Cold callers

[BaconBoy]

doormen.......legalised bullies :yp: :yp:

[leeds chimp]

To settle the point about where the right to use reasonable force to eject trespassers:

 

The use of reasonable force to eject a trespasser is lawful provided steps have been taken to ask the trespasser to to leave. This was established in the case of Green v Goddard. In these circumstances, violence beyond assault/battery would almost never be considered reasonable e.g. in Collins v Renison

 

The right is a common law right, and as such is not established in statute.

 

Why anyone would feel it neccessary to remove a cold caller in this way is beyond me to be honest. Close the door and they will leave when they get bored.

thank you

i was looking for some case law last night but could not find one that quickly as tired from work.

I am not saying give them a hiding or anything like that. Its when they come in when an appointment has been made but then wont leave till you buy it or when they knock and you close the door and they keep hammering on the door as i have heard many people including myself happen to

[UKPoacher]

To settle the point about where the right to use reasonable force to eject trespassers:

 

The use of reasonable force to eject a trespasser is lawful provided steps have been taken to ask the trespasser to to leave. This was established in the case of Green v Goddard. In these circumstances, violence beyond assault/battery would almost never be considered reasonable e.g. in Collins v Renison

 

The right is a common law right, and as such is not established in statute.

 

Why anyone would feel it neccessary to remove a cold caller in this way is beyond me to be honest. Close the door and they will leave when they get bored.

 

Which is why any force used in physically ejecting a door to door caller would never be acceptable today. Any use of force requires 'Necessity'. Also, in 1704 there were no options open to the landowner such as calling the police.

 

Here are the current guidelines:

 

Common Law Powers of Eviction

If a trespasser peaceably enters or is on land, the person who is in, or is entitled to, possession may require the trespasser to leave and, if the trespasser refuses to leave, may remove that person using no more force than is reasonably necessary. If a trespasser enters with force and violence, the person in possession may remove that trespasser without a previous request to depart.

 

With regard to the common law powers, the ODPM Guidance on Managing Unauthorised Camping (February 2004) states:

‘The Government believes that local authorities should always follow a route which requires a court order. As local authorities and public bodies, authorities must have regard to considerations of common humanity or other statutory duties, and must ensure that the human rights of unauthorised campers are safeguarded.’

 

The ODPM Guidance also contains recommendations for other landowners:

‘Good practice guidelines for common law evictions would seek to ensure that no more than necessary ‘reasonable force’ is used and might include:

Police should always be notified of an eviction and called in to stand by to prevent a breach of the peace.

If police advise that it is inappropriate to carry out an eviction, it should always be delayed until an agreed time.’

 

A landowner who proceeded with an eviction against police advice might lay himself or herself open to a damages claim if the eviction then resulted in assault, injury or damage to person or property.

Edited November 13, 2011 by UKPoacher

[guest1957]

Which is why any force used in physically ejecting a door to door caller would never be acceptable today. Any use of force requires 'Necessity'. Also, in 1704 there were no options open to the landowner such as calling the police.

 

Here are the current guidelines:

 

These are only guidelines and drawing your attention to: "A landowner who proceeded with an eviction against police advice might lay himself or herself open to a damages claim if the eviction then resulted in assault, injury or damage to person or property."

 

Whilst it may be good practice, it certainly isn't mandatory.

 

With regard to modern law and trespass, here is an extract from a 2010 case summary:

 

'Bearing in mind that to be lawful the use of force had always to be reasonable in the circumstances, it might be open to the owner of a vehicle, in the last resort and when all reasonably practicable alternatives had failed, forcibly to remove an individual who had entered his vehicle without permission and who refused to leave it.'

 

Granted, this relates to trespass against chattels, however the principle is the same.

 

As I said, I would question the state of mind of someone who used force to remove a cold caller but am sure that if they steadfastly refused to leave and you carried them off with the minimum force neccessary you would not be acting illegally or unlawfully.

[leeds chimp]

so in summary

you can remove them if needed but it could be a legal landmine

[guest1957]

Just to add case law that directly shows the 'guidelines' to be inaccurate:

 

R. v Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall Ex p. Central Electricity Generating Board - 'The C.E.G.B. were entitled to use the minimum of force reasonably necessary to remove those obstructing the exercise of its powers and the use of self-help in such circumstances engendered the likelihood of a breach of the peace' but the police could not be obliged to attend to prevent a breach of of the peace.

[guest1957]

so in summary

you can remove them if needed but it could be a legal landmine

 

Put it this way, you'd be mad or stupid to drag a cold-caller off your property because it will definitely lead to unwanted hastle and probably court to determine that everything you have done was reasonable and proportionate.

Edited November 13, 2011 by guest1957

[Davyo]

dont let em even get to knock on the door, if they have to knock on doors to sell a product,that means one thing to me "ITS ****" and as for cold caller that phone you. i keep a airasol fog horn that i got at the F1 GRAND PRIX near the phone, and beleive me they don't call back.Cold calling should be band,if want something i'll go looking for it, i dont want some creep trying to flog it on my door step." and dont get me started about the bible bashers!

Edited November 13, 2011 by Davyo

[UKPoacher]

Guest; I understand and respect what you are saying. The case law whilst relevant to the circumstances surrounding each situation would not necessarily empower a home owner who has different options; to close the door (and therefore diffuse any situation) or to forcibly remove the trespasser (and all the risk of escalation / injury / damage that this might bring).

 

Taking the Guidelines as published by the Government, there is no necessity for the home owner to immediately remove the trespasser, or cold caller. Whereas the situations you have listed appear to have a necessity for immediate action or reason why the police should not necessarily be called, i.e large respectable companies with acces to legal advice & well established protocol for removing trespassers. A householder acting on his own initiative is a different matter. There is no reason therefore in the case listed here why the homeowner cannot or should not follow the Guidelines to avoid conflict.

 

This is the crux and as you say; you would have to me mad or stupid to consider such action. Which is probably why only one PW member advocates it.

[Gordon R]

UK Poacher - I have to thank others for posting the legal position. I don't see any explanation from you which would stand scrutiny.

 

Perhaps your FLO - who appears to think speeding isn't really a problem - could rule. :lol:

 

Poontang has the situation summed Perhaps you could re-read his posts. You might learn something.

[UKPoacher]

UK Poacher - I have to thank others for posting the legal position. I don't see any explanation from you which would stand scrutiny.

 

Perhaps your FLO - who appears to think speeding isn't really a problem - could rule. :lol:

 

Poontang has the situation summed Perhaps you could re-read his posts. You might learn something.

 

 

So how many times have you used 'reasonable force' to remove stroppy cold callers Gordon?

[Zabala]

On a lighter note, a farmer friend of mine has a notice at the front of his property which reads,

 

Warning - Every other salesman will be shot.

 

The last one has just left.

[Gordon R]

UK Poacher - stop trying to be smart - you don't have the intellect.

 

As it happens, I have never had to actually use reasonable force.

 

Some years ago, I was putting an engine in a kit car when a rather aggressive salesman called. I said I was busy and that I wasn't interested. He would not take no for an answer and I could not concentrate on getting the engine in. After a number of polite, but firm requests, he still wouldn't budge, so I advised him that if he did not go, I would consider using reasonable force to assist him. He left.

 

The second time was a serving Police Officer, who was behaving in a manner which was a disgrace to the Police. I mentioned quite firmly that I objected to someone hammering on my door and shouting at me. I suggested that they left before I used reasonable force to assist them to the end of my drive. They left.

 

Now before you start saying silly things, when you know nothing about me or the situations concerned - the Police Officer was not on duty and was a former nearby resident - just take a step back and let it go.

 

I suspect that we will never agree on any subject, but I find your keyboard bravado a little unsettling for someone who is an alleged shooter.

 

We shall have to agree to disagree. Last post on the subject, so please do not attempt to illicit further comment with childlike remarks.

 

All the best.

[Thunderbird]

Can I ask a question about cautions as people have been talking about them?

 

My wife was in a car accident a while back and the police were talking about wanting to get a statement from her at our home 'under caution.'

 

I suppose they feel it might have been her fault. She has not however admitted to anything so what's likely to be happening here, if cautions only happen when you admit something.

 

By the way she politely told the officer that she would only submit to the request if it was held at the station and with our solicitor present. That was weeks ago and we've heard nothing since.

 

Don't mean to hijack the thread. Cold callers have to make a living just like the rest of us. Mind you I had one once who's opening statement was that he was 'the gas man.' When prompted to read the meter he actually admitted he was there to sell me gas from a different company I gave him a right earfull because I felt vulnerable older people would let him in thinking he is in fact The gas man. I told him it was disgraceful and to **** off.

[Browning GTS]

When knocking at the door I'm not polite as i did not invite them so get told to £$%^ off. And the same on the phone straight away my answer is @£$% off. If i want to buy something or want a service i will call them.

[njc110381]

I'm always polite at first but it wears off eventually. I usually listen briefly to what people have to say and then reply with "thanks very much for taking the time to tell me about it but I'm not interested thankyou". If they carry on I take the on the getting bored look and say "can I save you the bother of going any further, you're wasting your time here and I'm busy?".... Well if that doesn't work I tend to end it with "look, I've been polite but I'm not interested and you're not taking it in. Now **** off and stop wasting my time". That usually works, but if they draw breath I shut the door in their face.

 

I did once have a chap put his foot in the hinge end of the door but all I did was open it wide and slam it hard. He yelped quite loudly so I think he got the message!

[Gordon R]

Thunderbird - there are two types of caution here.

 

First is the normal - "you are not obliged to say anything, but it may harm your defence etc". Broadly - this is said to remind persons that what they say can have an effect on future proceedings.

 

The second type is where someone has committed an offence, but the Police do not really consider it enough to proceed to court. Others might say that these are offered as an inducement not to appear in court. I don't want to start a debate on that aspect. This could be resolved by the administering of a formal caution - a type of warning. For a formal caution to be offered, a person has to fully admit their guilt. If the caution is accepted, that would normally be the end of it unless further offences are committed.

 

The type referred to in your wife's case would be the first. I think you made the correct decision and trust your wife is okay after the accident.

Edited November 13, 2011 by Gordon R

[guest1957]

Can I ask a question about cautions as people have been talking about them?

 

My wife was in a car accident a while back and the police were talking about wanting to get a statement from her at our home 'under caution.'

 

I suppose they feel it might have been her fault. She has not however admitted to anything so what's likely to be happening here, if cautions only happen when you admit something.

 

By the way she politely told the officer that she would only submit to the request if it was held at the station and with our solicitor present. That was weeks ago and we've heard nothing since.

 

 

A 'caution' is different to an interview 'under caution'. An interview under caution is where they read you a 'caution' the 'you do not have to say anything etc...' then proceed to question you to establish the facts of an event. A caution, as has been discussed here is a punishment on admission of a minor offence.

[Thunderbird]

Guest and Gordon, thanks for the replies. Very interesting. .

 

Yes she's fine and luckily the car is being repaired rather than written off which is a result because she's had it from new and has really looked after it, low mileage too.

[UKPoacher]

The reason that they take the driver's account under caution is because it might result in court procedings. With collisions there are often conflicting accounts and it is not always possible to establish who is to blame at the outset. All drivers therefore are interviewed under caution.

 

She is better off going to the station if she is having legal advice. This can be obtained free of charge from an independent solicitor. Just be aware however, and I'm sure that it will not come to that, there is a power of arrest should the police suspect that your wife may have committed offences. It is very rarely used unless the driver is slow timing the police or being obstructive. There is a six month cut off point for most RTC offences and occasionally the polce will arrest to exoedite a prosecution within the Statute Barred date.

[Thunderbird]

Thanks for the extra info. There is evidence that the other party was speeding, wasn't showing lights, and was using a borrowed vehicle which it turns out he wasn't insured to drive.

 

I have a feeling (and I'm sort of hoping) that on the strength of all this the police may leave it.

 

For the record at the scene the officers attending (they were there for four hours) were brilliant with Mrs TB.

Edited November 13, 2011 by Thunderbird