More Than Trespassers: Unveiling The Secrets Behind Squatters In The UK Property Landscape

Dining table and pink chairs in light dining room

The mention of squatters strikes fear into the hearts of property owners and conjures images of bedraggled hippies occupying abandoned mansions. But stereotypes obscure complex realities about squatters in the UK.

Beyond media myths, what is a squatter in legal terms and what motivates people to occupy properties without conventional rights of ownership? Understandingsquatter sub-cultures provide insights into issues of housing justice, property rights and social marginalisation.

Defining Squatters Legally

In basic terms, a squatter is someone occupying a property without the legal right to do so. However, UK law recognises important distinctions:

Trespassers – People unlawfully entering land or vacant premises without transferring occupation. Can be removed instantly via police action.
Protected Occupiers – Those inhabiting properties continuously for a reasonable period intending to make it their home, but without owner permission. Have some rights, but can still be evicted.
Adverse Possessors – People occupying a property without challenge for at least 10 years. Can potentially make legal ownership claim. Cases are rare.

Squatters therefore have different rights and risks based on the nature of their occupation. But media depictions rarely reflect these nuances.

Motivations Behind Squatting

Beyond the stereotype of hippies and anarchists, the motivations behind modern squatting are diverse:

Housing Need – Rising rents and homelessness incentivise vulnerable people to seek shelter in empty buildings. A 2015 Advisory Service study estimated up to 50,000 properties were being squatted at any time in London alone.
Political Statements – Some activist groups like Occupy use occupation to highlight wealth inequality and housing policy failures. Vacant mansions and second homes are often targeted.
Commercial Gain – Organised criminal groups exploit squatting to operate illegal businesses like cannabis farms, nightclubs or brothels out of vacant premises.
Social Deviance – Individuals engaged in anti-social behaviour or substance abuse problems are drawn to the lack of restrictions in squats.
Sub-Cultural Appeal – The anti-establishment, communal ethos of squatting attracts people wishing to experiment with alternative lifestyles.

This range of drivers generates divergent brands of squats with differing aims and reputations. Not all represent countercultural rebellion.

The Changing Face of Squats

Squat demographics have transformed over recent decades:

1970s-80s – Squats flourished in vacant inner city areas, pioneered by artists and punks embracing communal living and activism. Iconic examples like St Agnes Place in Kennington survived over 30 years.
The 1990s-2000s – Regeneration of urban neighbourhoods pushed more marginalised groups like refugees and problem drug users into squatting in derelict council estates and industrial buildings.
2010s-Present – Rising rents and homelessness made squatting a survival strategy for younger people locked out of the housing market. Students facing debt and migrant workers on poverty wages increasingly squat secretly in commercial premises.

Once clustered in inner cities, dispersed pockets now exist nationwide. While squats symbolise resistance to some, to many occupants they represent critical shelter.

Spatial and Architectural Traits

The locations and buildings favoured by squatters share common features:

Older Building Stock – Easier break-in access and layouts suitable for communal living. High ceilings and large rooms enable adaptation.
Limited Oversight – Remote commercial and industrial areas with minimal foot traffic or neighbours avoid unwanted attention. Outskirts of towns are preferable to city centres.
Vacant Properties – Squatters scour business directories, auctions and planning notices to identify empty buildings between occupants. Neglected buildings suggest absentee owners.
Multiple Entrances/Exits – Ensure covert access/escape routes to evade authorities.
Defensible Design – Buildings with limited windows, high fences or other security features aid defence against intruders and police.

By occupying the forgotten corners of the built environment, squatters exploit gaps between ownership and oversight. Locational patterns develop based on secrecy and security.

Internal Organisation and Adaptation

Within squatted buildings, space gets creatively re-imagined:

Subversive Reinvention – Grand houses become venues for underground events while factories house table tennis lounges and vegetable gardens.
Communal Facilities – Kitchens, lounges bathrooms and sleeping areas are shared to foster community and pooling of resources.
Do-It-Yourself Aesthetics – Found materials are adapted into furniture and art. Scavenged items fill gaps in amenities.
Information Centers – Some serve as hubs to assist homeless people. Libraries, free shops and clothing exchanges meet needs.
Hidden Elements – Covert structural adaptations like tunnels and secret rooms provide escape routes and storage for contraband.

While improvised, squatters’ ingenuity creates warmth and functionality out of bare shells.

Squatting: Legal Context and Progressions

Squatting provokes passionate debates about housing rights versus property rights. The law balances both issues:

Historically – Squatting was illegal under common law until the 1970s when housing shortages prompted a shift towards recognising squatters’ entitlement to shelter.
Criminal Law Act 1977 – Made trespass a civil rather than criminal matter. Property owners must go through courts for eviction orders except in cases of rightful occupiers being displaced.
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 – Outlawed squatting in vacant commercial premises. Empowered swifter evictions.
Criminal Law Act 2012 – Re-criminalised squatting in residential buildings in England and Wales. Arrest is possible for entering as a trespasser even if not damaging property. Housing campaigners remain critical.

This evolving legal framework aims to balance landowner freedoms with humanitarian considerations around homelessness. Ongoing contention reflects difficulties reconciling the two amidst wider housing crises.

Challenges Posed by Squats

Squats generated diverse community responses:

Neighbourhood Disruption – Noise, rubbish, threatening behaviour and associations with crime create local tensions.
Reputational Damage – Squatting deters investment in regeneration projects and lowers area status. Depresses property values.
Costs – Securing, demolishing and cleaning squatted sites is expensive for owners. Maintenance obligations like business rates remain.
Undermining Rights – Property owners horrified at losing asset control. Heightens desires for stronger anti-squatter legislation.

Yet amid criticism, benefits also emerge:

Housing the Homeless – Provides last-resort shelter for the vulnerable and destitute at no public cost.
Deterring Decay – Occupied buildings are less prone to dereliction and vandalism than vacant ones. Prevents urban blight.
Creating Cultural Spaces – Communal living enables artistic, environmental and cultural initiatives to emerge.
Housing Activism – Highlights alternative models of cooperative living and anti-capitalist resistance. Raises awareness of failures in housing policy and provision.

This duality explains why societal perspectives on squatting remain so divergent. The impacts evoke both sympathy and hostility depending on priorities.

Conclusion

In summary, squatters in the UK reflect complex socio-economic issues around inequality, housing scarcity and urban decay. Vilified as parasitic by some, yet applauded by others as resourceful individuals addressing homelessness, squatting represents a fascinating intersection between the human need for shelter and debates around rights of ownership and occupation. The heterogeneous nature of squatters confounds stereotypes. By respecting squatters’ resourcefulness but addressing factors that compel squatting, policymakers can work towards safe housing access for all while also protecting property rights. But until housing ceases to be treated as a commercial commodity alone, squats seem likely to remain an intriguing and controversial reality.