Norfolk police claim trespasser is a tenant?

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 25/02/2019 - 16:57
Ok Ian, I see now that the act you refer to is relevant (though it is Section 144, not 14(4), which threw me).

But I stand by my other points.

Reply to the comment left by John Frith at 28/02/2019 - 00:26
John, apologies for citing the wrong section - it is section 144.
I don't think any court will uphold the argument that all a squatter needs to do is say that he has a tenancy (or even produce a document that purports to be a tenancy from a stranger) and the owner has to get a court order.

The position of the lawful tenant, T, subletting or assigning unlawfully is different. It may be a breach of the tenancy but T has a legal tenancy and as a matter of law can assign it or carve a sub-tenancy (of shorter duration) out of his legal tenancy.

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 25/02/2019 - 12:50
yes there is--and its illegal

UPDATE 2.3.19
Hi all, since my first posting.
The police sent the issue to a second so called “Higher” solicitor, this time there is no mention or claim the occupier was or is a tenant.

I never believed there was any chance of this, my thoughts are that as no one with authority gave her a tenancy so any tenancy she claimed to have would not be valid, however by her claim of tenancy it certainly caused the police to treat her, and state in writing to me that she was a tenant, one reason the police failed to act against her.

The argument the second police solicitor used this time was; the occupier “did not enter as a trespasser and as such does not know or ought to know that she is a trespasser, thus the points to prove for the criminal offence are not made out. The advice is that entry relate to initial entry and not any subsequent leaving and returning.

Basically, reading the advice the way the second solicitor make claim, means the fact that the occupier became aware she did not have permission to occupy and despite declaring her awareness to the police, the police are stating she can re-enter without being in breach of this law, I believe this is not the law and so against its intentions. This point really needs to be clarified.

It’s a fairly new law, if anyone can find case law that cover such a point kindly post it here.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/trespass-and-nuisance-land

The CPS advise does not state anything about any subsequent leaving and returning. I think it is the CPS guidance of this law, that really needs defining, as otherwise wording of the actual law seem very clear.

I am proceeding with a complaint to the CPS with the goal of getting them to change the wording of their guidance to emphasise the point of when a person who believes they have permission cease to hold protection form the criminal factor under this law.

If it is not addressed this is not only easy street for the police as they simply declare it a civil matter.
It makes a mockery and reverse the whole point of this law in the first place.

If anyone wishes to help out with this do get in touch.

To add to kak, the occupier or ex-occupier is now making spurious claims against me. the allegations are not true, but the thoughts of being in court defending myself after three solicitors (one was my own) ignored my extensive measure to point out what looks to me a very definitive law, defending myself will at the very least be a very costly prospect. Had the police acted correctly in the first place there would not be any grounds for the spurious claims.

Oh yer, the one solicitor who gave me advise stated ‘Possession claims are a matter of civil law pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules” is this just word play on his behalf my question to him was to define the trespass point when an occupant who believe they had permission changes a legal trespasser to that of an illegal trespasser. This solicitor is a both head of litigation posing to cover landlord and tenant law, and a partner in the firm. His statement came after I cited the full reference to section 144 Offence of squatting in a residential property.

They say the more you learn the less you know, that being said I obviously know nothing.

Regards kris

Reply to the comment left by Chris Baker at 02/03/2019 - 16:04
Make a formal complaint against the Inspector who told you they wouldn't act on your complaint. Include your financial losses on a daily basis.
They may well not take it as a recordable complaint, because it really about a force policy rather than conduct of a particular officer, but -
Should focus their minds !

This reminds me of what happened to a farmer friend a couple of years ago. A neighbour phoned him to say people had cut through his fence and were removing his caravan. He got his wife to phone the police an he gave chase. He followed them to an illegal traveller site and the police arrived. The guy who had stolen the caravan gave the police a grubby piece of paper stating they'd bought it for £500 that morning and the police then refused to take action saying it was civil matter, despite the owner following them having seen them take it. Of course the next day the travellers had vanished with the caravan.

Reply to the comment left by Gillian Schifreen at 02/03/2019 - 18:41
plod=useless and ignorant

Terry,
Although I thought the words I used on my initial posting to describe the police were restrained it made a more interesting read, they were wisely edited out by Neil.

Two sergeants and two solicitors have proven themselves completely ignorant of this law.
Both sergeants and one solicitor don’t know how a legal tenancy is created.

The solicitor that the inspector used, was not so ignorant instead he insisted used the wording of part of the guidance of this law to supersede the wording of the actual law.

Was this law written intending to offer continual protection of this offence to a person believing they had permission and then after learning they didn’t, still remain protected from this law when the re-enter to-occupy in full knowing they are trespassing?

The inspectors solicitor is insisting that the guidance does not account for the re-entering part, which I aggree it doesnt (maybe becuase it doesnt need to as the actual law covers this) however, this hights the need to seek change to the guidance wording.

the inspectors solicitors finding allowed the police to continue their non-action. Because of this stance, I now face allegations from the occupier which could get me a criminal record and render me a "not a fit and proper person" for landlord licensing, which would effect my overall livelihood.

Grant Shapps the then housing minister quoted “locked the door” on squatters’ rights for good.

If the inspectors solicitor is right, anyone with a key and a story are free from prosicution of this law placing the onus back to civil proceeding.

Are there any legal minds out there that think this is the intention?

The solution is to get the CPS guidance changed.
If anyone can offer help with this don’t hold back.

Kris

Reply to the comment left by Chris Baker at 03/03/2019 - 12:51
Ah Kris, this is the first time you mentioned a crucial point about them having a ' KEY ' presumably a previous tenant of yours gave it to them ? - how did they get it
Have you got a statement you could rely upon from your legitimate tenant to say he didn't give them access. I still say you should speak to the Sheriffs Office.

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 25/02/2019 - 10:30
Hi Ian,
re: "You should also write to the occupier stating that you are the owner and pointing out that they have no right to occupy and that they are committing a criminal offence."

Thanks for your input, may i ask you to futher add your thoughts, on the scenario of:
Because the police are viewing the occupant as a civil matter, what level of sucess (using legal aid) would you think such an occupier would stand if they made claims of illegal eviction (would this active arrest and criminal prosicution of the person giving such notice?) because the occupier vacated due to such a said statement, bearing in mind the (so called) high level of advise given to the police, as in my case.
kris