilets and the windows. Why doesn’t the Council let people live in it? Does the Council actually have a plan for it at all?

Then there’s Ainsworth House, the squat that successfully resisted eviction before Christmas last month. Media stories helpfully pointed out that it had been empty for years and that there were plans for it, but no-one except the squatters suggested it might be better to let the twenty five people who made it their home live there over the festive season. Ainsworth now stands empty again. Soon to be redeveloped, hopefully, but why not provide short term leases for people to live there in the meantime? It worked in the 1980s with groups such as Trumpton, Lorgan and Watch This Space, and it would work again now. Instead, Ainsworth House is just another blot on another road. Like the building next door to it. And there are plenty of other empty buildings, just look around.

To us, it seems morally wrong to leave properties empty and unused. We support people who reclaim those homes. But even if you don’t agree with us there, surely the financial argument will convince you.

A Freedom of Information request in July 2011 asked the Council how much money was spent on securing empty properties against trespass. In one year, the Council spent a staggering £161,000 on those ugly metal plates. Further, it was unable to suggest a figure for the total amount of money wasted on the legal fees, bailiff costs and so on involved in evicting squatters. So here’s our suggestion – the squatters stay on a short term leases, maintaining the building through use. Then they leave when the building really is going to be demolished or redeveloped.

Contact:
snobaha@gmail.com
https://network23.org/snob/
Twitter – snobaha

ENDS

Court update

So a few days back, we were down at court from 10am to support three squats in court. All three lost.

Ditchling1 argued that technically the papers were specifying only the upstairs part of the property and the judge said “So basically you are asking for an adjournment based on a technicality?” then granted possession to the owner anway.

The PDSA spoke to the prosecuting solicitor and were told they wouldn’t be evicted before Wednesday, although there was no possibility to make a deal. The owners apparently had a tenant ready to move in to convert the shop into a cardshop, who wanted to catch the Valentines Day market – a nice story, but unfortunately they couldn’t provide any evidence of that. The judge didn’t really mind and granted possession, saying he was powerless to do anything else. There are certainly precedents which show otherwise, I don’t think he cared.

Ditchling2 argued that they were living at the cottage, Ditchling Road and not 176c. Despite this being a perfectly legitimate argument the judge was unmoved and ruled in favour of the owner. He very nearly granted possession of 176 ditchling road (a pub) to the council but realised what he was doing just in time.

[All three squats were evicted the following week]

Squatters March Through Brighton Streets

Three squats are due in court as the owners of the buildings try and regain possession.

The protest started at 10.30 outside Brighton County Court in solidarity with the squatters in court. Once the last squatters have had their court case heard the protesters will march through the centre of Brighton to raise awareness of the benefits of squatting and the attack on squatting by right wing Hove MP, Mike Weatherly.

Alex Jones, a Brighton squatter, said

“Today Brighton County Court will hold possession order hearings on at least three squatted properties. Before the occupation of these buildings they had been empty for a number of years. None of the owners of the buildings have suggested they intend to use them, these hearings are attempts to make people homeless on a point of principle. We believe the right to shelter should outweigh the right of people to keep property vacant just because they have a piece of paper declaring them the owner.

At a time of recession more and more people are finding themselves homeless and vulnerably housed, squatting can provide a vital lifeline to many people. In Brighton – emergency accommodation is oversubscribed,

there are currently 14,000 [1] people on the council house waiting list and private housing is ridiculously overpriced. Even if the less wealthy can get accommodation, much of its cost must be borne by the state and, ultimately, the taxpayer.

Squatting gives homeless people the opportunity to take control of their lives, while putting little or no burden on the general public. As the law stands, the system is heavily weighted in the favour of the landlords, legal and illegal evictions are a constant threat, with most Brighton squats lasting only a few weeks.

The current government has decided that squatting needs to be attacked. At the end of last year an amendment was tagged on to the (already controversial) Legal Aid bill. Known as clause 26, the amendment criminalises squatting in all residential buildings regardless of how long they have been vacant – this was despite 95% of respondents to the governments own consultation opposing criminalisation [1]. Clause 26 will mean that if someone seeks shelter in an abandoned building they could face up to a year in prison. We believe this law will target tens of thousands of homeless people to the benefit a small, wealthy elite.

Whatever they say, squatting will stay.”

ENDS

e-mail: snobaha@gmail.com

Phone: 07531871895

twitter: @snobaha

Notes

[1] 14,000 People in Brighton and Hove currently on the housing waiting list – http://s.coop/7w8m

[2] pdf – http://s.coop/7w8n

stats :

246 long term council owned empty properties in Brighton and Hove – http://s.coop/7w8j

£161,000 spent from Council funds to secure empty properties from occupation – http://s.coop/7w8l

Anti-squatting laws progress through Parliament

SNOB is mentioned in this piece by Libby Powell –

NCTJ student Libby Powell, of City College Brighton & Hove, reports on the anti-squatting laws and finds out what it means locally

Anti-squatting legislation progresses through parliament today (10th Jan), as the revised Legal Aid and Punishment of Offenders Bill is submitted to line-by-line scrutiny in the House of Lords.

Amongst proposed changes to the Bill is a new law to make the act of squatting in a residential building a criminal offence, punishable by up to a year in prison or a £5,000 fine.

The new legislation has local roots. The campaign to criminalise squatting has been led by Mike Weatherley MP, who submitted an Early Day Motion to parliament back in March 2011.

Speaking of his pride in seeing his recommendations as a backbencher advance towards becoming law, Weatherley has said his target was not the ‘down-and-out’ but political and ‘lifestyle’ squatters in Brighton and Hove.

However, Caroline Lucas MP and national housing charities have spoken out against the proposed law, warning that it makes no distinction between those who chose to squat and those who turn to it as a last resort.

Brighton and Hove is in the 10 per cent of cities with the highest number of vacant dwellings in the country.

Data from homeless support charity, Shelter, shows a 21 per cent rise in households declared homeless in Brighton and Hove over the first six months of 2011. Despite the need for housing, the Department for Communities and Local Government has a record of 4,128 empty buildings in the city. 251 of these are council-owned. This puts Brighton and Hove in the 10 per cent of cities with the highest number of vacant dwellings in the country.

Weatherley agrees that empty buildings are a problem but says that this should not give people the go-ahead to occupy private property: “If you have a classic car sitting in the road and you think that it will be a good investment for the future, it doesn’t give someone else the right to drive that car.”

‘Matt’, of the Squatters’ Network of Brighton and Hove, questions whether this law should be a priority when there is an urgent need for shelter and a 10,852-strong waiting list for council housing: “In a time of austerity when there are so many places that are empty, it seems a very strange thing to be doing.”

He also disputes Weatherley’s classification of ‘lifestyle’ squatters: “People who have been homeless or have mental health problems are squatting because they are outside the system and they need a way in. There are some who are squatting because of their political beliefs. But moving monthly? Having to fix properties that have been smashed up? If it’s a lifestyle, it is a hard one.”

Weatherley said that revising the laws around squatting was already on the Conservative agenda; they simply needed a ‘nudge’.

This will give fuel to critics have accused the coalition of rushing through pre-determined legislation and ignoring the views of experts and key stakeholders. 90 per cent of the responses to the public consultation were against changes to the law.

In late December, a group of squatters living in the vacant council-owner Ainsworth House, Wellington Road, Brighton, clashed with bailiffs but were granted a temporary injunction by the court at the ninth hour, postponing their eviction until after Christmas. The building has been empty for two years. Under the new laws, it is likely that all 25 of the squatters would have faced a fine or a stint in prison.

Currently, occupying a residential property without permission is classified as trespass and is dealt with under civil law, as opposed to criminal law. This means that property owner must initiate legal action themselves against the squatters. They will usually be granted an interim possession order by the local magistrates court within 24 hours, allowing the police to intervene.

Current law prohibits property owners from violently evicting a person from their house, compelling them to seek a court order before acting. This was initially passed to protect tenants, spouses and partners, but has given rise to the notion of ‘squatters’ rights’.

However, it is already a criminal offence to break into a home, to damage doors or windows, or to refuse to leave someone’s home or a home they are about to move in to.

The new law will have the most impact with regards to criminalizing the squatting of empty or derelict buildings that can be accessed without force.

Crisis, the support charity for single homeless people, has said it would like to see the exclusion of buildings that have stood empty for more than six months and where there are no significant steps being taken to refurbish, let or sell the building.

It would also like to see a division made between those who make a decision to squat and those who are homeless, leaving care or women’s refuges. The law as it stands makes no such distinction.

The Lords have no power to reject a bill once passed by the House of Commons but they will have two further opportunities to make amendments to the Bill before it becomes law.

Weatherley said: “As a backbencher I have a duty to ensure that there are not any unintended consequences as a result of the Bill. I will be asking Shelter and Crisis to feedback to me on where they feel the law hasn’t worked.”

http://thelatest.co.uk/brighton/2012/01/10/anti-squatting-laws-progress-through-parliament/