Bailiff jammed his foot in the door

Any individual who behaves confrontationally by applying force against a door, particularly when someone is behind it, is in breach of Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

If you sustain injuries due to the use of force, the bailiff is in breach of Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

The legislation permitting bailiffs to employ force against individuals was abolished on 15th July 2013 through section 25(5) of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 which amended Paragraphs 24(2) and 31(5) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, removing the provision that previously sanctioned the use of force by bailiffs in debt recovery.

If you are injured, make a Personal Injury Claim.

If you find yourself confined behind a door with a bailiff's boot wedged into it:

Contact the police immediately by dialing 999 and report a robbery and assault without mentioning the word "bailiff."

Request a friend to come over and approach the bailiff from behind. Grasp him by the hips and pull him backward until his boot dislodges from the door.

Arrange for a friend to come over and take turns holding the door.

Proceed through the door by pushing the bailiff aside, pulling the door shut behind you. This action leaves both you and the bailiff locked outside the property. If a back door is unlocked, secure it promptly.

Capture video footage of the bailiff with his boot wedged in the door aperture.

Assign another friend to inspect the condition of the bailiff's vehicle outside, checking for any flat tires. Inform the police to issue a citation for driving an unsafe vehicle.

The only events prompting the bailiff to depart are his need to use the toilet, charging his phone, or becoming bored.

A bailiff can be charged with common assault even without resorting to physical violence; the mere threat and the resulting fear experienced by the debtor constitute grounds for this charge.

Should physical violence occur subsequently, the bailiff may face additional charges related to battery.

The Law:

Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 states:

Common assault and battery to be summary offences. Common assault and battery shall be summary offences and a person guilty of either of them shall be liable to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both.

A summary offence entails that the offence can exclusively be adjudicated in a magistrates' court.

The more severe offence of Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) is eligible for trial in the Crown Court.

The Law:

Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 states:

Assault occasioning bodily harm Whosoever shall be convicted upon an indictment of any assault occasioning actual bodily harm shall be liable to be kept in penal servitude

Enforcement regulations prohibit the use of force against people, and from 2013, that was extended for the enforcement of unpaid court fines.

The Law:

Paragraph 24 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 states:

(1)The power to enter and any power to use force are subject to any restriction imposed by or under regulations.

(2)A power to use force does not include power to use force against persons.

On 19 September 2018, Parliament published a briefing paper of which, on page 7 states:

Bailiffs are not allowed to push past an individual to gain entry or jam their foot into a door to prevent it being shut.

You have the option to report the offence to the police.

Should the police classify the crime as a civil matter, you retain the right to pursue legal action against both the bailiff and the police force for breaching their statutory duty.

Rai & Rai v Birmingham City Council [1993]

Before Mr. J P Kieran, deputy stipendiary magistrate, Birmingham Magistrates' Court

The complainants were indebted to the city council for unpaid Community Charge (Poll Tax) of £252.93, £302.84 and £315.50 for the years 1990-93 respectively. Liability orders were issued and a bailiff company was instructed.

On July 21 1993 two bailiffs called at the Rai's home and the complainant Mrs Rai and her 17 year old daughter, Mrs Bassi, were present.

Mrs Rai had been advised by her neighbourhood office to refuse entry to the bailiffs and she did just that. She stood in the doorway and held the door slightly open but would not permit entry.

The bailiffs asked to use her phone, she lied and said she did not have one. She was about to go out to speak to them when one bailiff put his foot in the door and then both pushed their way in, forcing her out of the way.

The stipendiary magistrate found that the levy was irregular and ordered the return of the goods removed. In fact the forced entry and seizure of third party property was illegal and could have rendered the distraint trespass ab initio but no award of damages was made.

*Ab initio is a Latin term meaning "from the beginning".

Vaughan v McKenzie [1969] 1 QB 557

On 22 May 1968 bailiffs attended Ms Vaughan’s house, but it was closed, The bailiffs waited, and later Ms Vaughan returned with her child.

Outside the front door, the bailiff told Ms Vaughan they had come to levy execution on her goods witho. No warrant was shown she knew full well they were bailiffs and why they attended. Ms Vaughan would not admit them to the house.

When Ms Vaughan and her child entered the house and attempted to shut the door behind them, one of the bailiffs got his foot in the doorway and pushed against the door, Ms Vaughan pushing from the otherside of the door to keep him out.

Both bailiffs together forced the door open gaining entry to the house then Ms Vaughan found a milk bottle handy, picked it up and struck the bailiff on the head, whereby he sustained a one-inch long cut requiring three stitches.

The court opined

The bailiff was not justified in gaining entry to execute a warrant by pushing open a door which Ms Vaughan against them and that they were accordingly trespassers and in any event, the bailiffs not having shown or read the warrant to Ms Vaughan, were not acting in the execution of their duty.

Sir Alexander Cockburn CJ said:

"The officer had no right to force his way into the respondent's house, which was the respondent's castle. Whether the officer was known or not this was illegal, and therefore he was not in the execution of his duty at all when he was assaulted. He seems to have provoked the assault. I think as he was clearly not in the execution of his duty our judgment must he for the respondent."

Winn LJ:

"I agree. It seems to me that the essential criterion in any such situation is whether the householder has left a means of entrance available for me without the employment of any degree of force. As Lord Parker J has said, this is a case where a foot was interposed between the door post and the door itself. In the other two cases arms were thrust in, but it is perfectly clear that whilst in those cases some force was used, in neither of them was entrance being sought vi et armis"