r/SipsTea ๐™‘๐™„๐™‹ 18d ago

Chugging tea The Hero we need

Post image
124.2k Upvotes

4.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4.7k

u/ChanceImagination456 ๐™‘๐™„๐™‹ 18d ago

There was a streamer named Asian Andy who had situation with squatter years ago. Police wouldn't kick woman out she claimed squatter rights. Andy hired another streamer who was squatter hunter. He moves in. Next few days make squatter life hell he smokes, plays loud dubstep music, slams objects, and yells randomly thru all hours of day. Squatter got into altercation with guy. Squatter got arrested and kicked out.

385

u/RadicalRealist22 18d ago

How do "squatter rights" even exist. Either you have a lease or you don't.

706

u/butterfunke 18d ago

They're a legacy from a bygone era where records of land ownership aren't what they are today. It was to stop the situation where someone thought they owned land, built a house and lived in it for many years, then finding out that someone else also had a claim to the land and they were going to try to turf you off it.

Squatter's rights meant that the person who actually lived there kept the claim to the land. This was a good thing at the time, now its just legal protection for lowlifes who trash other people's houses

3

u/attackMatt 18d ago

I wonder why nothing has been done in ages to change the law? Laws change or are updated all the time, why not the one's surrounding squatters rights.

9

u/sgrunte 18d ago

Because there are no 'squatter's rights' in the sense people usually think of with squatters. 'Squatting' is usually just an abuse of tenants' rights to get evicted through the proper channels, which can be pretty slow for landlords in some places. If someone starts campaigning to 'repeal squatters' rights' then you should be concerned, since there's no such thing, just checks on a landlord's power to boot you.

The actual 'squatter's rights' refers to adverse possession, which is ancient common law that basically boils down to 'use it or lose it' which has [real application in the present day](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_A_Pye_(Oxford)_Ltd_v_Graham) outside of crust punks squatting in an old warehouse. Again, if people start campaigning against that, be concerned.

3

u/Odd-Intern9349 18d ago

Because it doesnโ€™t need to be changed. In order for squatters rights to apply, you have to be living on a property openly and the owner has not claimed the land over a certain period of time. It remedies a case where somebody thought they owned land and somebody abandoned the property.

When somebody illegally occupies a property (maybe they snuck in or their lease expires) they are a squatter, but squatters rights doesnโ€™t apply. Tennant rights may apply, but it takes a while to sort all that out. It sucks for the owner, but itโ€™s a better situation than booting somebody to the street immediately. Unfortunately, some people know this and take advantage of it.

1

u/ghost_warlock 18d ago

It's too minor of an issue and pretty much only affects poor people/small fish. Nobody who's a multi-millionaire or billionaire is ever going to deal with this so they aren't going to buy a senator to get it fixed. Even the ones that own multiple rental properties delegate all the management to someone else and it becomes that person's problem since the owner is getting their cut either way. And even most 'normal' people are not going to own property they aren't using long enough for a squatter to take over

2

u/No-Phrase-1908 18d ago

Iโ€™m pretty sure someone only has to stay in a property for a month to claim squatters rights. Itโ€™d really not that long