Squatters and FSO.

[memnon]

Dear all,
This is sort of a rhetorical question as I am more curious than anything, but it may be a good point of discussion.
I was talking to a retired judge and asked him his opinion regarding whether or not a squatter was a “relevant person” and if so would FSO apply.
He said that no it didn’t as they were not there legally, HOWEVER, the owner/manager/ responsible person for the building did have a “duty of care”(DOC) for them.
He said that, obviously if no one knew they were there then nothing could be done, but if it was known that there were squatters in the building then a DOC was applicable.
One thing he did say was that the RP must be actively trying to remove them. If its known they are there but the RP decides that they don’t have the money or time to throw them out then they become relevant persons and FSO applies.
Even if the RP is trying to get them out the duty of care to the squatters would at least involve giving them a FRA or verbally informing them of the risks, but he wouldn’t be drawn as to what else would need to be done.
 I did ask him if, the results and required actions of the FRA, would they be the DOC that should be applied. He wouldn’t be drawn any further.
What’s the general opinion ??

[kurnal]

Dont have any answers but I would throw a couple of points into the discussion.

Clearly in this case although the owner has some control of the building he clearly does not have enough control to limit use of the building, to control the way it is used (domestic or HMO) or the number of persons using it. He does not have access to the building in order to conduct a fire risk assessment let alone to implement any risk control measures. Only the leader of the squatters has this control and so if the premises are subject to the Order they are the person having control.

I wonder if the enforcing authorities were so concerned as to issue a prohibition notice - on whom it would be served?

His duty of care under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 is one thing  but it was not intended to be used as a squatters charter.

[nearlythere]

Send in the dogs.

[Midland Retty]

Well ok I'll throw this is in then - does the argument depend on whether the presence of squatters makes the premises domestic use?

[nearlythere]

Well ok I'll throw this is in then - does the argument depend on whether the presence of squatters makes the premises domestic use?

Most likely HMO. You would tend to get an assortment of individuals not classified as a family. I think the dogs still the best idea.

[Tom Sutton]

The law regarding squatters complicates the matter further If the premises is residential they are breaking the law, if it is non residential then they could be within the law? Check out https://www.gov.uk/squatting-law