Agree strongly with markey's post
Agree strongly with markey's post
While canvassing for the last local elections, I came across 4-5 derelict houses that are causing huge problems for the neighbours, with vermin, overgrown gardens and some anti-social behaviour.
A 'steady' squatter who might take over the property and look after it would be a huge improvement from the POV of the neighbours. If the owners are prepared to leave the house derelict for years, it doesn't seem like a huge problem for someone to take it over.
I believe it can be done if you find land that has no traceable owner.
The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.
Yes you are wrong. To claim squatters rights you must occupy for 12 years and during that time the legal owner must not assert their rights to ownership of the lands. If after 11 years and 11 months the owner comes out and says get off my feckin land, then the clock restarts and you have to occupy for another 12 years without assertion from the owner.
Just wondering now, if we will see a charge by the homeless to gain possession of those unoccupied premises dotted around our capital city ? Interesting times ahead, methinks.
@ Superman politician
Of course you are right when it comes to trying to obtain adverse possession. But I am not suggesting that. By the way I am excluding any developments where the owner is still on the scene. I'm wondering if squatting (no rent to pay) is likely to catch on or if it is a cultural no no.
There are 50-100K houses empty. Their owners are developers and by extension banks. The developers are bust, so too are the banks. The state may be bust but ownership of the defaulted loans will result in the property being vested in the state (sometime).
In the meantime no one is paying security to mind these housing units. They are untended, in remote locales and in distinct groups. Would you even know if squatters moved in ? What if these squatters were well mannered ?
Who will evict you and how will they do it ? The state can't evict you until they get ownership and even then they will take ages (read 2-3 years - all rent free). The bank might want you to stay in there and keep vandalism down. The developer has scarpered.
Seems a no brainer to someone on the dole living in a crappy bedsit. Why not live on the dole in a nice 3-4 bed house ?
The Housing Act seems to refer to land. The definition of land can be stretched to housing but legally the state has no locus standii. Is rent supplement that attractive ? Maybe. I was wondering what people thought. Reason : What impact would this have on NAMA and thereby poor little ole me.
I'd also like to know this. Because the purpose of a house is that someone lives in it. So in a way squatting, in the absence of the more usual ways to fill a house with people occuring, does lead to a house fulfilling its purpose.
That's different to land that has other purposes that can be interfered with by trespassing.
Edited to add: Lets not forget that many of these houses were built against opposition, have spoilt the environment and landscape. The ultimate reason for permission was that they were believed to be needed. Not that they make money for developers.