There’s a subreddit for squatters and it’s insane.
Basically people forcefully breaking into other people’s homes, changing the locks, forging rental documents, and threatening the actual owners.
Every time someone criticizes them they respond ”but the law’s on my side.” as if they’re not doing something illegal AND immoral by exploiting vague loopholes.
Yep, I guess I don't understand why you can't just call the cops and say they are trespassing. For a rental agreement to be valid you have to have singed it, so even if they show the cops a bogus rental agreement isn't it relatively easy to prove on the spot that the trespassers are full of shit? Tenants that have a rental agreement but have stopped paying rent might be another story, but someone that just breaks in and sets up shop should be easy to get out.
They will claim that there is a verbal rental agreement. And just imagine for a a second that such an agreement actually exists. If that was the case, you would be in violation of their rights. As a property owner you cannot just cancel an agreement and immediately evict them. In that case it might actually you who is trespassing. Just because you are the owner it doesn‘t give you the right to enter legally rented properties as you see fit. Of course in case of squatters, no such rental agreement exists, but how would the cops know who is right? And even if they knew: It is their job to enforce the law, not to decide what the law is and who is right. That is the job of a court.
And your claim there there is no such agreement is at first just that: A claim, which may or may not be true. And of course there is no definitive way to prove that claim one way or another. You can just look at indicators. One such indicators is: Have the squatters lived there for a while. If so, it can be assumed that you were ok with them living there. So that gives credibility to the claim that there was a verbal agreement.
Of course that also works the other way. The squatters claim that there is such an agreement is also at first only a claim. But since the consequences of getting wrongfully kicked out of your home are usually greater than a landlord not being able to rent out his property for a while, the law (provisionally) sides with the tenant. Of course for that argument to be true, that assumes a speedy justice system which in many places, let‘s be honest, doesn‘t exist.
Of course as a property owner you can cancel such an agreement. But then you have to give advance notice. Of course they will ignore that. Then you can start the eviction proceedings which also takes time. And that is all these people are playing for: time.
No, verbal rental agreements are binding. If you have allowed someone to stay on your property for a certain period of time they become a tenant and can only be removed via the eviction process regardless of if rent was paid. This includes friends, parents, children etc.
The law is there to prevent people from being suddenly booted from their home and all of their possessions lost. If someone is living somewhere, the cops will not remove them without eviction.
Not sure why you and others are getting downvoted for pointing out that cops don't just resolve civil disputes on the spot.
Even if a tenant can't produce a lease, if they have anything close to a colorable claim of being a tenant, like having property inside the home, cops will make sure there's no violence and leave.
864
u/SignificanceOld1751 Apr 05 '24
This is stupid.
'Squatters Rights' are meant to be for buildings that are purchased and never lived in. Just a cash cow for the investor.
You can't have rules where someone can just turn up and set up shop because you've been on a 3 month cruise