Use of force
Chapter Version 1.1 [28MAR2013]
In this Chapter I want to concentrate on the evictions of Homeowners from their dwellings by Bailiffs. Now, most people will just give up the ghost, on the assumption that the game is al over for them, and 'go quietly'. But there are some who know more than that. There are some who know that the Bank/Building Society never lent them anything in the first place, and have no lawful Right to the dwelling. And these people are increasing in number, and standing up for their Rights.
In these case, even if the Bailiffs eventually (after an argument) manage to barge their way in, and 'secure' the dwelling, these Homeowners break back in, and set up home again. This is getting more common. The usual result is the return of even 'heavier' (aka 'thuggier') Bailiffs, who barge their way in again. And this tends to go round and round - 'get back in' … 'get slung out' … 'get back in', etc.
But the only way these Homeowners are removed from the premises is by the use of 'force'. So this entitlement to use 'force' was investigated. Here is the list of 'players', in the scenario of such an eviction, based on a Mortgage Repossession Eviction:
1. Those inside the house (i.e. the Homeowner, etc), being evicted, but not wishing to be.
2. The (possibly external) supporters of those inside the house, attempting to prevent eviction.
3. The Judge, sitting in the Star Chamber, who signed the 'Eviction Warrant'.
4. The Bailiffs attempting the eviction, based on a Star Chamber 'Warrant'.
5. The Locksmith engaged by the Bailiffs.
6. The Police standing by.
7. The Bank or Building Society's Agent (usually the representative of the firm of Solicitors, engaged by the Bank/Building Society), usually standing by with a clipboard.
Who, in that scenario above, is entitled to authorise 'necessary force' (which could include breaking a window, or overpowering someone, etc)?
Is it (1) or (2)? Well, you would think not, wouldn't you?
Is it (3), the Judge who signed the 'Eviction Warrant', or does the authority for the use of 'necessary force' come from the Star Chamber? Actually "No". Such 'Warrants' just say "Remove all occupants". But they don't say 'How'.
Is it (4), the Bailiffs themselves? The (perhaps surprising) answer is "No". Unless instructed to do so, Bailiffs are NOT allowed to use 'force' - and that is stated very clearly in their Handbook.
So it can't be (5) either, the Locksmith.
Well, it must be (6), then, the Police? No, actually not. According to their Oaths of Office they are (theoretically) there to 'stop the use of force' - 'force' which would constitute a Breach of the Peace.
So, it is (7), the Agent with the clipboard? Yes, that's the correct answer. The little weed, from and Estate Agent's or Solicitor's Office, is the one entitled to instruct the Bailiffs (who, in turn can instruct the Police), to use 'necessary force'.
So, how is it that some weedy little 'suit' has the power to authorise 'necessary force' against a Homeowner?
At the time of writing we are not, entirely, sure. We are not sure where some 'entitlement to use force against someone else' comes from. (Bearing in mind we are all supposed to be equal under the Law, and that the British Constitution declares that it takes a Jury of 12 to authorise such a thing).
But - there is one other possibility: Namely, the Homeowner him- or her- self. Obviously one is entitled to authorise 'necessary force' against oneself. And the weedy little 'suit', the Agent, is simply relaying instructions originally issued by the Homeowner that is being evicted.
So, if that's correct, then the question is, when & how does the Homeowner authorise the use of 'force' against themselves? And the answer is (possibly): When they signed the Title Deed in the first place, and didn't understand the ramifications of the Terms & Conditions to which they signed.
As I said, at this time we are not sure. But that seems to be the only reasonable explanation. We do know, for sure, that the 'immediate' answer to the original question was No. (7). We know that there is a 'special form', known as EX96, which must be signed by a Bank/Building Society Representative, before 'force' can be used. (And, once again, this is in the Bailiff's Handbook).
But our logic and rationale (if correct) would mean that the true (i.e. 'ultimate') answer is (1), in other words a Homeowner actually authorises force against him- or her- self. And that, by doing so, the Homeowner waives their Indefeasible, Natural, Right to Self-defence.
However, you will note, that the Star Chamber completely exonerates itself, by issuing the Eviction Warrant - BUT NOT SPECIFYING ANY USE OF FORCE.
Previous Chapter : Next Chapter