Do not Knock on my Door....... question

BRAIN FEEDs

Just a general question guys, is there any law in Ireland that prevents people from knocking on your door? an example such as....... Hi we are from electricity would you like to bla bla?

last week i had, will you give money for bla bla in Uganda,i said i didnt know where uganda was,but was told by the school boys,it would be for their church as well. anyway i said i had no money on this occassion.

i live in an estate,and like i said,its just a general question,but is there anything in law to prevent people knocking on your door trying to flog stuff etc etc

johnnyskeleton

BRAIN FEEDs wrote: »

Just a general question guys, is there any law in Ireland that prevents people from knocking on your door? an example such as....... Hi we are from electricity would you like to bla bla?

last week i had, will you give money for bla bla in Uganda,i said i didnt know where uganda was,but was told by the school boys,it would be for their church as well. anyway i said i had no money on this occassion.

i live in an estate,and like i said,its just a general question,but is there anything in law to prevent people knocking on your door trying to flog stuff etc etc

The Don't Answer Your Door If You Aren't Expecting Someone Act of 1864 might be of some assistance.

zenno

If they ring three times then you know it's someone you know, if they only ring once then you know they were trying to get inside your pocket. The law of getting in your pocket act 1776.

zenno

zenno wrote: »

If they ring three times then you know it's someone you know, if they only ring once then you know they were trying to get inside your pocket. The law of getting in your pocket act 1776.

Johnnyskeleton would have a grievance against you for that joke under the Theft and Fraud Offences Act

BRAIN FEEDs

Funny replies so far.......... the "dont answer your door unless your expecting someone? "wtf lmao

is there a law or isnt there?

mikemac1

Surely there most be a solution.

The dodgy clothes collectors bring their van and tour my estate and the general area at 5am.
Banging the letterbox as they drop in their label and waking me up.

And having a good look around, I've no doubt they are checking out places for easy targets.
It's the new my cat was in your garden mister
They tried my door handle one morning! I saw it move but the door was locked

Don't Answer Your Door If You Aren't Expecting Someone Act of 1864 doesn't stop someone hanging outside my door and slamming a letterbox at 5am

Howjoe1

A simple sign "No cold callers or junk mail" usually suffices.

Legals have bigger things to deal with.

BRAIN FEEDs

Howjoe1 wrote: »

A simple sign "No cold callers or junk mail" usually suffices.

Legals have bigger things to deal with.

WHAT? i have no idea what your saying by this?

please joe explain what you mean here,thanks.

btw the no callers junk sh1te isnt working.

mikemac1

BRAIN FEEDs wrote: »

btw the no callers junk sh1te isnt working.

You may need to put it in other languages

zenno

mikemac1 wrote: »

Surely there most be a solution.

The dodgy clothes collectors bring their van and tour my estate and the general area at 5am.
Banging the letterbox as they drop in their label and waking me up.

And having a good look around, I've no doubt they are checking out places for easy targets.
It's the new my cat was in your garden mister
They tried my door handle one morning! I saw it move but the door was locked

Don't Answer Your Door If You Aren't Expecting Someone Act of 1864 doesn't stop someone hanging outside my door and slamming a letterbox at 5am

My neighbour was defrosting her fridge one night and she left it in her walkway close to her front door and when she went out to move her fridge back in to her kitchen it was gone. The spacers that drive around looking to see if anyone left stuff out for them decided to take her fridge so she was well pissed-off.

jd80

Signage

Trespassers prosecuted

Warning: Armed Response

Picture of rather large Dog: "I can make it from the door to the gate in 2.5 seconds. How about you?"

SB2013

The Charities Act deals with clothes collectors very well. At least it would if the government bothered to implement it.

coylemj

zenno wrote: »

My neighbour was defrosting her fridge one night and she left it in her walkway close to her front door and when she went out to move her fridge back in to her kitchen it was gone. The spacers that drive around looking to see if anyone left stuff out for them decided to take her fridge so she was well pissed-off.

She left a fridge outside her house and was surprised when someone came and took it!

Don't leave your white goods outside act 1927

johnnyskeleton

BRAIN FEEDs wrote: »

Funny replies so far.......... the "dont answer your door unless your expecting someone? "wtf lmao

is there a law or isnt there?

No. There is an implicit right for people to enter your driveway and knock on the door if they are on legitimate business. You can put up a sign that might deter charity callers. You can put up a big gate and try to sue anyone who comes on to your land unannounced.

But if you really don't want people calling around, just don't answer the door.

zenno

The strangest one i had was after a long night party. I was very tired and had a few drinks on me and only realized i forgot my keys to the house and decided to just sleep in my front garden and roll up in a ball.

I wore a large 3 quarter length black leather jacket and wrapped it around myself and fell asleep. I woke up with the feeling of tugging and stuck my tortoise-head out from beneath the leather jacket only to see this very tall bearded guy pulling my leather jacket from me. I thought i was getting mugged but there was a white van with a trailer parked on my drive and i said what are you doing, and he just calmly said i thought this was a pickup bag he just walked off as if nothing happened.

Those folks would take anything, even me.

Peregrinus

There is no law against people coming and knocking on your door.

If they do it persistently and maliciously, you might hope to get them for causing a niusance. But the mere fact that you don't want to see someone and are not interested in what he has to say is not enough.

You could put up a notice at your gate, saying "No salespersons, no unsolicited callers", or words to that effect. You could then, I think, make a case that salesperson or unsolicited caller who entered your property was committing trespass. But that would be a civil matter, not a criminal one. It would be up to you to sue them, and I don't see your recovering a huge amount of damages because, really, what quantifiable damage do you suffer in answering the door to a caller who doesn't interest you?

jd80

Sign: trespassers prosecuted - no trespassing

Once on the property, they are trespassing

Since when was trespassing not an offence?

Peregrinus

jd80 wrote: »

Sign: trespassers prosecuted - no trespassing

Once on the property, they are trespassing

Since when was trespassing not an offence?

Since always. Simple trespass has never been a crime in Ireland, and signs which say "trespassers will be prosecuted" are, quite simply, wrong. They should say "trespassers will be sued".

Trespass plus other factors can amount to an offence.

- Trespass in a building or in the curtilage of a building (e.g. in the yard) "in circumstances giving rise to the reasonable inference that such entry or presence was with intent to commit an offence or with intent to unlawfully interfere with any property" is an offence under the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 s. 11.

- And trespass in a building or in the curtilage of a building "in such a manner as causes or is likely to cause fear in another person" " is an offence under s. 13 of the same Act.

But simple trespass, on its own, has never been an offence. It's a purely civil matter.

jd80

So if someone walks into a yard and walks around but you cannot prove intent to commit an offence or unlawfully interfere or his presence is not likely to cause fear, he is committing no offence?

Walking in a farmer's land comes to mind - there it would be difficult to prove intent to cause an offence or interfere as there is nothing there to interfere with. Also as no one lives there, it is unlikely that fear etc. will be caused

So is there no recourse other than to sue the person?

If one asks him to leave and if he does not, is he then committing an offence?

chops018

jd80 wrote: »

So if someone walks into a yard and walks around but you cannot prove intent to commit an offence or unlawfully interfere or his presence is not likely to cause fear, he is committing no offence?

Walking in a farmer's land comes to mind - there it would be difficult to prove intent to cause an offence or interfere as there is nothing there to interfere with. Also as no one lives there, it is unlikely that fear etc. will be caused

So is there no recourse other than to sue the person?

If one asks him to leave and if he does not, is he then committing an offence?

He is committing the tort of trespass, a civil matter, not a criminal one. Why should salespersons etc be subject to criminal law when they are not entering land with criminal intent?

jd80

chops018 wrote: »

He is committing the tort of trespass, a civil matter, not a criminal one. Why should salespersons etc be subject to criminal law when they are not entering land with criminal intent?

Because land is private property and they are not supposed to be there. Why would a salesman be in a field?

If he were though and he fell and injured himself is not the farmer liable?

Also, if a sign is at a property e.g. gateway of a dwelling house saying trespassers sued/prosecuted wahtever - then that should be taken as 'you've been warned'

Why should anyone put up with anyone on their property if they do not wish such?

If i left the key in the door by mistake would it be ok for someone to come in and have a look around and plead no intent?

I do not know, thus I am asking.

chops018

jd80 wrote: »

Because land is private property and they are not supposed to be there. Why would a salesman be in a field?

If he were though and he fell and injured himself is not the farmer liable?

Also, if a sign is at a property e.g. gateway of a dwelling house saying trespassers sued/prosecuted wahtever - then that should be taken as 'you've been warned'

Why should anyone put up with anyone on their property if they do not wish such?

If i left the key in the door by mistake would it be ok for someone to come in and have a look around and plead no intent?

I do not know, thus I am asking.

Yes, the occupier may be liable in a civil action under the Occupiers Liability Act 1995, but, if it can be proved that such person was a trespasser then a low duty/standard of care will be owed to that person.

As for leaving the key in the door and looking around; that is completely different.

What Peregrins was saying above is, that trespass to someone's land in tort is actionable per se, in that you do not have to prove any damage, merely encroaching on someone's airspace may amount to trespass. But, it wouldn't be worth anyone's while pursuing such an action where there isn't any damage.

Peregrinus

jd80 wrote: »

So if someone walks into a yard and walks around but you cannot prove intent to commit an offence or unlawfully interfere or his presence is not likely to cause fear, he is committing no offence?

Correct.

jd80 wrote: »

Walking in a farmer's land comes to mind - there it would be difficult to prove intent to cause an offence or interfere as there is nothing there to interfere with. Also as no one lives there, it is unlikely that fear etc. will be caused

So is there no recourse other than to sue the person?

Well, you can just ask him to leave. Why would you sue him? Unless he has cost you some money, there wouldn't seem to be any point.

jd80 wrote: »

If one asks him to leave and if he does not, is he then committing an offence?

No.

If he refuses in a manner that puts you in fear - if he's aggressive, for instance, or threatening - they you have the s. 13 offence.

But if he's sitting in a corner of the paddock reading a book of poetry, and when invited to leave he replies that he'd rather just stay and carry on communing with the poet, thanks all the same, there's no offence.

(And why should there be? He's not doing any harm.)

starch4ser

next time, tell them your a Scientologist and invite them in for a free personality test :pac:

jd80

Peregrinus wrote: »

If he refuses in a manner that puts you in fear - if he's aggressive, for instance, or threatening - they you have the s. 13 offence.

But if he's sitting in a corner of the paddock reading a book of poetry, and when invited to leave he replies that he'd rather just stay and carry on communing with the poet, thanks all the same, there's no offence.

(And why should there be? He's not doing any harm.)

But I do not want him on my private property.

Am I misunderstanding you when I ask him to leave and he does not cause fear or similar, that I have no way of removing him?

Is there not something about using reasonable force to eject?

Peregrinus

jd80 wrote: »

But I do not want him on my private property.

Am I misunderstanding you when I ask him to leave and he does not cause fear or similar, that I have no way of removing him?

Is there not something about using reasonable force to eject?

There is. But it’s kind of perilous to rely on this, because it’s very hard to know what is “reasonable force”

The problem here is that there is also a right to use reasonable force to defend yourself against an assault, and in most of the cases which come before the courts the property owners says that he used force both to deal with a trespasser and in self-defence. So there isn’t a lot of precedent as to how the courts view the use of force purely in order to eject a harmless trespasser.

In the hypothetical that I gave above where someone has entered your land to enjoy the ambience or to enjoy the view, and he really poses no threat of injury to you or damage to your property, what is “reasonable” force that can be used to remove him? Sure, you have certain rights to the quiet enjoyment of your own property, but he has certain rights to not have the living sh*t kicked out of him, and the question is how is a court going to balance those rights?

There isn’t much authority on this. There are some early English cases which suggest that, if a trespasser presents no threat of violence, injury or damage, only a very low degree of force can be “reasonable”; e.g. taking his elbow and steering him towards the gate to underline your request that he depart. Basically, on these cases, it’s not reasonable to offer more than token force against somebody who has come onto your land to enjoy the view, because his trespass involves only token loss or injury to you. And there are more recent cases which suggest that as long as you have other options, such as taking civil action or calling the police, and the delay involved in exercising these options doesn’t create or magnify any danger of injury to people or damage to property, then force is not reasonable.

Of course, you might be lucky and find yourself before a judge who takes a more robust view of the rights of property, and reckons that if you’ve given they guy every opportunity to leave of his own accord and he won’t, you can do what you have to do. But you can’t know that in advance; so you have to ask yourself, do you feel lucky today?

The safer course is to call the guards. They won’t arrest the guy, because he is not committing an offence, but they will ask him to leave, and that’s usually effective.

smirker

Peregrinus wrote: »

There is. But it’s kind of perilous to rely on this, because it’s very hard to know what is “reasonable force”

The problem here is that there is also a right to use reasonable force to defend yourself against an assault, and in most of the cases which come before the courts the property owners says that he used force both to deal with a trespasser and in self-defence. So there isn’t a lot of precedent as to how the courts view the use of force purely in order to eject a harmless trespasser.

In the hypothetical that I gave above where someone has entered your land to enjoy the ambience or to enjoy the view, and he really poses no threat of injury to you or damage to your property, what is “reasonable” force that can be used to remove him? Sure, you have certain rights to the quiet enjoyment of your own property, but he has certain rights to not have the living sh*t kicked out of him, and the question is how is a court going to balance those rights?

There isn’t much authority on this. There are some early English cases which suggest that, if a trespasser presents no threat of violence, injury or damage, only a very low degree of force can be “reasonable”; e.g. taking his elbow and steering him towards the gate to underline your request that he depart. Basically, on these cases, it’s not reasonable to offer more than token force against somebody who has come onto your land to enjoy the view, because his trespass involves only token loss or injury to you. And there are more recent cases which suggest that as long as you have other options, such as taking civil action or calling the police, and the delay involved in exercising these options doesn’t create or magnify any danger of injury to people or damage to property, then force is not reasonable.

Of course, you might be lucky and find yourself before a judge who takes a more robust view of the rights of property, and reckons that if you’ve given they guy every opportunity to leave of his own accord and he won’t, you can do what you have to do. But you can’t know that in advance; so you have to ask yourself, do you feel lucky today?

The safer course is to call the guards. They won’t arrest the guy, because he is not committing an offence, but they will ask him to leave, and that’s usually effective.

Bouncers remove trespassers from premises every day of the week. The judge in this case had no problem saying that bouncers were entitled to grab and remove a trespasser and the injuries he suffered were his own fault.

Peregrinus

smirker wrote: »

Bouncers remove trespassers from premises every day of the week. The judge in this case had no problem saying that bouncers were entitled to grab and remove a trespasser and the injuries he suffered were his own fault.

The judge in which case?

Benbulnen64

I guess it's very dependent on the fact scenario whether a judge would consider force to be reasonable; also the stats on police response time would be relevant if you were to eject a troublesome trespasser forcibly and argue that the waiting time for police response would have magnified danger of injury to people.

Merch

starch4ser wrote: »

next time, tell them your a Scientologist and invite them in for a free personality test :pac:

it needs to be done in a locked basement and I believe they have to wear a sack over their head too.
Which reminds me, I must feed the tv licence guy.

I was going to put a sticker on the letterbox, but it looks messy
Not sure what message though, my dog likes if you put your fingers through the letter box, fingers returned not guaranteed. Where do I stand legally.

Peregrinus

Merch wrote: »

I was going to put a sticker on the letterbox, but it looks messy
Not sure what message though, my dog likes if you put your fingers through the letter box, fingers returned not guaranteed. Where do I stand legally.

In a sticky spot, I'm afraid. If you have a dog who bites the fingers of people putting letters through the letter-box (which, let us remember, is what the letter-box is for) then you need to fit one of those baskets on the inside of the letter box which will catch the letters, and protect the postman's fingers. Or you could seal up your letterbox and replace it with an external postbox that you empty yourself.

Bottom line: if you have a dangerous dog, you may find yourself liable if you don't control the dog. And you don't escape liability just by saying to people "my dog is dangerous". The dog is your responsibility, not theirs.

Benbulnen64

That kind of suggestion might even disturb me, Merch if I didn't have a hurley with barbed wire enforced boss ( purely cultural item naturally) within approx six feet from the front door...

Peregrinus

Benbulnen64 wrote: »

That kind of suggestion might even disturb me, Merch if I didn't have a hurley with barbed wire enforced boss ( purely cultural item naturally) within approx six feet from the front door...

That's for use on the dog, presumably!

Benbulnen64

You've pegged me!

odds_on

Interesting thread, really.

So, on a lovely sunny day (if it ever comes again), I can go, with my deck chair and sit in someone's lovely garden, open my thermos, pour a cuppa, open my packed lunch and basically have a quiet picnic and the owner can't stop me?

jd80

odds_on wrote: »

Interesting thread, really.

So, on a lovely sunny day (if it ever comes again), I can go, with my deck chair and sit in someone's lovely garden, open my thermos, pour a cuppa, open my packed lunch and basically have a quiet picnic and the owner can't stop me?

My thoughts exactly

Is one committing any other offence? e.g nuisance (is there such an offence?)

What about something that was mentioned earlier about one's right to a quiet home - is there such a statute that allows this?

Anyway, it could be argued that our friend with the deck chair would not be impinging on the owner's quietness.

Ted_YNWA

Could your house just happen to have dodgy wiring in the doorbell that hasnt been fixed?

BRAIN FEEDs

Ted_YNWA wrote: »

Could your house just happen to have dodgy wiring in the doorbell that hasnt been fixed?

youd get no shock from that id imagine.

which reminds me,one friday evening a few months ago,just after 8pm,just about saw this guy passing my front window,got off my chair just as the doorbell rang,1 second later he thumps on the door with his fist,i unlocked the door,opened it and said "did i answer the door to you quick enough? was i not quick enough that you felt the need to ring the bell and thump on the door,well?":mad:

he said sorry,and proceeded into his selling of a well know broadband,told him i wasnt interested,and please leave now,just before i go he asked,who is your current provider,none of your business i said,now please leave....... and dont ever come back....... he took a few steps away,and cheekily replied,i will come back if i choose to. i closed the door,walked up to him and said,please,never,ever come back to this address again...... he walked off with his mate.

following morning........... i have a flat rear Tyre on my car...

Benbulnen64

Yes Ted or erect a bit of that live wire that they had near Fort Camden years ago ( maybe still do) to stop trespassers entering...

jd80

Benbulnen64 wrote: »

Yes Ted or erect a bit of that live wire that they had near Fort Camden years ago ( maybe still do) to stop trespassers entering...

and get sued

odds_on

A pity there has to be so many light-hearted wise cracks to a thread that potentially may affect so many people.

Peregrinus

odds_on wrote: »

Interesting thread, really.

So, on a lovely sunny day (if it ever comes again), I can go, with my deck chair and sit in someone's lovely garden, open my thermos, pour a cuppa, open my packed lunch and basically have a quiet picnic and the owner can't stop me?

No, we're not saying that. All we're saying is that you're not committing a crime.

There are a couple of things the owner can do. He can ask you to leave. He can call the guards, and get them to ask you to leave. He can, if he cares to make a judgment about what is "reasonable", use "reasonable force" to get you off his premises. He can pick up your thermos and/or sandwiches and remove them from his property, leaving you with the choice of going hungry or going after them (when he will no doubt take the opportunity to remove you deckchair from his property). If you make a habit of doing this, he can take court action to get an order requiring you to stay away from his property.

odds_on

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, we're not saying that. All we're saying is that you're not committing a crime.

There are a couple of things the owner can do. He can ask you to leave. He can call the guards, and get them to ask you to leave. He can, if he cares to make a judgment about what is "reasonable", use "reasonable force" to get you off his premises. He can pick up your thermos and/or sandwiches and remove them from his property, leaving you with the choice of going hungry or going after them (when he will no doubt take the opportunity to remove you deckchair from his property). If you make a habit of doing this, he can take court action to get an order requiring you to stay away from his property.

Therefore, if someone (i.e. the owner) can remove me / have me removed, I must be committing an offence. An offence is, by definition, a breach of a law or rule - an illegal act. Then, the question is which law am I breaking? It cannot be simple trespass, because, as you stated in a previous post. "trespass on its own, has never been an offence".

jd80

Peregrinus wrote: »

He can call the guards, and get them to ask you to leave.

Why should you have to leave for them? what other power do they have that the owner does not have?

One can, as alluded to earlier, say no and carry on reading one's poetry on the deck chair, thank you very much.

If simple trespass is not an offence, why would AGS even get involved? Surely, they would spout the usual line of 'its a civil matter' to the complainant.

Or not?

Kevin3

jd80 wrote: »

Why should you have to leave for them? what other power do they have that the owner does not have?

One can, as alluded to earlier, say no and carry on reading one's poetry on the deck chair, thank you very much.

If simple trespass is not an offence, why would AGS even get involved? Surely, they would spout the usual line of 'its a civil matter' to the complainant.

Or not?

You and the garda would be using the same power, namely Section 18 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997:

18.—(1) The use of force by a person for any of the following purposes, if only such as is reasonable in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be, does not constitute an offence—
(a) to protect himself or herself or a member of the family of that person or another from injury, assault or detention caused by a criminal act; or
(b) to protect himself or herself or (with the authority of that other) another from trespass to the person; or
(c) to protect his or her property from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act or from trespass or infringement; or
(d) to protect property belonging to another from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act or (with the authority of that other) from trespass or infringement; or
(e) to prevent crime or a breach of the peace.

(2) “use of force” in subsection (1) is defined and extended by section 20 .

(3) For the purposes of this section an act is ‘criminal’ notwithstanding that the person doing the act—

(a) if charged with an offence in respect of it, would be acquitted on the ground that—
(i) he or she acted under duress,
(ii) his or her act was involuntary,
(iii) he or she was in a state of intoxication, or
(iv) he or she was insane so as not to be responsible according to law for the act,

or

(b) was a person to whom section 52 (1) of the Children Act 2001 applied.

(4) The references in subsection (1) to protecting a person and property from anything include protecting the person or property from its continuing; and the reference to preventing crime or a breach of the peace shall be similarly construed.

(5) For the purposes of this section the question whether the act against which force is used is of a kind mentioned in any of the paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (1) shall be determined according to the circumstances as the person using the force believes them to be.

(6) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a person who believes circumstances to exist which would justify or excuse the use of force under that subsection has no defence if he or she knows that the force is used against a member of the Garda Síochána acting in the course of the member's duty or a person so assisting such member, unless he or she believes the force to be immediately necessary to prevent harm to himself or herself or another.

(7) The defence provided by this section does not apply to a person who causes conduct or a state of affairs with a view to using force to resist or terminate it:

But the defence may apply although the occasion for the use of force arises only because the person does something he or she may lawfully do, knowing that such an occasion will arise.

(8) Property shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (1) (c) and (d) as belonging to any person—

(a) having the custody or control of it;
(b) having in it any proprietary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest); or
(c) having a charge on it;

and where property is subject to a trust, the persons to whom it belongs shall be treated as including any person having a right to enforce the trust.

Property of a corporation sole shall be treated for the purposes of the aforesaid provisions as belonging to the corporation notwithstanding a vacancy in the corporation.

(9) In subsection (3) ‘intoxication’ means being under the intoxicating influence of any alcoholic drink, drug, solvent or any other substance or combination of substances.

You would be involving the gardaí to show you attempted to avoid using force and to have a reliable witness to say that any force used was reasonable in the circumstances.

If the circumstances were such that there was no time to call the gardaí you could use force yourself as long as it was reasonable in the circumstances.

Your scenario is unlikely though. In answer to a more likely scenario in this thread:

So if someone walks into a yard and walks around but you cannot prove intent to commit an offence or unlawfully interfere or his presence is not likely to cause fear, he is committing no offence?

I think that considering the circumstances and if the person doesn't have a reasonable excuse for being there then there is of course reasonable cause to suspect that there are committing one of the criminal trespass offences and the gardaí can get involved.

Hitchens

zenno wrote: »

If they ring three times

or twice on the pipes...............................................TAXI! :pac:

Benbulnen64

Kevin, spot on...

JD, try to spot it when a tongue in cheek comment is made rather than an actual suggestion!

Pat Mustard

odds_on wrote: »

Therefore, if someone (i.e. the owner) can remove me / have me removed, I must be committing an offence. An offence is, by definition, a breach of a law or rule - an illegal act. Then, the question is which law am I breaking? It cannot be simple trespass, because, as you stated in a previous post. "trespass on its own, has never been an offence".

If you are talking about coming onto a person's land and sitting there on a deckchair, refusing to move, see that S.24 of the Housing Act 2002 inserts amendments into the Public Order act, essentially making it an offence to occupy or take any object onto land without the owner's consent, where such entry or occupation or the bringing onto or placing on the land of such object is likely to—

(i) substantially damage the land,
(ii) substantially and prejudicially affect any amenity in respect of the land,
(iii) prevent persons entitled to use the land or any amenity in respect of the land from making reasonable use of the land or amenity,
(iv) otherwise render the land or any amenity in respect of the land, or the lawful use of the land or any amenity in respect of the land, unsanitary or unsafe,
(v) substantially interfere with the land,

Although I understand that this law was drafted with a view to stopping travellers from occupying private land, it could mean that a trespasser on a deckchair may also commit an offence, provided that it can be shown that said trespasser is preventing the landowner from making reasonable use of his land or an amenity in respect of the land.

Peregrinus

odds_on wrote: »

Therefore, if someone (i.e. the owner) can remove me / have me removed, I must be committing an offence.

Not at all There are lots of legal rules, infringing which leaves you open to a variety of sanctions, but is not an offence.

jd80 wrote: »

Why should you have to leave for them [the guards]? what other power do they have that the owner does not have?

One can, as alluded to earlier, say no and carry on reading one's poetry on the deck chair, thank you very much.

In this situation, I don’t think the guards have any power that the owner doesn’t have. Nevertheless, people are more likely to respond to a “move on” direction from a guard than from a private citizen, so in practice this may resolve the situation.

If it doesn’t, the guards are quite skilled at escalating situations into one where, while nobody gets hurt, an offence of a disorderly conduct type is committed, thus enabling an arrest and the stand-off to be resolved. As you say, if the trespasser is sufficiently cool and collected, he can avoid this, but in such situations the guards are generally more skilled, and more knowledgeable, than the trespasser.

jd80 wrote: »

If simple trespass is not an offence, why would AGS even get involved? Surely, they would spout the usual line of 'its a civil matter' to the complainant.

Or not?

They could. On the other hand, it’s not unknown for the guards to attend a situation in which a breach of the peace looks like a possibility, with a view to defusing it before an offence is committed. Furthermore, if called by the landowner, they won’t really know until they get there whether this is a simple civil trespass, or an “aggravated” trespass of a type that would be an offence under the public order legislation. Remember, it’ll be the landowner who calls them, and he is likely to talk the situation up.

odds_on

The Mustard wrote: »

If you are talking about coming onto a person's land and sitting there on a deckchair, refusing to move, see that S.24 of the Housing Act 2002 inserts amendments into the Public Order act, essentially making it an offence to occupy or take any object onto land without the owner's consent, where such entry or occupation or the bringing onto or placing on the land of such object is likely to—

(i) substantially damage the land,
(ii) substantially and prejudicially affect any amenity in respect of the land,
(iii) prevent persons entitled to use the land or any amenity in respect of the land from making reasonable use of the land or amenity,
(iv) otherwise render the land or any amenity in respect of the land, or the lawful use of the land or any amenity in respect of the land, unsanitary or unsafe,
(v) substantially interfere with the land,

Although I understand that this law was drafted with a view to stopping travellers from occupying private land, it could mean that a trespasser on a deckchair may also commit an offence, provided that it can be shown that said trespasser is preventing the landowner from making reasonable use of his land or an amenity in respect of the land.

Thanks to The Mustard.
clause (iii) does seem to cover many eventualities.
The owner can come along with his deck chair and say that I have taken his spot. He could also send out his kids to play football and thus, I would be impinging on their rights to use the whole area.

I was brought up believing that a man's house was his castle - like the Rock of Cashel - impenetrable, so to speak.

johnnyskeleton

BRAIN FEEDs wrote: »

youd get no shock from that id imagine.

which reminds me,one friday evening a few months ago,just after 8pm,just about saw this guy passing my front window,got off my chair just as the doorbell rang,1 second later he thumps on the door with his fist,i unlocked the door,opened it and said "did i answer the door to you quick enough? was i not quick enough that you felt the need to ring the bell and thump on the door,well?":mad:

he said sorry,and proceeded into his selling of a well know broadband,told him i wasnt interested,and please leave now,just before i go he asked,who is your current provider,none of your business i said,now please leave....... and dont ever come back....... he took a few steps away,and cheekily replied,i will come back if i choose to. i closed the door,walked up to him and said,please,never,ever come back to this address again...... he walked off with his mate.

following morning........... i have a flat rear Tyre on my car...

Report him to his employer - he'll be fired quicksmart.