Injured during bailiff forced entry

[MrH123]

Hello

 

I am trying to get some advice as I am getting contradictory information all over the place, especially from the police. Sorry if it is a long post.

 

Yesterday 2 bailiffs attended my home in relation to a magistrates fine in the name of my daughter.

 

I answered the door to two rather large chaps, and asked them what they wanted.

 

They said they had a warrant of control and were going to enter the property to take goods.

 

My response was, "no you're not".

This went back and forth a little with

one of them telling me that under schedule 4 of the Magistrates Court Act 1980

they had authority to force entry if need be.

They also told me if I interfered they would call the police and I could be arrested.

 

I asked to see the paperwork and warrant, which was initially refused, but eventually they let me view some of it, with them holding it in their folder.

 

I got my wife to get my daughter out of bed as she was ill and she came downstairs.

I left my daughter outside resolving it, as far as I was aware.

 

 

I was then called by my daughter saying they were still saying they were coming in.

My daughter had already spoken to them a week before,

they confirmed this,

but the person dealing with it on their end had not come back to my daughter

about a proposed payment plan, instead they sent these people out.

 

My daughter was in the process of clearing her car out and I was still telling the bailiffs they were not entering,

my wife now was standing just outside the door on the doorstep and I was at the threshold.

 

 

The more aggressive of the two men kept saying he was coming in and I said he wasn't.

He said he would call the police and I invited him to do so.

I explained that without confirming what power they had or if what they said was valid

I was not letting them in to take my property.

 

 

I did say that if they had to come in then they would only be able to take my daughters belongings and not ours.

The more aggressive of the two disagreed, saying he could take everything.

I responded saying "not if I provide receipts".

He said that he would still take everything and we could argue the matter with the courts.

 

Again I reiterated they were not allowed entry.

 

At this point the quieter of the two forced his foot into the doorway,

the more aggressive of the two then turned his back and charged into the doorway in an attempt to gain entry.

 

During this "charge" my wife was thrown against the wall of the house and half dragged into the doorway

where she was jammed between two huge men,

I was both attempting to get them off my wife and stop them from entering the house.

 

My wife was now screaming in pain, shouting "you're hurting me, I'm stuck", but they kept pushing.

Somehow my wife got free and whilst I was still blocking them she called 999.

At this point the pushing stopped.. and the bailiffs were now 2 or 3 foot into our hallway.

 

Whilst waiting for the police I blocked the bailiffs further path into my home,

believing they had committed an illegal forced entry to attempt a walk in possession.

Unbeknown to myself or the bailiffs my wife had during this time gotten my phone and was recording the conversation.

 

The bailiff admitted deliberately turning his back so that he did not touch us, saying that by doing so it did not constitute assault and quite a bit more.

 

My wife was now covered in blood from lacerations caused by the outside wall / doorway to her arm.

 

The police duly arrived and even after telling them what happened, they decided this was "reasonable" force.

They were not interested in my partners injuries nor the fact we had a recording of the incident,

not even the fact that the bailiffs own camera and recording equipment would have captured the whole thing.

Obviously apart from when he deliberately turned his back.

 

 

They even tried to say my less than 9 stone, 5ft 3 wife hurt herself trying to push two 18+ stone men out of the house.

 

We eventually paid my daughters fine and the bailiffs and police left.

 

A little while later, after the adrenalin wore off, my wifes pain level increased to the point I took her to A&E.

After 4 hours and an x-ray for suspected dislocated shoulder and broke ribs we were let go

having been told she was suffering from quite substantial soft tissue injuries

and some nasty, deep lacerations to her arm, but nothing was broken.

 

Her pain continued to worsen through the night until bedtime.

When she removed her top it was found that the bailiff who came in backwards had elbowed her in the ribs as well.

We visited the doctors this morning and she has been told it is a very serious injury and would need 6 - 8 weeks rest without any lifting etc...

 

I have since contacted the police again and attempted to push them to further investigate but

initially I was told it was not assault, they were doing their job and we prevented them from doing it,

so this was "reasonable force".

They are now going to "investigate", but my feeling is we are being humoured and there is no intention of any action.

 

Any advice as to where we go next?

[Bailiff Advice]

Given what you have described it is difficult to know why the police considered that it was not worth investigating.

 

The sad fact is that with magistrate court fines there is indeed provision to force entry ( it is not used often but the right does exist)

 

It is very important indeed that you make a complaint to the relevant enforcement company and you must mark the complaint as Formal Complaint.

 

You say that your daughter had spoken to the enforcement company a week ago. Did she make a payment proposal? (This is not relevant to the events that have followed but is important because if a payment proposal was being considered a visit should not have been made).

 

Also, do you know whether she made a payment proposal within the correct time period outlined in the Notice of Enforcement?

 

When making your complaint you need to be aware that under the Data Protection Act the company will not be able to discuss your daughter's account and will only be able to address the actual events regarding your wife. If your daughter wants to see a copy of the warrant she needs to request this herself.

 

Also, it would assist your complaint if your wife obtained a copy of a letter from the doctor to evidence her injuries.

[king12345]

I would go to a different police station and report the assault.

Sounds like gbh to me.

Go armed with a&e and gp report.

Better if your wife comes with you and shows her injuries.

They are obliged to take the complaint, then if they take it further is another story.

Don't give up

[BazzaS]

I would go to a different police station and report the assault.

Sounds like gbh to me.

Go armed with a&e and gp report.

Better if your wife comes with you and shows her injuries.

They are obliged to take the complaint, then if they take it further is another story.

Don't give up

 

GBH?? I don't think so. Potentially still section 20 OAPA 1861, but as wounding rather than GBH.

Case law : GBH = "really serious harm" (R v Smith?? From memory), so not the most helpful definition.

CPS charging guidelines:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offences_against_the_person/#a15

 

I suspect they would go for S47 (ABH) rather than S20, if at all.

If their entry was in fact lawful, all they need claim is that your wife's injuries resulted from her unlawfully attpting to impede their lawful entry, and that they warned her she was at risk if in the way

[unclebulgaria67]

If the Police won't investigate you should make a formal complaint to Chief Constable in writing, possibly involving a Solicitor if need be.

 

The enforcement agents that attended need to be taught a lesson of what reasonable force is and this does not sound like it. If they were refused entry, with the amount not paid, they should have gone back to Magistrates to obtain written permission to use forced entry and to ask the Police to attend.

[MrH123]

I have since found that the statute they quoted is valid and does allow forced entry, but nowhere does it say what constitutes force.

 

I had already told them that once I had checked the statues and if they were indeed legally allowed entry, we would let them in. We also invited them to call the police. My daughter was out of the house and clearing her car out... I do not see any justification for a physical and forceful entry like this.

 

The more reading I do the less certain I am about any of this and nobody seems to have specific answers anywhere.

 

There is also this statement in the "forced entry protocol" notice on the gov.uk website...

 

(5.1) Legally the contractor does not require court approval prior to utilising

the above statutory powers.

(5.2) However, no forced entry to arrest or levy against the defaulter should

be attempted without first attempting to seek the prior approval of the

court Nominated Officer, although responsibility for the actual forced

entry will remain with the contractor.

 

The bailiff made no attempt to contact anyone for authority to force entry which the above seems to indicate he does, or at least that he must attempt it, which he did not. Does that me he did not have a legal right of entry at that point and therefore the forced entry and subsequent injuries constitute assault or abh or battery even?

 

Thanks

[king12345]

GBH?? I don't think so. Potentially still section 20 OAPA 1861, but as wounding rather than GBH.

 

Case law : GBH = "really serious harm" (R v Smith?? From memory), so not the most helpful definition.

 

CPS charging guidelines:

 

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offences_against_the_person/#a15

 

 

 

I suspect they would go for S47 (ABH) rather than S20, if at all.

 

If their entry was in fact lawful, all they need claim is that your wife's injuries resulted from her unlawfully attpting to impede their lawful entry, and that they warned her she was at risk if in the way

Offences Against the Person - GBH, ABH and Assault

 

There are a number of offences of serious assault under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

 

The most common of these offences are grievous bodily harm (GBH) and assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH). The definitions of these offences are outlined below.

 

Section 18 GBH (with intent).

 

This is the most serious of the assaults under the Offences Against the Person Act and is an offence that can only be tried in the Crown Court. There are two offences created by this section, inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent and wounding with intent.

•“Grievous bodily harm” (GBH) means really serious harm.

•For harm to amount to a “wound”, the continuity of the skin must be broken.

•The biggest difference between GBH under this section and GBH under section 20 is the question of intent. For this offence, the prosecution must establish that the defendant intended to wound or cause GBH.

 

Section 20 GBH

 

As explained above, this offence is the same as for the section 18 offence, however without the requirement of intent. This offence is sometimes referred to as malicious wounding and means that the offence can be committed recklessly.

 

Continuity of the skin broken: Tick

Very serious injury: Tick

Serious soft tissue injury: Tick

Subluxation of the shoulder: Tick

6-8 weeks estimated recovery time: Tick

Possible permanent damage to shoulder: Tick

Possible permanent scarring from the wounds: Tick

ABH?!?!

Where's the threshold then?

Surely not in the act you pointed out.

Of course if we were in a war torn country it would be quite fortunate to sustain these injuries of this kind from rebels gaining entry to your home, but here in uk?

And from supposedly court officials?

GBH I say and maybe some judges would agree with me

[BazzaS]

 

subsequent injuries constitute assault or abh or battery even?

 

Thanks

 

Just some nomenclature:

 

Assault (as in "simple assault") : the fear of immediate infliction of unlawful physical force.

Note this is "fear", not "force actually makes contact"

 

Battery (as in "physical assault") : the infliction of unlawful physical force.

 

There can be an assault without a battery (I swing a punch at you, you think it will land - hence the assault) but someone knocks me over before the blow lands.

 

There can be a battery without an assault : I sneak up behind someone and knock them out ... Clearly at least a battery (if done unlawfully) but no simple assault - they never saw it coming, so never feared it!

 

S47 (OAPA 1861) assault : ABH : where some harm is caused.

[MrH123]

Thanks for that..

 

So far the police have said it is "reasonable" as we were preventing them entering the property.. I asked for the incident to be reported as an assault at the time, my request was refused, I spoke to Citizens advice and they said report is again as an assault, I tried, again it was refused. I spoke to an inspector today who also said she deemed it reasonable given the reports of her officers and the bailiffs.. without referring to ALL the recorded evidence we had already told them was available..

 

My concern is that someone can deem this as reasonable... the law seems to have lost all sense

[BazzaS]

Offences Against the Person - GBH, ABH and Assault

 

There are a number of offences of serious assault under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

 

The most common of these offences are grievous bodily harm (GBH) and assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH). The definitions of these offences are outlined below.

 

Section 18 GBH (with intent).

 

This is the most serious of the assaults under the Offences Against the Person Act and is an offence that can only be tried in the Crown Court. There are two offences created by this section, inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent and wounding with intent.

•“Grievous bodily harm” (GBH) means really serious harm.

•For harm to amount to a “wound”, the continuity of the skin must be broken.

•The biggest difference between GBH under this section and GBH under section 20 is the question of intent. For this offence, the prosecution must establish that the defendant intended to wound or cause GBH.

 

Section 20 GBH

 

As explained above, this offence is the same as for the section 18 offence, however without the requirement of intent. This offence is sometimes referred to as malicious wounding and means that the offence can be committed recklessly.

 

Continuity of the skin broken: Tick

Very serious injury: Tick

Serious soft tissue injury: Tick

Subluxation of the shoulder: Tick

6-8 weeks estimated recovery time: Tick

Possible permanent damage to shoulder: Tick

Possible permanent scarring from the wounds: Tick

ABH?!?!

Where's the threshold then?

Surely not in the act you pointed out.

Of course if we were in a war torn country it would be quite fortunate to sustain these injuries of this kind from rebels gaining entry to your home, but here in uk?

And from supposedly court officials?

GBH I say and maybe some judges would agree with me

 

Technically, if skin bleeds, both layers have been broken and it is wounding. However, the CPS won't prosecute a scratch as S20, even though the statute might allow it.

"Some judges would agree" is irrelevant if the CPS won't prosecute it (as the judge would only get to hear it to decide if there is a prosecution)

 

From the CPS guidance:

"

Grievous bodily harm means really serious bodily harm. It is for the jury to decide whether the harm is really serious. However, examples of what would usually amount to really serious harm include:

 

injury resulting in permanent disability, loss of sensory function or visible disfigurement;

 

broken or displaced limbs or bones, including fractured skull, compound fractures, broken cheek bone, jaw, ribs, etc;

 

injuries which cause substantial loss of blood, usually necessitating a transfusion or result in lengthy treatment or incapacity;"

 

I read that (by their use of ";"'s to distinguish sections) that the lengthy treatment or incapacity relates to blood loss.

6 weeks recovery from soft tissue injuries doesn't fit within the CPS guidelines to charge as S20.

 

Most fractures will unite in 6 weeks. If it takes 6 weeks to be less than "incapacitated" (rather than 6 weeks to be fully back to normal!) : look for a bony injury as a complication.

[king12345]

injury resulting in permanent disability, loss of sensory function or visible disfigurement

 

Exactly!

A scar is a visible disfigurement and a shoulder injury most likely will flare up for life (personal experience)

[BazzaS]

injury resulting in permanent disability, loss of sensory function or visible disfigurement

 

Exactly!

A scar is a visible disfigurement and a shoulder injury most likely will flare up for life (personal experience)

 

The CPS tend to disagree....

 

A cut that required "steri-strips" rather than suturing doesn't even fall into ABH, being prosecuted as a battery instead:

 

"

Where the injuries exceed those that can suitably be reflected by Common Assault - namely where the injuries are serious - a charge of ABH should normally be preferred.

In determining whether or not the injuries are serious, relevant factors may include, for example, the fact that there has been significant medical intervention and/or permanent effects have resulted. Examples may include cases where there is the need for a number of stitches (but not the superficial application of steri-strips) or a hospital procedure under anaesthetic. But there may be other factors which are also relevant and these will need to be carefully considered when deciding whether or not the injuries are serious."

 

Steri-strips? : battery

Cut needing stitches / serious harm : ABH

 

To be GBH it must be "really serious harm"

So : a cut requiring steri-strips technically fulfils S20 (GBH / wounding) but the CPS may not even go for S47 (ABH), and might prosecute it as a battery.

[citizenB]

I am a little concerned that the Bailiffs are allowed to use any force at all to enter a property. Even in the event of a Magistrates fine - are they a private police force? Even Police have to show restraint.. don't they ?

[BazzaS]

injury resulting in permanent disability, loss of sensory function or visible disfigurement

 

Exactly!

A scar is a visible disfigurement and a shoulder injury most likely will flare up for life (personal experience)

 

Where is the scar? Somewhere visible or not?

Are the lacerations likely to scar or heal??

[BazzaS]

I am a little concerned that the Bailiffs are allowed to use any force at all to enter a property. Even in the event of a Magistrates fine - are they a private police force? Even Police have to show restraint.. don't they ?

 

In which case, all anyone would ever need to do to frustrate a lawful entry is say "there is someone behind the door, you can't come in, as they might be injured!"

 

Solution: warn them they can't frustrate a legal entry, and to move or risk injury.

 

It might be wise to ask the police to attend, though, to ensure no breach of the peace.

[MrH123]

I am amazed bailiffs can do this..

 

Don't get me wrong,

my daughter should have paid her fine,

 

 

we have had that heated discussion,

 

 

but sending out two legalised thugs to first intimidate,

then failing that,

physically harm someone and

force their way into someone's home is surely wrong..

 

 

. We were not threatening them,

we did not attack them,

we were asking them to let us check

they had the right to do this...

[BazzaS]

I am amazed bailiffs can do this..

 

Don't get me wrong, my daughter should have paid her fine, we have had that heated discussion, but sending out two legalised thugs to first intimidate, then failing that, physically harm someone and force their way into someone's home is surely wrong... We were not threatening them, we did not attack them, we were asking them to let us check they had the right to do this...

 

Point of principle to discuss : if a power in law exists, MUST the person who it exists over be allowed to check the power exists?

 

Police officer "I'm arresting you on suspicion of ...."

"No, I'm not under arrest, as I need first to check that that is an arrestable offence" : "ohh, OK, you aren't really under arrest yet!". Risible.

 

The bailiffs will have seen every trick in the book.

What might have worked better is to say "hang on, I want to check the legal position here. How about I open the door fully & step back, and you wait at the open door.

I'll check the legal position, you can watch me do that & you'll know I'm not just stalling for time, as the door is open.

If you don't come in while I'm checking, you won't risk me trying to shut you out, and things won't escalate". ?

[MrH123]

I had already asked them to allow me to check the statute and explained I would then allow entry if they were allowed in. What if they were not allowed in, I open the door and they walk through, they then have legal walk in possession.

 

There was no need to do what they did, they had the option of calling the police, and we invited them to do so, and saying we were preventing entry, the police could have attended and if they were legally allowed to do so they could have entered unhindered. At no point did we threaten them, verbally abuse them or anything else.

 

Are you willing to open your house to someone who on the doorstep tells you they are allowed to force entry and you can't do anything about it? I know I am not.

 

I would also add these were not police officers and they do not have the powers a police officer has.

[scousepie]

IMO I believe we are fooling ourselves regarding the LAW...... They rule for them selves, why would the police help us fight the courts... they are all in it together.

I've seen so many unlawful entry's on ppl and its a disgrace. No time for any of them.

[BazzaS]

I had already asked them to allow me to check the statute and explained I would then allow entry if they were allowed in. What if they were not allowed in, I open the door and they walk through, they then have legal walk in possession.

 

There was no need to do what they did, they had the option of calling the police, and we invited them to do so, and saying we were preventing entry, the police could have attended and if they were legally allowed to do so they could have entered unhindered. At no point did we threaten them, verbally abuse them or anything else.

 

Are you willing to open your house to someone who on the doorstep tells you they are allowed to force entry and you can't do anything about it? I know I am not.

 

I would also add these were not police officers and they do not have the powers a police officer has.

 

I wouldn't if they hadn't stated they were bailiffs, hadn't quoted the statute they were working under, and hadn't shown the warrant (all of which they had done at that stage, according to your first post).

 

 

They said they had a warrant of control and were going to enter the property to take goods.

 

My response was, "no you're not".

This went back and forth a little with

one of them telling me that under schedule 4 of the Magistrates Court Act 1980

they had authority to force entry if need be.

They also told me if I interfered they would call the police and I could be arrested.

 

I asked to see the paperwork and warrant, which was initially refused, but eventually they let me view some of it, with them holding it in their folder.

 

I got my wife to get my daughter out of bed as she was ill and she came downstairs.

I left my daughter outside resolving it, as far as I was aware.

 

 

I was then called by my daughter saying they were still saying they were coming in.

My daughter had already spoken to them a week before,

they confirmed this,

but the person dealing with it on their end had not come back to my daughter

about a proposed payment plan, instead they sent these people out.

 

My daughter was in the process of clearing her car out and I was still telling the bailiffs they were not entering,

my wife now was standing just outside the door on the doorstep and I was at the threshold.

 

 

If you really didn't believe they were bailiffs then talk to them through a closed front door while awaiting the police.

If you knew they were bailiffs with a warrant and chose to open the front door without agreeing with them if you could check the legal position : the outcome of becoming a tussle is predictable.

 

Having re-read your OP, and noting there was a period of time between when they quoted their authority & showed you the warrant and when (after you daughter had got out of bed and gone down to speak to them outside) ..... If you had wanted to check the legal position you had time to do so.

If you didn't believe they were bailiffs you could have left the door closed & called the police.

I don't doubt their ability to claim "we'd shown him the warrant previously and given him time to check. It looked to us that he was just trying to stall us & we executed our lawful power"

 

I think they should have called for / waited for the police. Despite what I think they should have done, I think they'll be able to claim they were acting lawfully even without waiting for the police.

[citizenB]

I am a little concerned that the Bailiffs are allowed to use any force at all to enter a property. Even in the event of a Magistrates fine - are they a private police force? Even Police have to show restraint.. don't they ?

 

In which case, all anyone would ever need to do to frustrate a lawful entry is say "there is someone behind the door, you can't come in, as they might be injured!"

 

Solution: warn them they can't frustrate a legal entry, and to move or risk injury.

 

It might be wise to ask the police to attend, though, to ensure no breach of the peace.

 

Sorry, I disagree with this.

 

Two guys turn up on the doorstep and say they have a right of entry, without showing any paperwork of their right to do so.

 

This isn't some master criminal we are talking about here where the Police would have the authority to break down the door with a battering ram. But a female who has not paid a Magistrate fine.

 

If I read the first post correctly, the bailiffs were asked to identify themselves correctly and their right to do what they claimed. Only after a tussle did they partially show this paperwork. Was this some form of power display ?

 

Thankfully, this is a situation I have never been in and touch wood never will be - but I wouldn't just let two guys into my home if I didn't know who they were or if they had a right to do so.

[DragonFly1967]

Sorry, I disagree with this.

 

Two guys turn up on the doorstep and say they have a right of entry, without showing any paperwork of their right to do so.

 

This isn't some master criminal we are talking about here where the Police would have the authority to break down the door with a battering ram. But a female who has not paid a Magistrate fine.

 

If I read the first post correctly, the bailiffs were asked to identify themselves correctly and their right to do what they claimed. Only after a tussle did they partially show this paperwork. Was this some form of power display ?

 

Thankfully, this is a situation I have never been in and touch wood never will be - but I wouldn't just let two guys into my home if I didn't know who they were or if they had a right to do so.

 

I wholeheartedly agree.

 

 

If I were in the same situation, these two 'thugs' and there can be no other word for it,

would not be coming in (without the police in attendance) no matter how hard they tried.

 

 

As someone else rightly said above,

whilst a warrant for an unpaid magistrates court fine can come with a right of forced entry, they don't by default,

and permission should have been sought from the court to force entry to the property as a last resort.

 

 

A power which, in my opinion, should only ever be given to police officers.

 

And how they (the bailiffs) can say that they can come in and take everything

(even things that aren't the property of the person named on the warrant) is just wrong on so many levels.

 

 

And whilst there are provisions to prove ownership after seizure,

threats to take everything regardless of any proof of ownership

(shown before seizure) are pure bullying tactics in my opinion.

[king12345]

Matter of the fact is that they badly injured your wife.

Go down to a different police station and report the assault (abh or gbh doesn't matter).

They must not get away with putting people in bed for 6/8 weeks just because they have a warrant.

What happened to reasonable force?

Anyone considers bruises and deep wounds reasonable when executing a warrant?

If the police had bruised and cut a struggling suspect in the process of arresting them, there would be big trouble.

How come these bailiffs can injury people and get away with it?

Did they use reasonable force?

I don't think so

[scousepie]

I wholeheartedly agree. If I were in the same situation, these two 'thugs' and there can be no other word for it, would not be coming in (without the police in attendance) no matter how hard they tried. As someone else rightly said above, whilst a warrant for an unpaid magistrates court fine can come with a right of forced entry, they don't by default, and permission should have been sought from the court to force entry to the property as a last resort. A power which, in my opinion, should only ever be given to police officers.

 

And how they (the bailiffs) can say that they can come in and take everything (even things that aren't the property of the person named on the warrant) is just wrong on so many levels. And whilst there are provisions to prove ownership after seizure, threats to take everything regardless of any proof of ownership (shown before seizure) are pure bullying tactics in my opinion.

 

Looks like a lesson: Don't open the doors to the Bailiffs or even communicate with them apart from written forms.. !!

[MrH123]

I never said I did not believe they were bailiffs. I was aware that bailiffs are not allowed to force entry and knowing this I was confident in opening the door. I was unaware until after I had time to check whilst the police were in attendance, that for magistrates court fines bailiffs do have power to force entry.

 

Also, the time between all of this sounds a lot, it wasn't, I never got a chance to check the position before I was called back to the door.

 

They suggested calling the police, I invited them to do so, why did they not do this?

 

One of the bailiffs had a camera around his neck, this will bear out what I said and what happened, why did the police decide not to check it after an alleged assault / battery / injury?

 

Why did the bailiff deliberately and with forethought turn his back, facing his camera away from what he was doing, and force his way in?

 

Why did he tell us, and we have it recorded, that he turned his back so as not to touch anyone so he had therefore not committed assault? That statement alone suggests he thought using his hands would have constituted assault...

 

When I told my wife, in front of the bailiff, that if they were allowed in, they could only to take my daughters possessions, why did he say they would take everything and that we would have to argue with the courts over it?

 

Why when I told him I would produce receipts for items did he say he would still take them and I would still have to sort it out with the courts?

 

Why did the bailiff not follow the entry protocol on the government website that says that a bailiff is to attempt to get permission before attempting a forced entry?

 

In my opinion it is because they knew they could force their way in and get away with it... they even told us the police would back them up.. this is ALL recorded. And guess what the police did, not even bothering to check the video and audio evidence available to them.

 

My wife is now in a lot of pain, needlessly, and for the next 6 or 8 weeks will continue to be in pain, because two 18+ stone legalised thugs used "reasonable force" to enter my home... without police in attendance or anyone to disagree with them.. other than my 9 stone wife and me.. who btw is 13 stone..

 

I do not see that as reasonable at all...