Bailiffs with the wrong address

[labman]

Re: Bailiffs with the wrong address

Personally, although it may be perfectly lawful, I would heavily caution any members against forcibly removing any bailiff from their property. A nasty situation could be badly exacerbated by trying to do this, and it is not beyond the realms of possibility that both could end up being arrested. :beagle:

[bluebottle]

Re: Bailiffs with the wrong address

Personally, although it may be perfectly lawful, I would heavily caution any members against forcibly removing any bailiff from their property. A nasty situation could be badly exacerbated by trying to do this, and it is not beyond the realms of possibility that both could end up being arrested. :beagle:

So long as the bailiff is not behaving in an aggressive or threatening manner or using any form of unlawful physical force against someone, then I would agree with you. However, if unlawful force is being used, then the law allows you to use as much reasonable force as is necessary to defend yourself against such unlawful force.

In the case of a wrong address, if the courts and the bailiff company have been notified of this and a wrong address is confirmed and the bailiff then decides to make a visit knowing that it is the wrong address, then the bailiff would be trespassing and liable to forcible removal if they refused to leave after at least two requests to leave had been made.

[labman]

Re: Bailiffs with the wrong address

That still doesn't mean it would be wise to use reasonable force, even if it is lawful. Phoning 999 would be a better option in my opinion. :beagle:

[bluebottle]

Re: Bailiffs with the wrong address

That still doesn't mean it would be wise to use reasonable force, even if it is lawful. Phoning 999 would be a better option in my opinion. :beagle:

Trouble is, LM, we know just how clueless the current membership of H.M. Constabulary are in respect of certificated bailiffs and enforcement of magistrates court fines. The more experienced officers, who were more au fait with the behaviour and powers of bailiffs, were forcibly retired. Makes you question why they were retired. Am I being cynical? No.

[labman]

Re: Bailiffs with the wrong address

That still doesn't mean it would be wise to use reasonable force, even if it is lawful. Phoning 999 would be a better option in my opinion. :beagle:

Trouble is, LM, we know just how clueless the current membership of H.M. Constabulary are in respect of certificated bailiffs and enforcement of magistrates court fines. The more experienced officers, who were more au fait with the behaviour and powers of bailiffs, were forcibly retired. Makes you question why they were retired. Am I being cynical? No.

Whilst I don't disagree with what you've said BB, I can't agree with the use of reasonable force. 'Reasonable' is a word I hate, especially in legislation. What is 'reasonable force?'

If the bailiff resists, can you push him, put him in an arm lock, get him on the ground and drag him? Put your arm around his neck? Grab his hair?

What is reasonable, and where does reasonable stop?

You can't answer these questions, and neither can I. It is for that reason I can't condone the use of reasonable force. :beagle:

[CleverClogs]

Re: Bailiffs with the wrong address

How much force would you use to remove a burglar?

[labman]

Re: Bailiffs with the wrong address

I've got a very big dog with an even bigger bark!

[CleverClogs]

Re: Bailiffs with the wrong address

I've got a very big dog with an even bigger bark!

In other words, you'd hide behind your wife?

[labman]

Re: Bailiffs with the wrong address

In other words, you'd hide behind your wife?

No, I've got a very big dog with an even bigger bark.

What exactly makes you think that is anything whatsoever to do with my wife?

If it was an attempt at humour, it was a pretty pathetic and insulting one I'm afraid.

[bluebottle]

Re: Bailiffs with the wrong address

Whilst I don't disagree with what you've said BB, I can't agree with the use of reasonable force. 'Reasonable' is a word I hate, especially in legislation. What is 'reasonable force?'

If the bailiff resists, can you push him, put him in an arm lock, get him on the ground and drag him? Put your arm around his neck? Grab his hair?

What is reasonable, and where does reasonable stop?

You can't answer these questions, and neither can I. It is for that reason I can't condone the use of reasonable force. :beagle:

If a bailiff has hold of you by the throat, then you are within your rights to kick the bailiff in his gonads to make him release his grip on your throat. That is self-defence. What is reasonable will vary from case to case. Speaking in very general terms, I would not advocate that someone does not defend themselves against attack by an aggressor.

In the case of trespass, it is always wise to ask the police to effect the removal of a trespasser. When contacting the police, it is always best to state that you require assistance to remove the trespasser. The force police officers use to remove trespassers can be a somewhat painful experience for the trespasser.

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: Bailiffs with the wrong address

In my past experience, when it comes to confrontation, it is always best to dial 999, ask for the Police and explain to the operator what is happening, and wait.

If you must use a cricket bat, because the intruder/trespasser is trying to harm you, then aim for the knees not the head, once the intruder/trespasser is on the ground you can detain them by using ligatures around their hands and ankles....not their neck.

Once detained you should not inflict any harm, the odd prodding with the tip of your foot, to make sure they are still alive is accepted.

Once the cavalry arrives be prepared to answer a few questions....truthfully....most cops are not as thick as you look.

[bluebottle]

Re: Bailiffs with the wrong address

[QUOTE=Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge;380773]In my past experience, when it comes to confrontation, it is always best to dial 999, ask for the Police and explain to the operator what is happening, and wait.

If you must use a cricket bat, because the intruder/trespasser is trying to harm you, then aim for the knees not the head, once the intruder/trespasser is on the ground you can detain them by using ligatures around their hands and ankles....not their neck. Heavy duty cable ties seem to be useful for this purpose.

Once detained you should not inflict any harm, the odd prodding with the tip of your foot, to make sure they are still alive is accepted. So an electric cattle prod is out of the question, I take it?

Once the cavalry arrives be prepared to answer a few questions....truthfully....most cops are not as thick as you look. Quite a few coppers who are still in the job seem to be getting wise to some of the tripe certificated bailiffs spout. [/QUOTE]

BB
BB

[enquirer]

Re: Bailiffs with the wrong address

The goon will lie outrageously, so make sure that you get your ducks in a row before the Police arrive.

"Twice I informed him that he was trespassing and requested him to leave, but on each occasion he refused to do so. On the third refusal, reasonable force was used to eject him".

"I was put in fear of unlawful force being applied to my person. I defended myself". (You were assaulted. If he actually laid hands on you, you were battered as well).

Contrary to popular belief, you can strike the first blow. Just make sure that it fits the circumstances.

[bluebottle]

Re: Bailiffs with the wrong address

The goon will lie outrageously, so make sure that you get your ducks in a row before the Police arrive.

"Twice I informed him that he was trespassing and requested him to leave, but on each occasion he refused to do so. On the third refusal, reasonable force was used to eject him".

"I was put in fear of unlawful force being applied to my person. I defended myself". (You were assaulted. If he actually laid hands on you, you were battered as well).

Contrary to popular belief, you can strike the first blow. Just make sure that it fits the circumstances.

Although you can, legitimately, defend yourself against an unprovoked and unlawful physical attack, Sir Vere's advice is, in all probability, the best course of action to follow. In R -v- Tucker, the two bailiffs involved forced entry unlawfully, assaulted the householder, lied to the police and subsequently lied to the courts. Not surprisingly, their bailiff certificates were revoked.