When you think of the illegal squatting of a home, you normally think of a person who enters an empty property and begins to live there, depriving the owner of the use of the home. And, although this is usually the most common case, there is another type of squatting that entails legal differences that are worth knowing. This second type of squatting occurs when a tenant stops paying, but does not leave the house. That is to say, that in the first case there is no rental contract - although the tenant may falsify it - while, in the second case, this document does exist.
Precisely, the existence of the lease makes the situation completely different, at least in the legal and procedural aspect. If the squatting occurs because a tenant has stopped paying his or her fees, then the eviction cannot proceed until a judge orders it. A process that takes more time. It should be noted that this casuistry would also include those tenants who continue to reside in the property once the contract term has expired and it has not been renewed, even if there are no defaults. In both cases, the eviction must be ordered by a judge.
It should also be noted that, at the legal level, there is no such thing as the crime of squatting, but it can be usurpation or trespassing. The usurpation is when you enter an uninhabited property and against the will of the owners, in most cases; while trespassing is when the house is inhabited and it is against the will of the owners.
Having mentioned the above, it should be noted that there are evictions for precariousness or evictions for non-payment. The first is the one that the owner has to undertake when his home has been squatted by a person or persons who did not have a rental contract. While, in the second case, it is done when the tenant stops paying or continues to live in the property once the term of the rental contract has expired.
The eviction for precarious must meet a series of requirements to be able to undertake this procedure. The first of these is that the squatter has had to access the property with or without the consent of the owner, but does not want to return the home. At the same time, the occupant does not pay any type of rent, although he may pay some utility costs. The key is that there is no contract.
In this second eviction, there is indeed a rent signed by means of a valid contract. This makes the procedure different. In this case, a lawsuit must be filed in which the payment of the generated debt is required and, in addition, the eviction of the property. Here, what the judge seeks is to certify the existence of the aforementioned debt in order to claim it and issue an eviction order.
The difference between the two is that in the first, a verbal trial is used in the first instance and, in addition, the owner has to certify before the judge that he is the one who has the right of use to start a process of expulsion from his property. . In the first case, evidence of the contract and non-payment must be provided, in the second, no, only the ownership of the property.
There is a modality approved since 2015 to expedite, or so it is intended, the procedures in both situations. In this case, it is a more agile and quick verbal procedure, although it can be lengthened by the collapse in the courts, which seeks to shorten the deadlines. It is more similar to eviction for precarious, and since 2018 this modality is usually used more than the previous one.
In this case, it is necessary to file a claim signed by a lawyer and a solicitor, complying with the requirements of demonstrating the title to the property of that house, the contract, if any, the non-payments and other documents that certify and ratify that the house is being usurped by a third party against the will of the real owners.
