A couple whose home was wrongly raided by Police under a search warrant were initially advised by their solicitors that any compensation would be limited to the cost of a damaged door, leading to their claim being dropped; however, after seeking specialist representation, it was established that the warrant had been obtained using outdated and inadequate information, resulting in a successful claim against the Police, an admission of liability, an apology, and nearly £20,000 in damages—highlighting the importance of genuine expertise in actions against the Police.
Content Authenticity Statement
100% of this week’s blog post was generated by me, the human.
Police Raid Compensation Case: When Legal Advice Gets It Wrong
“Whilst the Barrister was of the view that the warrant would be overturned, he was of the opinion that any award for damages would more likely than not be limited to the cost of the repairs to your door, a matter which the Defendant has already offered to pay you in any event”.
These were the words of advice that one of my clients received from her original solicitors, when they dropped her claim for damages over a Police raid at her address. As it would happen, they were dead wrong – and I went on to win for my client and her partner rather more than a new door: Damages of almost £20,000.
Some Solicitors Are Good Marketeers: That Doesn’t Make Them Good Lawyers
As an expert practitioner with over 30 years of hands- on litigation experience in the field of claims against the Police, I am greatly concerned by the increasing number of Solicitors who are holding themselves out as experts in suing the Police – without in fact having the requisite skills, knowledge, and confidence to properly represent those members of the public who instruct them.
Just such a fate befell a young couple called Molly and Arthur, who turned to me for assistance in February 2025 after they were severely let down, not only by the Police – but their original Solicitors.
Wrong Address Police Raid: A Search Warrant Gone Wrong
Molly and her partner purchased a house in Merseyside in August 2022. On purchasing the premises, Molly registered for Council Tax, as well as specifying her new address on the Electoral Register.
One morning in January 2025, Molly was asleep in bed when she was awakened by a horrendous noise and vibrations throughout the house.
She opened an upstairs window, and to her shock saw that there were a number of Police Officers outside and that one of them was sawing through her front door. The Officers shouted up to her, demanding that she come and open the door; Molly immediately said that she would do so, but regardless of this the Officers continued to saw the door.
As this was occurring, Molly heard one of her neighbours shouting at the Officers that they had the wrong address, only for the Officers to shout back that they were at the right address.
Molly then opened the front door and the Officers stormed into the premises, stating that they had a Search Warrant.
Police Misconduct and Distress Caused to Innocent Family
Molly was concerned for the welfare of her mother, who resided in an annexe to the house, and she asked the Officers if she could go and check on her, however the Officers refused. Unbeknownst to Molly, other Officers had already scaled the fence into the back yard, waking Molly’s mother, and had entered the annexe.
The Officers searched Molly’s home and detained Molly, her partner, and her mother in the front room.
Molly was provided with a copy of the warrant – and she was shocked to see that it related to allegations of drug dealing. Whilst speaking to Molly, one of the Officers mockingly commented that she had “a drug dealer’s door”. In response, Molly insisted that the Officers had the wrong address – but they maintained that they were at the right one.
Right House, Wrong Family: Police Error Revealed
The pennies were now beginning to drop. The Officers had a conversation in a separate room, before returning to ask Molly how long she had lived at the property, to which she confirmed that she had purchased it in 2022. The Officers then asked Molly questions about the previous occupants.
As it happened, the previous occupants had moved into another house in the same road, following the sale of the property to Molly. The Officers then left the premises and went to that house, where they arrested a female occupant of that address (who used to live where Molly and her family now resided).
Molly is a woman of entirely good character, who had no previous history of interactions with the Police. This incident caused her and her family severe psychological distress – for which Molly required treatment and time off work. She was caused considerable concern for the welfare of her mother (whose health was already vulnerable) and she was further concerned that there might be ‘repercussions’ from the previous occupants of her home whom, it was now apparent, were suspected by the Police of involvement in drug dealing. In an attempt to alleviate her stress, Molly purchased a camera- doorbell.
Additionally, Molly was aware that her neighbours had either directly witnessed, or soon become aware of, the incident, causing her further humiliation and embarrassment.
Claims Against the Police: Legal Challenges and Misguided Advice
After the events of that January day, it was perfectly understandable that Molly would seek legal advice in regard to a potential claim against Merseyside Police for the distress and damage caused by their raid.
The big difficulty was that Merseyside Police could claim the protection of the search warrant which had been issued for her address by Merseyside Magistrates Court under Section 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE).
This was not a case in which the Police had ‘kicked down’ the door of the wrong house on the face of the warrant – although that is a set of circumstances which occurs far more often than it should …. Here the Court had indeed issued a warrant authorising the Police to search Molly’s address, albeit that the Magistrates had only issued the warrant on the basis of an application made by Merseyside Police themselves – who evidently, but erroneously, believed that the previous occupants still resided at Molly’s address.
The first firm of Solicitors whom Molly instructed – who hold themselves out as specialists in actions against the Police – sought to tackle this problem by threatening a Judicial Review (JR) with the aim of overturning the warrant.
Judicial Review vs Direct Claim: A Strategic Legal Mistake
Under Section 8 of PACE, a Magistrate may only issue a search warrant if they are satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that an indictable offence has been committed and that evidence of “substantial value” to the investigation of that offence is likely to be on the premises which are the subject of the warrant.
If the Police had failed to carry out a thorough investigation, and/or failed to put all relevant evidence before the Court when they were making their application, then this might give grounds for the warrant to be overturned through the process of Judicial Review.
It was, however, an indirect way of tackling the problem – as the Defendant in the JR proceedings would in fact be the Ministry of Justice (i.e. the Magistrates Court) and not Merseyside Police themselves, at whose feet any blame really lay.
These threatened Judicial Review proceedings never got off the ground, however. In response to the Solicitor’s ‘warning’ letter, Merseyside Police wrote back, insisting that they had carried out proper investigative steps prior to seeking the search warrant, and that they did have reasonable grounds for believing that the subjects of their investigation (i.e. the suspected drug dealers) were still living at the property.
The Police also stated that they had already offered to pay Molly for a replacement door – but all further entitlement to any legal remedy for these traumatic events was denied.
Are You A Lawyer, Or A Postman? Poor Legal Representation Exposed
In response to this denial, Molly’s first Solicitors did what those who lack confidence in their own ability to analyse the merits of a case frequently do – which is immediately turn to an “independent Barrister” for advice.
On receipt of the Barrister’s report, the Solicitors wrote to Molly with the advice which I quoted at the top of this blog –
“Whilst the Barrister was of the view that the warrant would be overturned, he was of the opinion that any award for damages would more likely than not be limited to the cost of the repairs to your door, a matter which the Defendant has already offered to pay you in any event”.
Low Settlement Offers and Abandoned Clients
The Solicitors went on to suggest that Molly could make ‘last ditch’ offer of settlement of £1,000 (in addition to the cost of the door), but made it clear that whilst they would put forward this offer on her behalf, they were no longer prepared to issue Judicial Review proceedings.
When Molly declined their advice about this low- ball offer, her Solicitors then closed her file – which would have left Molly high and dry, if it hadn’t had been for a friend of hers called Julie, who was a former client of mine. I had successfully sued Merseyside Police in respect of Julie’s wrongful arrest, and she now strongly recommended me to Molly.
How I Succeed Where Others Fail in Police Claims
When Molly came to instruct me, in February 2025, I ripped up the “Judicial Review” plan, and went straight for the real culprits, in the form of a direct claim against Merseyside Police themselves.
This was on the basis of the following facts –
- The documentary evidence which the Police had relied upon to support their application for the search warrant, and which linked the drugs suspect to Molly’s address related to a benefits claim made in 2018 and a voter registration check made in early 2022.
- More up to date searches of the property records (for example the Land Registry and Council Records) would have revealed Molly’s ownership of the premises from August 2022 onwards.
- Therefore, the warrant had been applied for on the basis of information that was over 2 years old and with disregard for the true facts of the ownership/occupancy of the premises which could have easily been obtained by the Police.
There was no need to bring separate proceedings (whether Judicial Review or otherwise) against the Magistrates Court – everything here led back to failures by the Police investigative team, and I knew the legal tools by which we could – shall we say – “saw” through their warrant.
Common Mistakes Made by Inexperienced Police Claims Solicitors
Molly’s original Solicitors had got this case wrong on multiple grounds –
- They had focused only a potential Judicial Review, and appeared to completely overlook a direct compensation claim against the Police.
- They were overly dependent upon the “independent Barrister” and that Barrister’s negative opinion, apparently not having the confidence or experience to analyse the case themselves. Barristers are not a ‘higher rank’ of lawyer than Solicitors; rather they are lawyers who specialise in advocacy at trial. I have a far greater depth of experience in actions against the Police than the majority of barristers practicing in this field, and hence I do not defer to them – I collaborate with them when I know their special skills can strengthen my client’s case, and not before.
- They wrongly estimated damages as being worth a maximum of £500 – £1,500.
- They misunderstood the rules governing disclosure of evidence in civil proceedings, informing Molly that the documents which the Police had provided to them in response to the letter of claim were for the eyes of the Solicitors only, and that they were “prohibited” from sharing the material with Molly, which shows a frankly astonishing lack of understanding of the rules of evidence and disclosure in civil proceedings. To put it simply, the Defendant owes disclosure to the Claimant; not to the Claimant’s solicitor, whose role is to obtain that material for the benefit of their client – not to act as a gatekeeper to it, at the Defendant’s behest.
- They abandoned their client as soon as the going got tough. Any solicitor’s business model which is overly dependent on barristers, is a broken one – though generally it’s the clients who have to pick up the pieces.
Successful Claim Against Merseyside Police: £19,000 Compensation and Apology
I am proud to say that is not how I operate, and I am pleased to confirm that I have recently obtained for Molly and Arthur an admission of liability from Merseyside Police, and total damages of £19,000, plus legal costs.
Furthermore, and just as importantly, I have obtained for them the following apology from the Deputy Chief Constable –
“On behalf of Merseyside Police may I offer my deepest apology in relation to the incident where your house was entered pursuant to a warrant [in January 2025].
I know that the Officers who attended realised that insufficient research had been carried out in relation to that warrant which led to an entry onto your premises. I appreciate how distressing that must have been for you. I understand that you had lived at the premises for 2 years and can confirm that you had no link whatsoever to the Merseyside Police Operation that was being carried out on that day.
I understand the Officers directly involved in this case have already apologised to you and once again, on behalf of the Force I offer my sincere apologies.”
Choosing the Right Solicitor for Claims Against the Police
Now that’s a better quote than the one we began with, isn’t it?
If you want the right result for your claim against the Police, I urge you to instruct a legal expert such as myself, with a proven- track record, verified by hundreds of client reviews, and not the kind of ‘post- man’ lawyer who needs to forward the Defendant’s response to a barrister to find out what to do next, and who relays other people’s opinions to his client, not his own.
The names of my clients have been changed.
How you can help
I post every Monday to demystify police powers and to help people understand when those powers have been misused. If this post has clarified your rights or reinforced the importance of police accountability, please consider leaving a 5-star review. Your review helps point others towards experienced representation at a time when clear guidance really matters. Thank you.
Contact the Expert Police Misconduct Solicitor
Iain Gould is a solicitor specialising in complaints, claims and civil actions against the Police. With over 30 years of experience and a national reputation, he has successfully sued all 43 police forces in England and Wales challenging abuse of power and securing rightful compensation
You must be logged in to post a comment.