By Wilson Chowdhry
In January 2024, A.A. Security received a call from one of our regular customers seeking protection for a building undergoing a forfeiture process. Initially, our client did not fully disclose their concerns, likely due to apprehension about the potential actions of Just Stop Oil (JSO), who were occupying the property. JSO, a British environmental activist group, employs civil resistance, direct action, vandalism, and traffic obstruction to advocate for the British government to cease new fossil fuel licensing and production. Founded in February 2022, the group initiated protests at English oil terminals in April 2022, garnering both positive and negative attention for their activist methods.
Our client initially stated only that the property was leased to a garden nursery business, which we later discovered was a facade used by JSO. The group for some while has been leasing properties under false pretences, accruing debts by failing to pay rent until eviction became necessary.
Before delving further, let me provide a brief overview of the forfeiture process. It is the legal avenue utilized to evict commercial tenants for lease violations, often a protracted and draining procedure. Security companies are enlisted in these cases to prevent former tenants from re-entering the premises, which can impede the process, necessitate forfeiture reapplication, and incur substantial additional expenses.
Landlords, armed with legitimate lease agreements, can employ enforcement officers to peacefully re-enter commercial properties for repossession, typically in cases of lease forfeiture or squatter removal. However, landlords increasingly encounter re-entry attempts by former tenants, posing challenges.
In recent years, such incidents have surged by approximately 25%, complicating landlord-tenant dynamics. Upon completion of forfeiture, property possession reverts to the landlord until a new lease is arranged. Nevertheless, former tenants persist in re-entering the premises.
The standard protocol upon discovering such breaches involves police intervention, documentation of property damage, and preservation of CCTV footage. Due to law enforcement constraints, many cases are categorized as civil trespass, necessitating landlord intervention.
In such scenarios, engaging enforcement officers to repossess and secure the property replicates the initial eviction process. Implementing security guards to deter re-entry attempts becomes imperative.
Understanding this process elucidates the challenges encountered in dealing with JSO. When our team entered the property at 5 a.m. to change locks and avoid confrontations, they discovered an unexpected scene: instead of greenery, the premises housed computers, camping gear, mobile phones, and tools, alongside JSO paraphernalia and defaced currency.
We promptly contacted the client, who disclosed the subterfuge orchestrated by JSO and expressed concerns regarding potential re-entry attempts. In response, we informed them of the necessity to dispatch a supervisor to conduct a thorough reassessment of our risk assessment and assignment instructions, aligning them with the revised parameters impacting the contract.
Fortuitously, our decision to send the supervisor proved crucial, as upon their arrival, they encountered over 20 JSO individuals outside the building, vigorously demanding entry by banging on the doors. Skilfully, our supervisor elucidated the situation, informing them of the legal forfeiture process triggered by non-payment of rent. They unequivocally advised the campaigners that they no longer possessed rights of entry, warning of police intervention if they persisted. Several members of the group exhibited menacing behaviour, prompting immediate police involvement. With our supervisor’s assistance, law enforcement confirmed the forfeiture and successfully removed the campaigners from the premises. Additionally, our supervisor provided the campaigners with the correct contact information to facilitate the bailiffs’ access for item removal.
In the ensuing weeks, we encountered recurrent challenges from JSO campaigners, who persistently sought entry to retrieve items from the building at all hours. Despite their pleas, our officers consistently denied access. To manage these confrontations, our officer utilized an intercom system to communicate, as confrontations often escalated when pleas were disregarded. On one occasion, an individual, encouraged by comrades, attempted to forcibly breach the door lock for approximately five minutes until police intervention was necessary to prevent criminal damage. Following de-escalation, our vigilant officer informed the police of the situation regarding the departing individuals and cancelled their response.
At this juncture, we advised the client to schedule a property access date to accommodate the numerous volunteer campaigners seeking to retrieve their personal belongings from the premises. Recognizing the management team’s limitations in assisting these individuals, we facilitated coordination between the client and a representative from the volunteers, providing a contact number for seamless communication. This collaborative effort enabled a substantial number of campaigners to retrieve their valuables under supervised conditions. To ensure accountability, our security officer wore a body camera to meticulously monitor and document the retrieval process, pre-empting any potential claims of loss or mishandling.
Originally contracted for a single uniformed officer presence over a 48-hour period, our engagement extended significantly due to the disruptive behaviour of JSO. Consequently, we transitioned to mobile patrols for an additional eight weeks post-JSO’s application for forfeiture relief, despite their lack of intention to settle their debt.
Following the initiation of the forfeiture process, tenants have the option to petition the court for relief, aiming to overturn the forfeiture. The court exercises discretion in granting or withholding relief, typically favouring tenants who promptly address outstanding arrears, rectify covenant breaches, and cover the landlord’s costs.
Ultimately, the courts rejected JSO’s relief application, marking the successful conclusion of our engagement at the location.
JSO presents a paradox; they claim environmental activism yet operate outside the bounds of legality, causing financial harm to businesses and individuals, inviting substantial criticism. The group’s prolonged occupation of properties without rent payment, relying on false assurances and partial payments, underscores their lack of integrity. Their moral deficit extends beyond rent evasion, evident in their treatment of volunteers. Instead of management coordinating the retrieval of personal items from their former headquarters, campaigners were left to organize independently, a shameful abdication of responsibility given the volunteers’ dedication of time, money, and resources. Despite these transgressions, loyal campaigners may remain steadfast in their support of JSO. However, this prioritization of activism over individual welfare is concerning, particularly considering the group’s extreme protest tactics, such as gluing themselves to infrastructure to amplify their civil disobedience. The display of a poster detailing how to use a bike lock to secure one’s neck to railings, proudly exhibited on their walls, further underscores the group’s alarming disregard for safety and ethical conduct.
Reports suggest JSO is well-funded https://whynow.co.uk/read/who-is-funding-just-stop-oil-the-billionaires-backing-the-art-vandals
This is also evident from surplus resources left unclaimed on site: computers, stationery, logoed pins, mobile phones, camping gear, bicycles, and tools. This disparity, with activists struggling for personal items, hints at misaligned motivations and disregard for their supporters.
Moreover, the squandering of these invaluable resources highlights the imperative for introspection within JSO. Redirecting these assets towards more constructive pursuits could have greatly benefited myriad organizations dedicated to environmental conservation or community welfare. Instead, they now contribute to the burgeoning waste in landfills, exacerbating an already critical issue.
Hannah Chowdhry, a 20-year-old female security officer at the site, shared her insights: “The site was well managed, with an intuitive safety protocol in place, including intercom communication, as supervisors anticipating group visits. Our control centre was vigilant, prioritizing emergencies, especially after a man attempted to kick-in the front door within the first two days.”
“I felt secure as a woman on site, thanks to the effective lone worker safety devices we wore on site. However, some posters on the walls were distressing, particularly those advising extreme measures like supergluing oneself or using bicycle locks inappropriately.”
“Despite occasional concerns, I never felt unsafe on site because I knew there was a dedicated team ensuring my safety. Management’s focus on people is what makes security roles appealing to women.”
“I read about a JSO campaigner being arrested for blocking a road, delaying an ambulance with flashing blue lights. It struck me how little JSO cared about their campaigners’ safety and that of the innocent people affected by them. I believe climate change is a real threat, and we are all responsible for preserving our natural resources for longevity and posterity. However, in doing so, we must seek to protect life, not risk it—a practice security teams are dedicated to.”
Read a version of this article in the Professional Security Magazine (here) and (here)
IMAGE: The Victoria and Albert poster above also shares good advice on how to use trolleys for civil disobedience.