Section 144 LASPO: The Criminalisation of Squatting in the UK

Section 144 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 fundamentally changed the legal landscape for squatting in England and Wales. This law made it a criminal offence to squat in residential buildings, with penalties including imprisonment. Understanding Section 144 is essential for anyone involved in housing issues, from property guardians to housing advisers.

What is Section 144 LASPO?

Section 144 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (commonly abbreviated as LASPO) created a new criminal offence of squatting in a residential building. The law came into force on 1 September 2012.

Before this law, squatting in England and Wales was purely a civil matter. Property owners who wanted to remove squatters had to obtain a court order through civil proceedings. While this could be done relatively quickly using an Interim Possession Order (IPO), the process required court involvement and squatters could not simply be arrested.

Section 144 changed this by giving police the power to arrest suspected squatters in residential properties without the need for any civil proceedings. This represented a significant shift from treating squatting as a property dispute to treating it as a criminal act.

Key Provisions of the Law

The full text of Section 144 LASPO sets out the following key elements:

The Offence

A person commits an offence if:

1. The person is in a residential building as a trespasser having entered it as a trespasser
2. The person knows or ought to know that they are a trespasser
3. The person is living in the building or intends to live there for any period

What the Law Requires

For an offence to be committed, the prosecution must prove:

• The building is residential (designed or adapted for residential purposes)
• Entry was as a trespasser (without permission)
• The person knows or should know they're trespassing
• They are living there or intend to live there

Maximum Penalty

The offence is summary-only (tried in magistrates' courts only) with:

• Maximum imprisonment: 51 weeks (though in practice limited to 6 months until further legislation)
• Maximum fine: £5,000 (level 5 on the standard scale)
• Or both imprisonment and fine

How Squatting Was Criminalised

The criminalisation of residential squatting followed a political campaign in 2011-2012. Here is the timeline of key events:

2011: The Consultation

In August 2011, the Ministry of Justice launched a consultation titled "Options for Dealing with Squatters." The consultation proposed making squatting a criminal offence, citing concerns about homeowners returning from holiday to find squatters in their properties.

The SQUASH campaign (Squatters' Action for Secure Homes) was formed to oppose criminalisation. The campaign argued that:

• Most squatters were homeless people with no other housing options
• Civil remedies already allowed rapid eviction of squatters
• Criminalisation would cost more than existing civil procedures
• The "homeowner nightmare" scenario was extremely rare

2011-2012: Parliamentary Passage

Despite significant opposition, the government included the squatting provisions in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. Key moments included:

• October 2011: The amendment was added late in the parliamentary process
• December 2011: House of Commons debate, with critics arguing for more consideration
• February 2012: House of Lords initially rejected the squatting provisions
• March 2012: Commons overturned Lords' rejection; provisions reinstated
• May 2012: LASPO received Royal Assent
• 1 September 2012: Section 144 came into force

For more on the campaign against criminalisation, see our history page.

What Counts as a Residential Building?

Understanding what qualifies as "residential" is crucial because Section 144 only applies to residential buildings. The law provides this definition:

"A building is 'residential' if it is designed or adapted, before the time of entry, for use as a place to live."

Buildings That Are Residential

• Houses and flats (occupied or empty)
• Bedsits and HMOs
• Above-shop flats
• Former residential buildings awaiting demolition
• Buildings converted from commercial to residential (after conversion)
• Purpose-built student accommodation

Buildings That Are Not Residential

• Offices and commercial premises
• Warehouses and industrial buildings
• Shops (excluding residential parts)
• Hotels (guests have licences, not squatting)
• Buildings under construction not yet adapted for residential use

Grey Areas

Some cases are less clear:

• Mixed-use buildings: Only the residential parts are covered
• Former pubs with living quarters: May partly qualify
• Buildings being converted: Depends on stage of conversion
• Caretaker's flats in commercial buildings: The flat portion is residential

This distinction is important for property guardians, who often live in former commercial buildings. Most guardian schemes in commercial properties do not fall under Section 144.

Penalties and Enforcement

Criminal Penalties

Penalty Type	Maximum	Typical Range
Imprisonment	51 weeks	Fines or conditional discharge for first offences
Fine	£5,000	£100-£500 for minor cases
Criminal record	Permanent	Spent after rehabilitation period

Police Powers

Under Section 144, police have the power to:

• Enter properties to investigate suspected squatting
• Arrest suspected squatters without a warrant
• Remove and charge individuals

Enforcement in Practice

The enforcement of Section 144 has been variable. Research by the Guardian found that:

• Some police forces actively enforce the law
• Others continue to treat squatting as primarily a civil matter
• Resources and local priorities affect enforcement
• Many cases still proceed through civil courts

Available Defences

If charged under Section 144, there are several potential defences:

1. The Building is Not Residential

If the building was not designed or adapted for residential use before entry, Section 144 does not apply. This is often the strongest defence where it applies.

2. Not a Trespasser

The prosecution must prove entry as a trespasser. If you:

• Had permission to enter (even if later revoked)
• Were a tenant or former tenant
• Had a licence to occupy

You may not be a trespasser for the purposes of Section 144.

3. Tenant Protection

Former tenants who remain in a property after their tenancy ends are specifically protected. Section 144(3) states the offence is not committed by a person holding over after the end of a lease or licence (unless evicted through proper proceedings).

4. Did Not Know (and Could Not Have Known)

The prosecution must prove the person knew or ought to have known they were trespassing. In practice, this is difficult to argue as most people understand when they're in someone else's property without permission.

5. Not Living There

If a person enters but does not live there or intend to live there, the offence is not committed. Brief entry without living there may not qualify.

Commercial Buildings: Still Civil

A crucial point: squatting in commercial buildings remains a civil matter. Section 144 did not change the law regarding:

• Offices and commercial premises
• Warehouses and industrial buildings
• Retail units
• Derelict land

For commercial properties, owners must still use civil remedies:

• Interim Possession Order (IPO): Fast-track court process
• Possession proceedings: Standard civil court action
• Peaceable re-entry: Changing locks when unoccupied (risky)

This distinction is why property guardianship in commercial buildings continues to operate differently from residential arrangements.

Impact and Criticism

Arguments For Criminalisation

Supporters of Section 144 argued:

• Homeowners deserve immediate protection
• Civil processes were too slow and costly
• Squatting violated property rights
• Police needed powers to act quickly

Arguments Against

Critics, including SQUASH and housing charities, argued:

• The law targets homeless and vulnerable people
• Criminalisation increases homelessness and prison populations
• Civil remedies (including IPOs) already provided quick eviction
• The "homeowner nightmare" scenario was extremely rare (most squatted buildings were empty)
• Criminalisation costs more than civil proceedings
• Empty homes remain empty while homeless people are criminalised

Research Findings

Research on the impact of Section 144 has found:

• Increased street homelessness in some areas
• No significant reduction in burglary or theft (often conflated with squatting)
• Displacement to commercial properties
• Inconsistent enforcement across police forces
• Most convictions for vulnerable individuals rather than organised groups

For more on the cost of criminalisation, see our reports section.

Statistics and Convictions

Ministry of Justice data on Section 144 prosecutions:

Year	Prosecutions	Convictions	Custodial Sentences
2012 (Sept-Dec)	33	25	6
2013	112	85	12
2014	87	64	8
2015	45	33	5

Note: Figures declined over time as enforcement patterns settled and awareness of the law increased.

Frequently Asked Questions