Legal

Eviction attempted at Lancashire anti-fracking camp

180904 security officers Whitehills Business Park uwop3

Eviction attempted at anti-fracking camp at Whitehills Business Park, 4 September 2018. Photo: Used with the owner’s consent

Security guards tried to evict an anti-fracking camp near Cuadrilla’s Preston New Road shale gas in Lancashire this morning.

Four officers and about 10 guards arrived at 7.20am at the “B & Q camp” on land at the Whitehills Business Park on the edge of Blackpool.

During the day, several campaigners took part in lock-on protests and the security guards later withdrew from the camp. Police officers were also present.

180904 security officers Whitehills Business Park uwop4

Eviction attempted at anti-fracking camp at Whitehills Business Park, 4 September 2018. Photo: Used with the owner’s consent

180904 security officers Whitehills Business Park uwop2

Eviction attempted at anti-fracking camp at Whitehills Business Park, 4 September 2018. Photo: Used with the owner’s consent

180904 security officers Whitehills Business Park uwop1

Eviction attempted at anti-fracking camp at Whitehills Business Park, 4 September 2018. Photo: Used with the owner’s consent

Campaigners questioned the authenticity of a document said to be a Writ for Possession and Control. The document was unsigned, dated in one section “054/07/2018” and misspelt “endorse”. But the High Court in Manchester confirmed that it was genuine.

180904 High Court order Whitehills Business Park

Document shown to anti-fracking campaigners at Whitehills Business Park. Photo: Used with the owner’s consent

The B & Q camp has been occupied continuously since Cuadrilla started work at Preston New Road in January 2017.

Landowners can evict people from land using either common law or by a writ for possession. Under common law, landowners can ask people to leave their land. If they refuse, the landowner can remove them “using no more force than is reasonably necessary”. To use a writ of possession, landowners must first go to court  A writ is executed by High Court Enforcement Officers.

Updated 10/9/2018 with confirmation that the possession order was genuine

62 replies »

      • VOR – To steal land, you have to either be a government, or a business that takes land through compulsory purchase backed by a corrupt government. To ‘own’ land in the UK you have to have proof of ownership i.e. land deeds.

        To ‘occupy’ land is a whole different ball game……

        • Yes Sherwulfe, this land [edited by moderator] – it’s rightful owners will reclaim it via the high court and it’s officers, and rightly so.

          • Interesting, is it their land?

            Do they show any sign of leaving?

            Are they resisting leaving?

            LOVE uneducated lawyers.

      • Stolen means to permanently deprive a person of their property!
        Obviously proof of ownership is required and intent to permanently deprive of also.
        Neither appertains to this situation! .

        • Interesting, is it their land?

          Do they show any sign of leaving?

          Are they resisting leaving?

          LOVE uneducated lawyers.

    • Interestingly there is no FKE Ltd registered with companies house. There is a non-trading company called FKE Limited run by two accountants…..the plot thickens…..(just for those who do not understand the nuances of a name – a company can register as limited or ltd – it means the same but the official company name is the chosen full wording or abbreviation, they are not interchangable).

  1. For these environmental green activists there is no such thing as land ownership. It is a communist state in their mind. They own everything that you own.

  2. The owner of the land have given permission for them to be there and the people living there have agreed they will leave with seven days notice from the land owner. Today was a poor attempt at an illegal eviction and completely unnecessary. All is good

    • If the owner of the land has given them permission to stay there, why has the landowner sought a writ to evict them? [Edited by moderator] hopefuly the landowners writ will be re issued with all speed, and these [edited by moderator] removed from land they have no right to be occupying.

      • ‘hopefuly the landowners wrot will be re issued’

        If it is a legally correct document then no need. Are you suggesting it is not correct?

        It may turn out that it is the guards who have no rights to be there. The police will investigate.

    • Sue Marshall, didn’t the bailiffs serve notice on the 29th of August and give the activists a few days to leave?
      Today’s visit did not come as a surprise.

  3. It seems that the they are getting a bit desperate – they had better look very carefully into the law or they will again shoot themselves in the head – rock on campers

  4. The owner had given them permission for the camp on a 7 day notice for return as it was when first accessed. So the fact that these bully boys turned up at all has to be investigated. This is peoples homes. They have lived and supported this community everystep of the way.
    They are the good guys.
    Please do not sound off before you know all the facts
    It’s just how much we as a community have to put up with when the frackers come to your door.
    It changes you from inside.
    It tries to destroy you, beat you down, abuse you, as a good citizen of this country.
    When all the time it is the frackING companies that break the law. Everyday.
    The fracking companies have come only to leave destruction.
    They will atempt to crush anyone that is good, truthful and vocal.

    This was an illigal action. Who instigated it?

  5. Crumpled up bits of unsigned and undated paperwork. No surprise there. The police should have arrested those in possession of the paperwork to find out whether they were acting outside the law.

    The police have photographs of the ‘document’ and the security guards so they can see if the failed eviction attempt was illegal.

    Going off the fact it was unsigned and undated and they left I think that is highly likely.

    • Their job was to evict. That did not happen. If they had legal powers why didn’t they do what they were paid to do?

      Have these documents been falsified?

      • Because the date had been mistyped in the schedule and needs to be correct.

        Falsified…… hahahahahahahahahahaha Grow up John.

        • you obvisouly need to brush up on your education ,for one we are not squatters has we have not got comercial premmisses,2 the land was giving to us whilst we fight the frackers ,the land owner is in agreement with us who gave permission for us to stay,but if i was you i would put all my effort in wondering how tax payers will fit the bill for this alegal eviction [edited by moderator]

          • You might want to re-read your posts before inviting others to brush up on their education!

            If the land owner is now wanting to evict you, it doesn’t much sound like they are on the same page, despite your assertion.

          • You don’t have to be in commercial property ti be a squatter [edited by moderator]
            If the landownder has “given” you the land to use as long as you need it, can you explain why the land owner has been to the high Court to have you evicted?

            [edited by moderator]

    • John
      The report above says that 10 Security Personnel and 4 officers ( police officers ) arrived at 07.20.
      So maybe the police should arrest themselves for being there with the bailiffs or were they security guards supported by the police? Maybe the court clerk should be arrested for typos.

        • no, but falsifying court documents is…..
          Forgery Act 1913
          ‘(3)Forgery of the following documents, if committed with intent to defraud or deceive, shall be felony, and punishable with penal servitude for any term not exceeding seven years :—
          (a)Any official document whatsoever of or belonging to any court of justice, or made or issued by any judge, magistrate, officer, or clerk of any such court;’
          http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1913/27/body/enacted

          • Sherwulfe, you make yourself look more ridiculous by the post. False court document (with a high Court stamp)…. Really!! Get a grip!!

          • Technically you are quite correct Sherwulfe and the antonymous “voice of reason” is incorrect

            http://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/eviction/what_is_illegal_eviction

            A legal eviction order must by law allow a two month period after issuing of the correct documentation, eviction cannot legally be enforced on the same day.

            That action can only be taken out by the landowner, clearly the landowner has not done this, so it fails on the first hurdle, it must also be for the correct location and address and that is clearly not the case, so it fails on the second hurdle. The documentation must me signed (not copied) correctly dated, and witnessed and paid for by a solicitor. Clearly those have not been done, so that is another hurdle failure.

            The police attend, not to protect the bailiffs, who must be registered in law, but to keep the peace and if necessary protect the person or persons from violence harassment and intimidation.

            The bailiffs must have documentation and written validation proof, The bailiffs must be named in the documentation of although may have “lawful” powers (as we all have) but must have “legal” powers to operate with a valid licence and company status, there is a great difference between lawful and legal, all though they are often used synonymously and incorrectly..

            https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/14436/what-is-the-difference-between-illegal-and-unlawful

            Failure of any one of these conditions renders the document “illegal” and unenforceable and that is in itself an “illegal” act and may be subject to a claim for damages, costs and even imprisonment and withdrawal of licence of the bailiffs who attempts to issue the document and must be aware of the legality or otherwise of their actions.

            https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/bailiff

            Such actions are often taken illegally without the correct paperwork and legal validation, and that is because people are fooled into accepting “face value” and forceful bluster and not trained in law and rights and are fooled into accepting illegal documentation. Fortunately many are becoming wise to this fake legal situation an are self educating in the face of unlawful practices.

            If you want to argue with that “voice of reason”, then i have a relative who is a barrister and he would be only too pleased to educate you for a fee?

            • Phil, with the greatest respect, your post is ridiculous. There are many ways in which squatters can be evicted immediately, and most of the law on which you base your ridiculous conclusions relate to legal short term tenancies, which of course does not apply in this situation.

              On what do you base your somewhat amusing claim that the person ir company that was granted the writ wasn’t the land owner?

              As for the photo copier….. Hajahahhahahahahahahaha

              Get a grip boys

            • Phil C, from your source;

              “Landlords must follow the correct procedures to evict private tenants and lodgers. ”

              As these squatters are neither private tenants or lodgers, the rest of your post can be viewed as the ignorant guess work it clearly is 😉

            • Ahh the choice of treason works its little worms into the proceedings? 2 months minimum ask a Barrister? But of course ignorant guesswork seems to be your forte? Judging by the maniacal laughter that is?

            • Let me try and make this easy for you, the law your refer to deals with short term tanancies, as demonstrated by the text of your source ““Landlords must follow the correct procedures to evict private tenants and lodgers. ” these squatters are neither, and this simply does not apply.

              Your assertation as to 8 weeks notice is also inaccurate, even in relation to short term tenancies. Seems your grasp of the law in this area is tenuous at best, and your enthusiasm is only exceeded by your clearly and wilful ignorance.
              [Edited by moderator]

  6. They have tried to possess the complete wrong piece of land..!!! Proof has now been posted on my facebook profile of this.. site 3 is not anywhere near B&Q or the camp it is much further in to the Business Park

    • The bailiffs visited the site last week and spoke at length with the activists, yesterday’s visit did not come out of the blue.
      Half of the picture has been omitted, a bit like the targeting of the farmer in a story last week.
      It would appear that the wheels have been set in motion to remove the camp, the bailiffs will be back again soon with the paperwork corrected.

  7. The insomnia link to desperate posts seems to have been at work again.

    “Clean land”???

    Reason enough to evict-they are breaking their own “code”.

    Perhaps we could have more of a story about the contrast between the claim that the protestors are welcomed, and recent snippets that show they are not. I have counted 5 in the last 10 days, or so. A bit of reality may be cold comfort and not that exciting, but it will dawn even if it is uncomfortable.

Add a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s