police broke door down and won't pay for it

vaio

ventureuk wrote: »

Challenging inappropriate legal advice based on incorrect legislation is far from acting dismissively. If you have learned anything after 15yrs in law enforcement it should be that there is little or no case law around Sect 17 (e). The closest unlawful use of the power is R v Veneroso in 2002 which centred around entry whilst a third party was already in hospital with the Police in full knowledge.

Hence the reason why a civil case would fail in the circumstances described…...

So you are saying that because there is no case law the OP should just suck it up and pay for the unlawful damage? Maybe the reason there is no case law is because the police pay up when their unlawful behaviour is challenged so it never gets to the higher courts?

ventureuk wrote: »

……The OP should simply use the bond which they should, as proper landlords, have retained from the tenant to go towards repairs. …….

The tenant’s tenancy had ended, he’s handed the flat back and the tenant (and bond/deposit) has returned to Lithuania. I doubt many courts would support landlords hanging on to deposits lest the police come and damage the property long after the tenant has left.

ventureuk wrote: »

…….The OP should be advised that if they decide to persue this matter with the Police then unless they are entirely above board, have registered with HMRC , are declaring the rent as income, have conducted the yearly checks required on gas and electrical appliances with certificates etc etc then they could be opening a whole box vipers.

Believe me if you decide to take the Police to Court you had better be squeaky clean and entirely above board or your bill for a new door may be insignificant when faced with a tax investigation by HMRC and prosecution by the HSE……...

And now anyone who has the temerity to question police action is likely to be targeted by investigations by other branches of the state?

You seem to be advocating acceptance of a police state

ventureuk

'He who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones.'

You may not like it but when defending a case the easiest way to discredit a witness it to call into question their credibility (I accept that in a criminal case this opens prosecution avenues in relation to pre-cons and bad character).

I am merely pointing out that if the OP has not conducted their affairs as a landlord in accordance with tax and H&S legislation and they then choose to challenge a public body like the Police they can expect to be what the Americans call 'audited'.

As I say, because you may not like it does not mean it is incorrect or does not or will not take place.

Please do not pretend that a civil action is a nice clean process, the Police will rigorously defend most cases (your tax pays).

The OPs situation is a shame but it is one of those things which happens if you are a landlord.

sophie-jade

I completely endorse what Venture has said here.

Police would not have used their Common Law powers in this situation as that is reserved for prevention of BOP. They entered under s17 Pace 1984. This legislation provides a power of entry for a number of purposes including to arrest for indictable offences amongst others. However, it also provides a power to enter to "save life and limb".

It should be noted that for most purposes, if the police wish to force entry using this power, they must have "reasonable grounds to believe the person is on the premises" and if subsequently challenged, evidence of this would need to be shown to justify why the officer took that decision. However, s17 PACE specifically removes the requirement to have reasonable grounds to believe for the "saving life and limb" purpose. Therefore an officer does not have to have this hugher burden of belief in such cases and I'm sure the reasons for this would be obvious to us all.

In this case, the police are damned if they do and damned if they don't. None of us know the full facts here. i,e, whether they did in fact try the missing person on his phone prior to entry but received no answer; they might have tried to ring the LL and not received a reply. None of us have presumably seen the police log so how would we know for certain?

Also, we don't know what information they were told in the initial call to them or what was already known about this individual. What if the missing person had a history of suicide attempts that the police had intelligence of or had established by liasing with health agencies? This would raise the subjective and objective concern of any officer having to decide which way to act.

At the end of the day, they acted in good faith. It's unfortunate that OP's mother has to pay but in this instance I feel this is one of those expenses that unfortunately a LL will have to bear.

The police are already subject of significant litigation over the slightest little thing as are many professions today in this "no win no fee" suing culture. I think it would be a sad day if the police were made to pay out in such cases when they acted in good faith as inevitably this would result in officers or their supervisors possibly risking erring on the side of caution and not forcing entry. I know personally of a police officer who had a complaint submitted after they forced entry to a car to rescue 2 dogs that were suffocating and collapsed as a result of heat stroke. When the owner turned up 30 minutes later to 2 healthy dogs and a damaged window, his only concern was pursuing the police for payment to cover the damage. Crazy!

DVardysShadow

sophie-jade wrote: »

At the end of the day, they acted in good faith. It's unfortunate that OP's mother has to pay but in this instance I feel this is one of those expenses that unfortunately a LL will have to bear.

Did they act in good faith?

It has already been pointed out that they could have attempted entry via a window. So While the entry may be in good faith, the means could be lacking in care.

And it has been pointed out that they could have been taking an opportunity to try out a new battering ram. That would not be acting in good faith and you would have to be a bit naive to believe that the police would not do such a thing.

kev1744

having read all the previous posts i would like to comment on the suggestion

"the police could/should have smashed a window instead"
can i point out that if after having smashed the window the officers found the missing person inside, how would they have got him out? drag him through the window? or maybe smash the door in from the inside?

also the comment from the guy that came to repair the lock re excessive force and damage caused...im sorry do we really expect that officers standing outside the flat should wait while a locksmith is called to try and pick the lock so that less damage is caused?

just out of interest how much is a callout fee for a locksmith? i take it the costs depend on the time etc?

alwayspuzzled

I have read this thread with interest as my mom also is a private landlord. I have no legal knowledge to offer but in my experience:

1/ tracing a previous tennant is impossible without spending huge sums of money and even if you do happen to get an address for them you won't see the money anyway. Mom recently got a CCJ against a tennant with arrears and the judge when granting it laughed and basically told her "for all the good it will do you" you can't even get them out with a court issued eviction notice as the local council advise them that LL have no rights until the courts appoint balliff s, by which time several more months rent are due.

2/ when SOCO got finger print dust all over our brand new carpets after a break in, several phone calls and a polite but stongly worded letter with photo evidence saw them send out a carpet cleaner at their cost with the promise that they would replace the carpets if ness.

RadoJo

In fairness, the OP has not said whether their Mum has even attempted to contact the tenant - I can understand the frustration and unwillingness to take the hit, I just think going after the police because they are an easier option seems a little harsh considering that any compensation will effectively come out of the public pocket, and there is clearly an element of irresponsibility on the tenant's part which lead to the problem.

DVardysShadow

kev1744 wrote: »

11having read all the previous posts i would like to comment on the suggestion

"the police could/should have smashed a window instead"
can i point out that if after having smashed the window the officers found the missing person inside, how would they have got him out? drag him through the window? or maybe smash the door in from the inside?

It is far from certain they would find the person. About a 25% chance, I would think. So they would break 4 windows to save 3 doors in the long run.

kev1744 wrote: »

also the comment from the guy that came to repair the lock re excessive force and damage caused...im sorry do we really expect that officers standing outside the flat should wait while a locksmith is called to try and pick the lock so that less damage is caused?

Yes, I would expect the police to wait. Their time is less valuable than the door and given that the person was missing for days, the wait would be unlikely to be the difference between life and death.

RadoJo wrote: »

In fairness, the OP has not said whether their Mum has even attempted to contact the tenant - I can understand the frustration and unwillingness to take the hit, I just think going after the police because they are an easier option seems a little harsh considering that any compensation will effectively come out of the public pocket, and there is clearly an element of irresponsibility on the tenant's part which lead to the problem.

Well, it looks to me from this thread that the strong support for the police to bust doors down comes from the public, so it is fair enough that the public should pay.

ventureuk

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Did they act in good faith?

It has already been pointed out that they could have attempted entry via a window. So While the entry may be in good faith, the means could be lacking in care.

And it has been pointed out that they could have been taking an opportunity to try out a new battering ram. That would not be acting in good faith and you would have to be a bit naive to believe that the police would not do such a thing.

It's difficult to say this without sounding condescending but some of the the comments on this thread are becoming a source of much amusement.

The irony of this post should not be lost on anyone here, allow me to clarify.

As a result of litigation from Police Officers who were injured using tools/equipment, for which they were not trained forcing entry to buildings many Forces reviewed the situation.

Resultantly the MOE (Method Of Entry) training is now provided to a great many officers. It may come as no surprise that in addition to increasing the attraction of an MOE officer to the opposite sex they receive additional input on legislation/powers and are taught the use of everything from a Size 10, a hooly bar (21st century crowbar), ram, all the way up to oxy cutting gear.

I'm afraid that 'care' does not come into forcing entry to a building, safety and speed are the priorities based on a dynamic risk assessment and appropriate use of powers by the attending staff.

This thread raises some fascinating perceptions of the Police which I foolishly thought had begun to disappear as a result of many 'fly on the wall' TV shows.

Keep up the posts, there is some comedy gold for my book here.

DVardysShadow

ventureuk wrote: »

It's difficult to say this without sounding condescending but some of the the comments on this thread are becoming a source of much amusement.

....

I'm afraid that 'care' does not come into forcing entry to a building, safety and speed are the priorities based on a dynamic risk assessment and appropriate use of powers by the attending staff.

This thread raises some fascinating perceptions of the Police which I foolishly thought had begun to disappear as a result of many 'fly on the wall' TV shows.

Keep up the posts, there is some comedy gold for my book here.

Well, you are providing the amusement with the drivel about 'safety and speed based on a dynamic risk assessment and use of appropriate powers'. Let's be real here, in the OP's situation, there was no particular demand for speed and no particular risk beyond self injury [which could have been avoided by calling a locksmith and waiting].

As for th fly on the wall TV shows, you must be naive if you think that this is anything other than propaganda from police press offices up and down the country to get people riled up about chavs and to gain public support for increased police budgets [and it seems to work ].