Police forced entry, HELP

Evilm

For future use I would give the neighbours a mobile phone number for one of the family (preferably the one who is most likely to be with her) and ask them in any future instances to contact them before considering involving the police.

pulliptears

halibut2209 wrote: »

Only 24 hours? Sue the neighbours for being stupid.

Do you know OP's Mum's routine then? How do you know that she doesn't see the neighbours every morning when she's letting the cat out for example? That they see her every single day going about her daily routine then suddenly, and unusually, she isn't there one morning doing what she normally does?

hermum wrote: »

Rather a wrecked door then your Mum lying injured for days. Pass it onto the insurance company & let them determine liability.

This. And if it was my Mother I'd be bloody grateful that someone living by her cared enough to notice because I can count on one hand the interaction I've had with my neighbours in 5 years.

asbokid

Darksun wrote: »

Yeah, but from the police's point of view, forcing the door is the safest way of gaining entry to the premises (and probably the quickest as well). If they were to break a window and have to climb through it there would be obvious H&S concerns, and even more so if it involved climbing a ladder to an upstairs window.

It's down to basic police training, or lack of it. Even calling in a professional locksmith to drill out a lock would be preferable to wrecking someone's house in reaction to a paranoid report from an interfering neighbour. Most carpenters and general builders would also know how to gain entry with minimal damage.

There are questions as to why the police didn't use their numerous investigatory powers to discover the householder's next of kin, etc.

Does the householder have an usual surname that could have been matched to relatives through the electoral roll? The police regularly use the electoral roll to track down the likely whereabouts of offenders, in real time. Would the local GP surgery have held next of kin records?

It sounds like the damage is due to the incompetent of a jackbooted plod who was given poor training and poor advice at the time of the incident.

I believe it may also be possible to register keyholder details with the police, so that if they're ever worried they can contact the keyholders first (friends/family in the area) to check the situation and gain entry to the premises without causing damage.

The Police can charge a substantial fee for recording keyholder information. Fees may vary between forces. Keyholder information may not be recorded for this reason, the scheme was originally meant for installers of burglar alarms. The police charge huge fees to business premises (e.g. £1000 a year) to record the name of a keyholder and for contacting them in the event of an alarm activation report.

bris

asbokid wrote: »

It's down to basic police training, or lack of it. Even calling in a professional locksmith to drill out a lock would be preferable to wrecking someone's house in reaction to a paranoid report from an interfering neighbour. Most carpenters and general builders would also know how to gain entry with minimal damage.

There are questions as to why the police didn't use their numerous investigatory powers to discover the householder's next of kin, etc.

Does the householder have an usual surname that could have been matched to relatives through the electoral roll? The police regularly use the electoral roll to track down the likely whereabouts of offenders, in real time. Would the local GP surgery have held next of kin records?

It sounds like the damage is due to the incompetent of a jackbooted plod who was given poor training and poor advice at the time of the incident.

The Police can charge a substantial fee for recording keyholder information. Fees may vary between forces. Keyholder information may not be recorded for this reason, the scheme was originally meant for installers of burglar alarms. The police charge huge fees to business premises (e.g. £1000 a year) to record the name of a keyholder and for contacting them in the event of an alarm activation report.

Absolute nonsence, the police acted from information given by concerned neighbours. Can you imagine what this thread would be like if the OP posted " My gran died because the police waited too long for a locksmith" the police did the right thing, thankfully on this occasion the only harm done was to the door. the police have to make decisions on the information received, they can't be blamed for the poor information.

pulliptears

asbokid wrote: »

It's down to basic police training, or lack of it. Even calling in a professional locksmith to drill out a lock would be preferable to wrecking someone's house in reaction to a paranoid report from an interfering neighbour. Most carpenters and general builders would also know how to gain entry with minimal damage.

There are questions as to why the police didn't use their numerous investigatory powers to discover the householder's next of kin, etc.

Does the householder have an usual surname that could have been matched to relatives through the electoral roll? The police regularly use the electoral roll to track down the likely whereabouts of offenders, in real time. Would the local GP surgery have held next of kin records?

It sounds like the damage is due to the incompetent of a jackbooted plod who was given poor training and poor advice at the time of the incident.

The Police can charge a substantial fee for recording keyholder information. Fees may vary between forces. Keyholder information may not be recorded for this reason, the scheme was originally meant for installers of burglar alarms. The police charge huge fees to business premises (e.g. £1000 a year) to record the name of a keyholder and for contacting them in the event of an alarm activation report.

OP's mum would be well served by a keysafe. My Mum has one on her wall outside. Inside it are her house keys which can only be accessed by entering a number on a keypad. The only people who know that number are her, me and the careline who will pass on the number to the emergency services if needed so they can access the property without needing to break in.

Personally, for the peace of mind it brings I wouldn't be without my Mum's careline.

In this instance I feel the police were 100% correct, had the old lady been gravely ill faffing around to gain information could have cost her life.

**edited to add**

Keysafe's can be purchased separately:

http://www.keysafe.co.uk/slimline_ge_keysafe_001324eu_8260

Flyboy152

brian.gas wrote: »

My 82 year old mother went to stay with family for 24 hours. On returning home, her back door had been smashed beyond recognition, as neighbours had concerns because they had not seen her.

The damage done is in the thousands of pounds (Door, door casing, plaster, brick work and decorating). Who is held responsible for the repair? The police are saying it is up to my mother.

Can anybody help with any advice of how to pursue?

Thanks.

Where did you obtain the quote from? That sounds like a bit more damage than would normally happen in a forced entry.

Flyboy152

asbokid wrote: »

1 of the junky`s in the flat`s opposite manage to OD over Xmas.
His corpse was`nt discovered for week`s even though the stairwell was stunk out.
3rd junky to die off OD in the flat`s in 1 year. :eek:

Look at this mind less police raid... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-13086468

ruin`s the chainsaw blade`s doing that.

dangerous as well from flying glass shard`s.

No damage to brick work and very little damage to decor.

Flyboy152

antrobus wrote: »

The answer might well be here:-

http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snha-05524.pdf

From which I would conclude that since the police were acting out of genuine concern for the well being of your mother in breaking in to the house, then there is nothing you can do to force them to pay compensation.

File an insurance claim.

I think this is a relevant point:

However, statutory guidance states that compensation for such damage is “unlikely to be appropriate if the search was lawful, and the force used can be shown to be reasonable, proportionate and necessary to effect entry.”

asbokid

Darksun wrote: »

Yeah, but from the police's point of view, forcing the door is the safest way of gaining entry to the premises (and probably the quickest as well). If they were to break a window and have to climb through it there would be obvious H&S concerns, and even more so if it involved climbing a ladder to an upstairs window.

Hacking down a glazed front door using a chainsaw, as the British policeman is seen doing in this clip, is not best H&S policy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-13086468

The stunt was particularly dangerous for the stunned (and possibly stoned) householder, cowering on the other side of the door, caught unawares without facial protection.

We digress but the raid was clearly a publicity stunt since the dribbling goons from the BBC were ordered to be present to record it. No drug charges were ever brought against the householder. So who pays for the replacement of the wrecked door? We do! We foot the bill since it was a council property that the Rozzers wrecked for a Home Office propaganda stunt.

In many ways, we would be safer without the police. Let our communities do their own policing through volunteer forces. People power works wonders in the Six Counties.

We should take our lead from Co. Tyrone and the good people of the tranquil little town of Strabane. Community leaders there have all but eliminated drug dealing through zero tolerance community policing. This is much to the dismay of the RUC/PSNI whose officers, with no drug trade to attend to, are finding themselves redundant.

mandragora_2

Ah yes. Community policing in Ireland. Works a treat. Tar? Feathers? Anyone?