Another bump in the night

[Flying Pig]

This would seem about right. However, an amply clear warning (which would act as the deterrent) would probably work to discharge the duty to trespassers. There might be issues with creating an environment unfit for habitation, however, which I'm guessing the landlord wouldn't be too happy about.

The law says that you have to protect trespassers once they are on your land - a sign saying 'danger - no trespassing' doesn't cut it, because there are times when somebody would be unable to read the sign (say, it's dark, or they're stumbling home blind-drunk from the pub) or would be reasonably expected to ignore it (the classic boy retrieving his football example). Once they are on your property, you have a duty to take reasonable precautions to guard against any danger which can be reasonably forseen, on the condition that the presence of a trespasser can be reasonably forseen (which I think would count in this situation; it is not unreasonable to suppose that you might be robbed)

Similarly, I'm not entirely sure how evident pre-meditation would go down when making an argument of self-defence, so it probably wouldn't be too wise to be too vocal in finding something to hit people with.

I am - very, very badly indeed.

I'm fairly sure the English law is close to that of Australia in this respect, and if that is so, a duty to prevent damage via the criminal conduct of third parties is not owed unless there is some special relationship of vulnerability. If a tenant is not allowed to take reasonable measures to prevent burglary without the landlord's consent, and the landlord then does not consent to the tenant taking such measures, the landlord is in control, and the tenant in a position of vulnerability.

That sounds like English law; I can't quote it but that does sound reasonable.

The landlord is aware of a reasonably foreseeable risk and is the only person who can take measures to guard against it. In that situation, a duty in all likelihood would arise. If the landlord allowed the tenant to take such reasonable measures, that's a different story, because they are no longer placing themselves in a position of complete control. So in this situation, if the landlord isn't allowing bars to be put on the windows, or any other reasonable steps to be taken against what is clearly a reasonably foreseeable risk, a letter reminding them of their potential liability in this regard would not go amiss, particularly accompanied by an expression of willingness to pay for the bars yourself.

In which case they would be legally liable for a robbery which bars would have prevented. However, I still hold that it's most likely the cat from down the road. I have a crow that's recently moved near my house, and he has a habit of repeatedly flying at speed into my windows late at night - I've contemplated borrowing a TI sight and setting up a sting on the little blighter with my air-rifle, but not sure whether the satisfaction would be worth it... especially with the weather we've had lately.

 

[Camikaze]

The law says that you have to protect trespassers once they are on your land - a sign saying 'danger - no trespassing' doesn't cut it, because there are times when somebody would be unable to read the sign (say, it's dark, or they're stumbling home blind-drunk from the pub) or would be reasonably expected to ignore it (the classic boy retrieving his football example). Once they are on your property, you have a duty to take reasonable precautions to guard against any danger which can be reasonably forseen, on the condition that the presence of a trespasser can be reasonably forseen (which I think would count in this situation; it is not unreasonable to suppose that you might be robbed)

Yeah, that actually sounds about right, and I guess that the only purpose of putting sharp things on the window sill is to specifically guard against a burglary would kinda render any argument about it not being reasonably foreseeable useless.

The sign on its own, without the actually danger, however...

 

[Flying Pig]

The sign on its own, without the actually danger, however...

Your neighbours might not be too impressed, since if anyone does try it it'll wreck the credibility of similar warnings in the area - bear in mind that most people would much prefer not getting burgled in the first place to catching a burglar in flagrante delicto

 

[Glassfan]

I don't understand the problem you're having. Since Britain has no guns, it's obviously a safe and happy land. Just go out and make friends with those nice boys in the alley and hand out cookies.

Or, become friends with this guy;

 

[Verarde]

I would suggest getting a bat or club, as previous posters have suggested. Read up on the laws for self-defense weapons, and equip yourself appropriately.

 

[Flying Pig]

The problem is that if you then use it, it's very difficult to argue proportionality. We have a rule in British law that excessive force is never OK; somebody breaking into your house is not immediately cause for beating him into disability with a baseball bat.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I've been trying to figure out if the original poster is prohibitted by his landlord from installing an alarm.

While an alarm may not get immediate police reaction, if it is set to be loud (as opposed to a silent alarm) the deterrant factor should be enough to keep the intruder out.

 

[History_Buff]

Unfortunately, you have duty of care towards trespassers, which I imagine would still count in that situation. It's definitely illegal to put pugil sticks on the near side of your fence.

I know. It was not a serious suggestion. I hoped the caltrops thing would give that away.

 

[Flying Pig]

I know. It was not a serious suggestion. I hoped the caltrops thing would give that away.

I know, but a lot of American posters would naturally suggest something along the lines of 'hurt the burgular', so thought it was worth nipping it in the bud.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I know, but a lot of American posters would naturally suggest something along the lines of 'hurt the burgular', so thought it was worth nipping it in the bud.

We may, but many of the restrictions on 'hurt the burglar' apply in the US as well. And I don't think you can stop us from telling you to shoot the burglar even though you don't have access to firearms.

 

[innonimatu]

I'm not worried so much about my stuff getting nicked because I have contents insurance and there's really not much to steal. It's the constant knowledge that only a single pane of glass overlooking a quiet alley separates me from London's thieves.

If you are really paranoid about having only the glass windows and can't install bars, just install an old fashioned, solid, interior shutter. That at least should be allowed by your landlord, no?

 

[History_Buff]

I know, but a lot of American posters would naturally suggest something along the lines of 'hurt the burgular', so thought it was worth nipping it in the bud.

True that.

 

[dutchfire]

Put a closet in front of your window before you go to sleep.

 

[Zelig]

But have the downside of most likely being illegal to possess.

What? Pepper spray isn't illegal to posses in any reasonable location. Bear spray is available at like any mountaineering store, it's dangerous to go out in the wilderness without bear spray.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

What? Pepper spray isn't illegal to posses in any reasonable location. Bear spray is available at like any mountaineering store, it's dangerous to go out in the wilderness without bear spray.

In Canada.

We had the good sense to kill off most of the dangerous bears a long time ago.

 

[Antilogic]

I know, but a lot of American posters would naturally suggest something along the lines of 'hurt the burgular', so thought it was worth nipping it in the bud.

I'm surprised how many suggestions for weapons already have come up (even it isn't a firearm, it's a club or something from the Home Alone movies). I'd rather stop the guy before he gets in--go for the iron bars on the window or interior shutter. Have letters in writing to the landlord requesting additional security, and keep them on file.

If they won't put a light in the alley, put a light in your window, facing outwards.

 

[History_Buff]

We had the good sense to kill off most of the dangerous bears a long time ago.

Bah, Bears so aren't dangerous. They'll avoid you if you're making any noise at all.

 

[EnglishEdward]

I would recommend that you ignore what your landlord
says and put bars on the inside of your window.

If you put blinds or a curtain on either side, how
would the landlord know?

You can always remove the bars before vacating
and put filler in the screw holes.

There is a small risk that the landlord will use that
as an excuse to try to keep the £2,000 deposit.

But landlords will always try to find something.

 

[Flying Pig]

I would recommend that you ignore what your landlord
says and put bars on the inside of your window.

Bad idea; that's then straight-up vandalism.

 

[NickyJ]

The problem is that if you then use it, it's very difficult to argue proportionality. We have a rule in British law that excessive force is never OK; somebody breaking into your house is not immediately cause for beating him into disability with a baseball bat.

Would it be "excessive force" to beat his brains in if he's got a knife as he's approaching you? Or would it get you in trouble to give the poor guy a booboo?

Gotta love good 'ol government!