Morning:
3°c
Security firm will protect properties round the clock for £2,600 a week
Peter Dominiczak11.11.09
Wealthy homeowners are turning to private security firms to protect their empty London properties from squatters at a cost of up to £2,600 a week.
One company is set to "squat proof" hundreds of houses and even offers ways of getting unwanted guests to leave.
It comes after the Standard revealed that squatters were regularly targeting properties worth up to £50million in Belgravia and Mayfair, which are often owned by investors hiding their identities behind offshore companies.
According to the Empty Homes Agency there are more than 80,000 empty properties in London, or 2.5 per cent of all homes. A growing number are properties bought by foreign investors who want a secure asset but continue to live elsewhere.
Forbes Risk, a security company predominantly staffed by former members of the armed forces, offers a range of "squat proofing" measures which they say will turn a potential squat into an "inhabited property", making any attempt to enter the property illegal.
For a six-storey Belgravia townhouse, their basic package would cost about £1,700. The property would be professionally sealed, meaning squatters would be unable to gain entry without causing criminal damage. A client would have to pay around £2,600 per week for 24-hour protection.
Andrew Walker, a director of Forbes Risk, said: "We have a lot of wealthy clients who for obvious reasons do not want squatters in their properties. Squatting, particularly in wealthier parts of London, is becoming an epidemic.
"We have some crazy laws in this country and squatters are realising just how easy it is to get in very expensive homes. We have ways to get these people out for our clients."
Last month a group of squatters occupied a house doors away from the home of the ex-wife of Chelsea billionaire Roman Abramovich and the couple's five children.
"Squatters cause a lot of hassle. Mrs Abramovich, for example, has a young family and was understandably alarmed," said Mr Walker.
Latest figures from the Empty Homes Agency show that the number of empty properties in Westminster, which includes Mayfair, Belgravia and Marylebone, stood at 3,584 at the end of last year. At least 2,512 homes stood empty in Kensington and Chelsea, 1,654 in Islington and 3,627 in Barnet.
David Ireland, chief executive with the Empty Homes Agency, said: "Off-shore account owners are exploiting a tax loophole. They don't have to pay capital gains tax and many of them simply treat these properties as an investment and allow them to sit empty, never intending to occupy them."
Reader views (5)
A formerly squatted property is not a pretty sight and if you have had to walk over used hyperdermic needles you would know what I mean. A few high profile cases have been highlighted in the media but the victims of this problem are for the most part ordinary people with property who are caught up in family legal issues, long winded planning applications or the the constraints of the current economic slow down. This problem affects us all, as anyone who has lived in a neighborhood that has a squat can attest to, and should not be treated lightly.
I work for Clearway Services in London and we have been helping people protect their properties from squatting for over 15 years - you don't have to be a millionaire to use our services!.
- Gideon, London
There is a lot of resentment to empty property. However, not all is for tax reasons. Some are genuinely waiting sale, planning, refurb etc. I totally disagree with squatting. For over 10 years I have lived rent free in some amazing buildings in the most exclusive parts of London property that they can't be legally squatted. The company that provide this service charge less than a third of £2,600.00. It's unnecessary and an over kill to charge so much and use fully trained soldiers.
- Luther De Gale, Acton, London
Good on the squatters, I say. When wealthy property owners register their companies overseas to dodge paying the tax that all the rest of us are subjected to, £31,000 per year in security costs leaves me utterly unsympathetic. In fact, I consider this a rather nice comeuppance.
- Hugh, Hertfordshire
Good luck to the firm (I always welcome/applaud initiative), but wouldn't it simply be cheaper/better to let the house out? I recall an article earlier this yr of agencies who have "trusted tenants" on their books. The tenants pay reduced rent, but keep the property clean and maintained thus it isn't empty and at risk from squatters.
- Scott, London
Even if you paid 3 staff £30k a year to each do an 8-hour shift (which really wouldn't involve any hard work at all on their part), you'd still only be paying around £1700 a week. £2600 is ridiculous, unlesss they're employing LU staff of course.
- Keith, King's Cross
