Squatters could be good for us all, says judge in empty homes ruling

Squatters are not criminals and could be good for society, a judge has ruled in ordering a London council to make public a list of empty homes in its area.

Camden Council must now comply with a Freedom of Information Act request for a list of empty council-managed and private homes in the borough Photo: REX

7:00AM BST 06 Sep 2011250 Comments

With police backing, Camden Council argued that disclosing the list risked unleashing a wave of criminal damage, arson, drug-related crime and organised “stripping” of vacant properties.

But Judge Fiona Henderson emphasised that squatters were not law-breakers and said official concerns were outweighed by the “public interest in putting empty properties back into use”.

The tribunal ruling means Camden Council must now comply with a Freedom of Information Act request by Yiannis Voyias of the Advisory Service for Squatters for a list of empty council-managed and private homes in the borough.

Camden’s lawyers argued that disclosure of the list would compromise “the prevention or detection of crime”, while police said there was a link between squatting and a range of crimes, including vandalism, drug use and threatening behaviour. The council said almost all squatting involves criminal damage in breaking in and argued that squatters should not be allowed to “jump the queue” for scarce public housing.

The council also said that the number of squatted properties in Lambeth nearly doubled after a list of long-term empty homes in that borough was made public.

Judge Henderson accepted that disclosure of the list was likely to have “a negative impact on the prevention of crime” and would probably increase the number of properties squatted and “be of use” to organised criminals.

However, emphasising that “squatting is not a crime”, she said there was a lack of evidence that squatters were the source of more anti-social behaviour than rent-paying tenants.

She added: “The tribunal does not consider that any perceived social disadvantage of living next door to squatters, or the costs of eviction of squatters, are matters that the tribunal is entitled to take into consideration since squatting is not illegal”.

While the list would be of use to “professional” squatters — who aim to be as inconspicuous as possible — its disclosure was unlikely to increase the drink or drug-fuelled “opportunistic crime” associated with empty properties, she said.

Mr Voyias argued that making the list public would “rejuvenate the empty homes debate” and promote transparency, accountability and “public understanding”. It would put pressure on the Government to tackle the waste of resources represented by empty property.

Mr Voyias also said that academic researchers, homelessness charities and even English Heritage would benefit from disclosure of the number and location of unoccupied homes.

Ordering Camden to disclose the list, Judge Henderson said: “The tribunal accepts that bringing empty properties back into reuse is a priority for the Government and the council.”

However, she said the argument that squatters will be able to “jump the queue” for housing had “no bearing” on the prevention of crime.

The publication of the list would also “bring buildings back into use sooner and the housing needs of additional people would be met”.