Thames @ Hampton

[mark99]

http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/16438305.part-of-river-thames-at-hampton-reopens-after-council-enforcement-to-remove-pontoons-and-piles/

[Sea Dog]

Can't have been cheap to put it in; can't have been cheap to have to pay for the council to remove it.  I wonder how his income from the venture  stacks up against that expenditure?

[Wanted]

wow! that's mad, how did he think he'd get away with it? I'm all for supporting those who are in need of housing and respectfully squat some land but to try and profit from it on this scale is next level!  

[Sea Dog]

4 minutes ago, Wanted said:

I'm all for supporting those who are in need of housing and respectfully squat some land but ....

Genuine question:  is that really a thing?  The conformist in me would have me think that squatters (excepting those brands as such when overstaying in a dispute perhaps) occupy land or property because they want something for nothing.  I hadn't really thought there could be a legitimate case of a genuine need  justifying the occupation of someone else's property - the exception might be an immediate need for shelter maybe,  but land I really hadn't thought a possibility. The very idea of "respectfully squatting" also seems an anathema  to me, I suppose because the general belief is that, when they leave, the places are trashed.  Not to hijack the thread, but a brief aid to understanding would be welcome.

Funnily enough, in this case it's the land owner doing the illegal occupation - the folks in need of the mooring were probably well-heeled and paying him rather handsomely in that area! 

 

[Wanted]

4 hours ago, Sea Dog said:

Genuine question:  is that really a thing?  The conformist in me would have me think that squatters (excepting those brands as such when overstaying in a dispute perhaps) occupy land or property because they want something for nothing.  I hadn't really thought there could be a legitimate case of a genuine need  justifying the occupation of someone else's property - the exception might be an immediate need for shelter maybe,  but land I really hadn't thought a possibility. The very idea of "respectfully squatting" also seems an anathema  to me, I suppose because the general belief is that, when they leave, the places are trashed.  Not to hijack the thread, but a brief aid to understanding would be welcome.

 

Funnily enough, in this case it's the land owner doing the illegal occupation - the folks in need of the mooring were probably well-heeled and paying him rather handsomely in that area! 

 

It’s a fair question, and the answer I guess is a bit subjective. 

 

In my youth I squatted a lot, various disused buildings and sometimes land assigned for building or even better, Council land used as storage (gravel etc) 

 

I met lots of folk on the road who needed to be either under a roof or part of a community, each a need in its own right. 

 

We we were all very respectful, never broke anything and always left things in a better state than when we found them. We also left immediately if ask. 

 

9 times out of 10 we were asked to not over tidy as dodgy landlords wanted things to fall into disrepair to avoid planning law. 

 

So yeah, in my experience people did squat land out of need. It’s not up to me to decide what criteria that need should be, rather favouring to just accept it. 

 

And yeah, this particular case is bizarre, I can only guess the guy genuinely thought he had a case! 

[Sea Dog]

1 hour ago, Wanted said:

It’s a fair question, and the answer I guess is a bit subjective. 

 

In my youth I squatted a lot, various disused buildings and sometimes land assigned for building or even better, Council land used as storage (gravel etc) 

 

I met lots of folk on the road who needed to be either under a roof or part of a community, each a need in its own right. 

 

We we were all very respectful, never broke anything and always left things in a better state than when we found them. We also left immediately if ask. 

 

9 times out of 10 we were asked to not over tidy as dodgy landlords wanted things to fall into disrepair to avoid planning law. 

 

So yeah, in my experience people did squat land out of need. It’s not up to me to decide what criteria that need should be, rather favouring to just accept it. 

 

And yeah, this particular case is bizarre, I can only guess the guy genuinely thought he had a case! 

Thanks - there's always another side to these things so I'm glad of the insight. You make an interesting point about the desirability of disrepair.

 

I think it likely this guy probably thought the reward from going ahead with construction without the permissions in place was worth the risk, perhaps thinking retrospective permission would be his fallback.  If some of these speculative ventures didn't fail, they wouldn't be risky. Can't win 'em all.

[Wanted]

1 hour ago, Sea Dog said:

Thanks - there's always another side to these things so I'm glad of the insight. You make an interesting point about the desirability of disrepair.

 

I think it likely this guy probably thought the reward from going ahead with construction without the permissions in place was worth the risk, perhaps thinking retrospective permission would be his fallback.  If some of these speculative ventures didn't fail, they wouldn't be risky. Can't win 'em all.

Yeah, and I guess he probably had his business tied up in a way that wont cost him everything.

 

 

[Tim Lewis]

11 hours ago, mark99 said:

http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/16438305.part-of-river-thames-at-hampton-reopens-after-council-enforcement-to-remove-pontoons-and-piles/

This story has been going on for years and involved a lot more than just the jettys

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/17/couples-paid-2m-two-worthless-houseboats-take-seller-court/amp/

[Robbo]

15 minutes ago, Tim Lewis said:

This story has been going on for years and involved a lot more than just the jettys

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/17/couples-paid-2m-two-worthless-houseboats-take-seller-court/amp/

That sounds like buyers not doing their home work or getting a solicitor when buying.

[WotEver]

11 minutes ago, Robbo said:

That sounds like buyers not doing their home work or getting a solicitor when buying.

The judge was pretty unimpressed with all of the parties but in the end did award substantial damages in favour of the purchasers. 

http://www.falcon-chambers.com/images/uploads/documents/DJURBERG_judgment_1_Sept_17.pdf

[Robbo]

8 minutes ago, WotEver said:

The judge was pretty unimpressed with all of the parties but in the end did award substantial damages in favour of the purchasers. 

http://www.falcon-chambers.com/images/uploads/documents/DJURBERG_judgment_1_Sept_17.pdf

I’ve not read it all, but it sounds like the purchasers didn’t have a solicitor when buying which would have highlighted the sellers inaccuracies of the deal. if i’m buying anything with a 125 year mooring I would want a solicitor involved, especially when there own research came up with some questions regarding the sellers history.

Edited August 20, 2018 by Robbo

[WotEver]

1 hour ago, Robbo said:

 if i’m buying anything with a 125 year mooring I would want a solicitor involved

Regardless of the length of the mooring, if I’m buying something for over a million quid I’d want the contract wrapped up in gold thread personally woven by a solicitor. 

[Sea Dog]

11 hours ago, WotEver said:

Regardless of the length of the mooring, if I’m buying something for over a million quid I’d want the contract wrapped up in gold thread personally woven by a solicitor. 

The solicitor's fees for that service would take the price of almost anything over a million!