What’s so special about rent here that makes it so difficult for police to evaluate? Surely rent is not particularly confounding compared to, say, theft or kidnapping.
Rent is determined by a private contract, like GP said. It doesn’t even have to be a formal contract in most countries. It’s essentially a civil concern and not a criminal one, unlike theft or kidnapping.
Couldn’t this logic then be extended to anything? People could steal anything with impunity.
The police can’t prove I didn’t have an informal agreement to be the sole operator of your car, for example. For kidnapping, how can they prove I’m not just a baby sitter?
If we are going to take people at their word, why would buildings be put in a different class than people or things?
I get not wanting people with a legitimate claim to a building to be kicked out, but in the case of a building like this, wouldn’t zoning issue prevent it from being used as housing? Even if there was an agreement, I’d expect zoning laws to override it. Obviously IANAL, but this doesn’t make a lot of sense and it seemed like it should be a solved problem by now.
You're asking why there's a difference between civil and criminal law. The answer is that some things are disputes between people, and other things are codified as crimes. Kidnapping someone is a codified crime; having a dispute over a contract (including a lease or other document allowing occupancy) isn't. It could be made into a crime via legislation, but I think my other comment puts forward a decent argument for why doing so would be pretty bad for our civil liberties.
(The underlying "why" here is that calling the police for a theft or a kidnapping results in a criminal accusation, while just having a dispute over rightful ownership or occupancy is not itself criminal.)
