Are They Tenants or Squatters (or something else completely!)?

Not squatters unless they forced entry. If they had a key from parents.................

I'd be astonished if the sons were not there just before the tenancy ended, or parents vacated, but didn't Adrian say the tenancy was still ongoing? Teants don't have to occupy, though we expect them to.

If they are in or entitled to be in occupancy of the property, which they clearly are until 15th April soonest, then the tenancy continues. So if the sons are there they are there before end of tenancy.

Best bet is Accelerated Possession immediatelynotice has ended - except LL hasn't served a s21 has he?

Entering by force is not a requisite of the offence of squatting; it’s the knowledge of being a trespasser that is important. If the sons enter the property by force then burglary will be the more likely offence if accompanied with theft or damage.

Unfortunately, now that we have more detail from Adrian it might be difficult to prove an offence of squatting although I can’t see that the sons would be considered to be holding over as tenants so that makes it even more essential to inform the sons in writing now that they do not have permission to live in the property and once the named tenants occupancy formally ends the sons will be deemed to be trespassing if they remain in the property as residents.

When this happened to me (see previous comment) I told the police I did not know the person in my house and had never given permission for her to live there - therefore she was a squatter. The police agreed and were willing to come and tell her she had to leave. The threat of this was enough to make her go so I didn't have to involve them. Was this wrong then? Was she not a squatter?

Reply to the comment left by "Edna " at "25/03/2014 - 08:14":

I have just re-read your first comment again and with the available facts I doubt very much whether your circumstances would have amounted to a Sec 144 squatting prosecution in Court.

The rogue tenant must know or ought to know that she is a trespasser. It wouldn’t be squatting if she entered the property in good faith, reasonably believing she had permission to do so i.e. in the circumstances you describe where the lawful tenant has sublet to her. In such circumstances it would be reasonable for a police officer to ask her to provide evidence of a tenancy agreement or rent payments to show she believed that she was not a trespasser.

However, your method of action did the trick and perhaps the police officers didn’t ask too many questions in the first instance in an attempt to provide you with a quick resolution to the matter.

One does not have to ofrce entry to be a squatter. In fact until recently forced entry was criminal while squatting was not so squatters were careful not to leave evidence of forced entry.

If for example the sons gained access after the end of the tenancy and after their parents had vacated, even with a key, they would be squatters as they would have entered as trespassers.

Definitive word.

Romain is right the recent change was that from September 2012 squatting in residential property became a criminal offence and they can therefore be arrested. But you have to prove they are a squatter for the Police to make an arrest.

A squatter must have entered the property unlawfully and so an occupier authorisewd to be there, even if by implication and not contract e.g. family members like these sons, cannot be a squatter. I very much doubt the Police would treat a family member as a squatter anyway, they expect squatters to be unknown to the property owner (tenant).

A trespasser is someone occupying without permission and whilst you could argue this would include the authorised occupier and of course someone left behind by an ex partner who was the tenant, in reality since they are protected by the PFEA 1977 they are actually there lawfully. Or more correctly cannot be unlawfully evicted.

You might also need to consider the rights under The Matrimonial Homes Act etc if they are a deserted married partner or even just a spouse etc.

A trespasser is someone even walking into your garden (probably front garden would not apply as implied right to approach the property up the path or drive especially if open plan and no fence etc.

Arguably to make this more interesting for the real anoraks amongst us (Romain?!!) you can be a squatter on land, or you are more likely a tresspasser on land and a squatter in a building!!

Perhaps part of the difference might be that a squatter is trying to exlude the rightful owner but the trespasser is not?

Reply to the comment left by "The Gatekeeper" at "26/03/2014 - 09:14":

"A squatter must have entered the property unlawfully and so an occupier authorisewd to be there, even if by implication and not contract e.g. family members like these sons, cannot be a squatter."

The key is that they must have been allowed access by a lawful occupier in order not to be squatters.
In the example I used above the tenancy ends, and the tenant vacates but keep a key. Now, if the ex-tenant gives that key to anyone (including family members) who then use it to gain access and occupy the property, that person will be a squatter.
Obviously it may not be easy to prove when the person gained access and thus to prove squatting.

A squatter is not protected by the PFEA 1977 so eviction can just be changing all the locks when they are away, which is why "professional" squatters ensure that someone is at the squatted property at all times.

In addition, as per PFEA 1977, anyone was was previously a lawful residential occupier cannot be a squatter, as mentioned.

PS: The Gatekeeper's style reminds me of another member 😉

Romain what DO you mean?

Or do you mean knowledgeable, authoritative, vastly experienced, talks common sense, modest and above all with access to people who know what they are talking about which they are willing to share?

Reply to the comment left by "The Gatekeeper" at "26/03/2014 - 11:13":

Of course. What else? 😉