Fact Sheet - Bailiffs and High Court Writs

 

 

 

The bailiff attended about a judgment debt you knew nothing about

Parapgraph 7.1 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 stipulates that before taking control of goods, bailiffs are required to furnish debtors with a Notice of Enforcement. However, it's common practice for DCBL not to issue such notices beforehand, potentially motivated by financial gain. Moreover, if the enforcement address listed on the Writ of Control is inaccurate, it renders the Writ "defective." As per Paragraph 66 of Schedule 12, debtors possess the right to pursue damages for money taken under a defective instrument. Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 establishes that a document dispatched via post is considered served unless evidence indicates otherwise. The discrepancy with the address on the Writ of Control or the default judgment serves as contradictory evidence. In accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 23:10, debtors can apply to stop enforcement proceedings due to the incorrect address on the Writ of Control, indicating lack of awareness regarding the judgment. If bailiffs have already taken money or removed goods, recovery is possible by seeking to set aside the default judgment.

 

The bailiff did not give you a Notice of Enforcement.

Paragraph 7.1 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 mandates that bailiffs must provide debtors with a notice at least 7 days prior to taking control of goods. According to Civil Procedure Rule 6.26, a document sent by post is considered served on the second business day following posting. However, if the bailiff company is DCBL, they typically do not issue debtors with a Notice of Enforcement. This practice began during the production of the TV show "Can't Pay? We'll Take It Away!" where the producer, Sue Crook of Brinkworth Films Ltd, sought artistic license by surprising debtors on camera. Even after the show ended, DCBL continued this practice, knowing that courts usually side with the enforcement agent when the service of the Notice of Enforcement is questioned. To address this issue, debtors can request that the bailiff company complete and return a form N215 certificate of service. Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 stipulates that a document sent by post is considered served unless evidence to the contrary is provided. The bailiff's refusal to complete and return the form N215 certificate of service could potentially serve as evidence to challenge whether the bailiff indeed provided the debtor with a Notice of Enforcement. Furthermore, Regulation 3 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 specifies that bailiffs are only entitled to recover fees from the debtor when employing procedures outlined in Schedule 12, which includes Paragraph 7.1 regarding notice requirements. Under Regulation 16 of the same regulations, debtors have the right to apply for a detailed assessment and reclaim any fees taken by the bailiff.

 

The bailiff refused to show you the Writ of Control

Paragraph 26(1)(b) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 mandates that a bailiff must present evidence of their authority to act upon the debtor's request or at the behest of anyone in control of the premises being attended. The Writ of Control serves as the bailiff's authorisation to act. If a bailiff refuses to produce the Writ of Control, it indicates awareness of its defects; otherwise, they would readily present it. This refusal constitutes a breach of Paragraph 26(1)(b), and pursuant to Paragraph 66 of Schedule 12, the debtor may seek damages for this breach. When a bailiff violates any provision outlined in Schedule 12, they are no longer considered to be "lawfully acting".

 

You want more time to pay the original debt

Under Civil Procedure Rule 83.7(3), debtors have the option to request a stay on enforcement proceedings. Additionally, Civil Procedure Rule 23:10 allows debtors to apply for a variation of the judgment debt, enabling them to repay it in monthly instalments that align with their financial capacity. Paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 12 within the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 stipulates that the enforcement authority granted by the Writ of Control becomes invalid. Furthermore, Regulation 17(1) of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 specifies that enforcement fees and charges cannot be recovered from the debtor once the enforcement process is terminated.

 

Your name or company name is spelled wrong on the Writ of Control

Paragraph 10 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 outlines that bailiffs are only authorised to take control of goods belonging to the debtor named on the Writ of Control. Any deviation from this renders the enforcement invalid. According to Paragraph 60 of the same Schedule, any third party has the right to apply to the court within seven days for the return of money taken or goods removed under the Writ of Control. If the bailiff took the money or goods over seven days ago, the third party can take action under Sections 3-4 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977. This allows them to claim the money taken and apply for an injunction to recover their goods, along with an application for costs. Alternatively, the third party can initiate a chargeback with their bank. However, the bailiff must demonstrate to the bank that the account holder's name matches the one on the Writ of Control. Failure to do so may result in the bank returning the money back to the account holder.


 

The address on the Writ of Control is wrong

Paragraph 9 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 states that bailiffs are authorised to take control of the debtor's goods either on a highway or at the enforcement address indicated on the Writ of Control. Additionally, Paragraph 14(6) of the same Schedule specifies that bailiffs can seize the debtor's goods at their residence or place of business. A Writ of Control containing an incorrect address for the debtor renders it invalid. Furthermore, Paragraph 7.1 of Schedule 12 mandates that bailiffs must provide debtors with a Notice of Enforcement before seizing goods. According to Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978, a document sent by post is deemed served unless evidence suggests otherwise. The presence of an incorrect address on the Writ of Control serves as evidence to challenge whether the Notice of Enforcement was issued to the debtor. If the bailiff refuses to produce the Writ of Control, it indicates his awareness of its defects and implies that the debtor was not served with a Notice of Enforcement. In the event of a breach of Paragraph 7.1, Paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 allows the debtor to seek damages and request the return of the money taken. Sections 3-4 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 provide recourse for applying to the court to compel the bailiff to return all goods or compensate for their replacement cost.

 

The bailiff forced you to pay someone else's debt

Paragraph 10 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 specifies that bailiffs are only permitted to seize the debtor's goods. According to Paragraph 60 of the same Schedule, third parties have the right to reclaim money taken by bailiffs, under the pain of having their goods removed. If the bailiff has taken the money or goods more than seven days ago, the third party can pursue a claim under Sections 3-4 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977. If a bailiff indicates on a document that the third party provided the money "voluntarily", it implies that the bailiff knowingly accepted the funds from a third party, under the threat of removing the third-party's goods. This document serves as evidence of the bailiff's actions.

 

The bailiff attended your private address to enforce a company's debt

Paragraph 10 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 stipulates that bailiffs are solely authorised to take control of the debtor's goods. It's important to note that directors and their limited companies are distinct legal entities. The Writ of Control grants enforcement against the company listed on it, and bailiffs cannot shift a company's liability onto one of its directors. According to Paragraph 14(6) of Schedule 12, bailiffs can only take control of goods where the debtor conducts business. Therefore, bailiffs cannot enforce a Writ of Control that displays the director's residential address if the debtor company does not conduct business there. Paragraph 15 of the same Schedule specifies that bailiffs must seek separate authorization for such action. Paragraph 60 of Schedule 12 allows the director to file a third-party claim to recover money taken by the bailiff, under the threat of removing their goods. If the bailiff took the money more than seven days ago, the director can claim a breach of Paragraphs 10, 14(6)(b), and 15 of Schedule 12 under Sections 3-4 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977.

 

You recently moved

Paragraph 7.1 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 mandates that the bailiff must furnish the debtor with a Notice of Enforcement before seizing goods. If the Writ of Control displays your previous address, it is considered a defective instrument. According to Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978, a document dispatched via ordinary post is assumed to be served unless contrary evidence is presented. Your previous address listed on the Writ of Control serves as contradictory evidence. If the bailiff declines to present the Writ of Control, it indicates awareness of its defects and signifies that they are not lawfully acting as an enforcement agent. Civil Procedure Rule 23:10 allows the debtor to request a stay on enforcement if the court did not provide them with the claim form. Furthermore, Paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 specifies that the enforcement authority becomes invalid. Regulation 17 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 stipulates that bailiffs are prohibited from recovering fees and charges from the debtor once the enforcement process ceases.

 

The bailiff's fees look too high

Regulation 6(1)(a) of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 and its accompanying Schedule authorise bailiffs to levy a Compliance Stage fee of £75 when issuing the debtor a Notice of Enforcement. Regulation 6(1)(b) and (c) permit bailiffs to impose an Enforcement Stage fee of £190, along with a subsequent Enforcement Stage fee of £495 plus 7.5% of the sum to be recovered, exceeding £1000, upon their attendance. Additionally, Regulation 6(1)(d) allows bailiffs to collect a Sale Stage fee of £525 plus 7.5% of the recovered sum exceeding £1000 when commencing the removal of controlled goods owned by the debtor. Paragraph 13(1) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 outlines the four prescribed methods through which bailiffs can take control of goods. It is important to note that bailiffs cannot impose a Sale Stage fee unless they have successfully taken control of the debtor's goods. Regulation 16 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 empowers debtors to apply to the court to dispute the amount of fees and disbursements demanded or taken by the bailiff.

 

The bailiff charged you an "Enforcement Stage fee" more than once

Regulation 11 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 specifies that bailiffs are only permitted to recover one Enforcement Stage fee from the debtor, irrespective of the number of Writs being enforced against the same debtor simultaneously. However, some bailiff companies dispatch different bailiffs to the same debtor to execute separate Writs of Control individually, aiming to multiply the Enforcement Stage fees by the number of Writs being enforced concurrently against the same debtor. According to Regulation 16 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014, debtors have the right to petition the court to contest the amount of fees and charges being collected. Additionally, Civil Procedure Rule 84.16(2)(c) allows for disputes to be raised regarding breaches of Regulation 11 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014.

 

The bailiff charged you a "sale stage fee"

Table 2 in the schedule to the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 outlines the fees and charges that bailiffs are permitted to recover from debtors. Regulation 8 of the same regulations authorizes bailiffs to collect "disbursements" from the debtor, with sub-paragraph (2) detailing a list of qualifying disbursements. Notably, Card Fees do not qualify as a disbursement. Debtors have the option to contact their bank and initiate a chargeback, providing evidence that the bailiff charged an unregulated disbursement. Furthermore, Regulation 16 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 grants debtors the ability to apply to the court to challenge the amount of fees and disbursements collected by the bailiff.

 

The bailiff charged you a "card fee"

Table 2 of the schedule to the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 provides the fees and charges bailiffs may recover from debtors. Regulation 8 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 says bailiffs may recover "disbursements" from the debtor. Sub-paragraph (2) prescribed a list of qualifying disbursements. Card Fees are not a qualifying disbursement. The debtor can ask their bank and make a chargeback and show evidence the bailiff charged an unregulated disbursement. Regulation 16 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 says the debtor can apply to the court to dispute the amount of fees and disbursements the bailiff has taken.

 

The bailiff charged you VAT on his fees and charges

Section 63 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 mandates that an "enforcement agent" must be an "individual" possessing valid authority under an enforcement certificate. It is advisable to check the HMRC public register of VAT registrants to verify whether the bailiff is VAT registered. If the bailiff is not VAT registered but is charging VAT, this constitutes VAT fraud, and you have the option to report it online. Given that bailiff companies are limited companies, they cannot serve as "authorised individuals." Consequently, the bailiff company is not eligible to recover VAT as input tax from debtors, as they are providing services to the creditor. Furthermore, Regulation 16 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 empowers the debtor to apply to dispute the amount of fees and disbursements taken or demanded by the bailiff.

 

The bailiff refused to explain his fees and charges

Paragraph 7.1 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 stipulates that the bailiff is obligated to provide the debtor with a Notice of Enforcement prior to seizing goods. Regulation 7 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 outlines the format and particulars required in the Notice of Enforcement. It specifies that the notice must include the total amount of enforcement costs accrued up to the date of issuance, along with potential additional costs of enforcement should the outstanding sum remain unpaid. In the event that the bailiff fails to furnish the debtor with a Notice of Enforcement, Regulation 3 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 dictates that the bailiff is ineligible to recover any fees or charges, as they did not adhere to the provisions outlined in Schedule 12. Paragraph 7.1 forms an integral component of the Schedule 12 provisions, mandating bailiffs to provide notice containing the prescribed details.

 

The bailiff is pestering you to pay his fees

Paragraph 6(3)(a) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 specifies that the enforcement authority ceases once the "amount outstanding" has been settled. According to Paragraph 50(3) of the same schedule, the "amount outstanding" encompasses the debt owed as well as any sums recoverable from "proceeds". To generate proceeds, the bailiff must sell the debtor's goods to raise funds. Paragraph 13(1) of Schedule 12 outlines one of the four methods by which a bailiff can seize control of goods. If the bailiff fails to employ any of these prescribed methods, then they have not taken control of the debtor's goods, and consequently, there are no proceeds. Paragraph 50(3) therefore narrows down the "amount outstanding" to solely the debt itself. Once this outstanding amount is settled, the authority granted under the Writ of Control to enforce the debt ceases to be applicable as per Paragraph 6(3)(a). Moreover, Paragraph 59(2) of Schedule 12 stipulates that the bailiff is not held liable for taking an enforcement measure unless they are notified that the amount outstanding has been cleared. This notification, termed a "Paragraph 59 Notice", informs the bailiff of the settlement.

 

The bailiff is recovering a judgment over six years old

Section 24 of the Limitation Act 1980 establishes a time constraint of 6 years for enforcing judgments. According to Section 24(2), any statutory interest stops accruing after 6 years from the date of the judgment. Should the Writ of Control indicate an issue date exceeding six years from the judgment date, the debtor has the right, as per Civil Procedure Rule 83.7, to petition the court to halt the execution of the Writ of Control. However, if the issue date on the Writ of Control falls within six years of the judgment date, Regulation 9(1) of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 mandates a 12-month limit from the date indicated on the Notice of Enforcement for the bailiff to take control of goods.

 

The bailiff attended less than 12 calendar days from the date printed on the Notice of Enforcement

Paragraph 7.1 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 stipulates that the bailiff is prohibited from taking control of goods unless they first provide the debtor with a Notice of Enforcement. Regulation 6 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 further specifies that the bailiff cannot take control of the debtor's goods until at least seven days have elapsed following the issuance of the Notice of Enforcement. As per Part 6.26 of the Civil Procedure Rules, any document dispatched via post is considered served on the second business day subsequent to posting. If the bailiffs take control of goods before the combined duration has transpired, the debtor reserves the right, pursuant to Paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, to seek compensation for the breach and request an order for the return of any money taken or goods removed by the bailiff.

 

You are a vulnerable person

Paragraph 77 of the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards, released by the Ministry of Justice on 6 April 2014, outlines a range of potentially vulnerable groups, such as disabled individuals, the unemployed, those facing serious illness, single parents, pregnant women, and those recently bereaved. Regulation 12 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 specifies that bailiffs are prohibited from recovering Enforcement Stage fees and disbursements from vulnerable debtors unless they afford these individuals sufficient time to seek advice prior to goods removal. According to Civil Procedure Rule 84.16(3)(c), vulnerable debtors possess the right to contest any Enforcement Stage fees demanded or taken by the bailiff through an application to the court. Despite bailiff companies claiming to have a "welfare department," it should be noted that neither bailiffs nor bailiff companies possess the medical expertise required to determine a debtor's vulnerable status.

 

The bailiff is enforcing a judgment under £600

Article 8 of the High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1991, as amended by Paragraph 8 of the High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction (Amendment) Order 1999, establishes a minimum judgment sum exceeding £600 for eligibility for enforcement via a High Court Writ of Control. As per Civil Procedure Rule 83.7(1), the debtor retains the right to petition the court to nullify the Writ of Control. Paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 stipulates that the enforcement authority becomes inoperable. Additionally, Regulation 17 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 specifies that the bailiff's fees and disbursements become unrecoverable upon cessation of the enforcement process.

 

The bailiff has wheel-clamped your vehicle

According to Civil Procedure Rule 83.7(1), the debtor retains the right to seek court intervention to suspend the Writ of Control. Paragraph 6.3(c) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 specifies that the authority for enforcement becomes inactive, and any vehicle clamped under this authority is no longer subject to its provisions. Regulation 17 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 dictates that the bailiff cannot claim fees and expenses once the enforcement process concludes.

 

The bailiff has towed away your vehicle.

Contact TRACE on 0845 206 8602 to report the vehicle as stolen to the police. Despite any indication from the police that it's a civil matter, it's crucial to make this report to log the incident on the CAD system. Inform the DVLA that the vehicle has been "taken without permission" to safeguard yourself from potential liability for traffic violations. As outlined in Paragraph 10 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, bailiffs are only authorised to seize goods belonging to the debtor. If your car is under hire-purchase or lease, you can seek an injunction under Paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 to regain possession. Similarly, if the vehicle belongs to another party, they can file a third-party claim under Paragraph 60. Should the bailiff have taken the vehicle more than seven days ago, provisions in Sections 3-4 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 allow the owner to request the return of the vehicle along with compensation for its deprivation of use since being removed.

 

The bailiff sold your vehicle, but he did not give you a written valuation

Paragraph 36 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 mandates that the bailiff provides the debtor with a valuation of the controlled goods. According to Regulation 35(2) of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, bailiffs are permitted to determine their own valuation of the goods. Additionally, Regulation 4 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 stipulates the debtor's exempt goods allowance at £1350. Consequently, bailiffs may deliberately overvalue controlled goods if they are exempt to surpass the prescribed exemption limit of £1350. To ascertain the accurate valuation of your vehicle, it's advisable to examine eBay completed sold listings for identical vehicles sold within the 30 days preceding the bailiff's removal of your vehicle and calculate the average. If the bailiff breaches any of the Schedule 12 provisions, Paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 permits the debtor to seek damages and request the return of controlled goods.

 

The bailiff charged "storage fees" for storing your vehicle

Regulation 8 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 stipulates that bailiffs are entitled to recover disbursements that are both "reasonably and actually incurred". For disbursements to be considered legitimate, they must fulfill both criteria: they must be reasonable and they must have actually been incurred. In the case of storing your vehicle at a compound, there must be a valid reason for incurring this cost. Additionally, the bailiff must provide evidence demonstrating the actual payment for the storage service. If the bailiff fails to provide evidence of the financial transaction, the debtor has the right, under Regulation 16 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014, to contest the disbursements claimed by the bailiff, particularly those related to storage fees. Moreover, if the debtor opts to apply for a stay of enforcement as per Civil Procedure Rule 83.7(3), Regulation 17 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 specifies that the bailiff's fees and disbursements become non-recoverable.

 

The bailiff took your vehicle from a private car park or a neighbour's allocated numbered parking bay.

Paragraph 9 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 grants bailiffs the authority to take control of the debtor's goods on a public highway. According to Paragraph 14(6) of Schedule 12, bailiffs are empowered to take goods at locations defined as "relevant premises," which include places where the debtor resides or conducts business activities. However, it's important to note that your neighbour's driveway or a private car park does not fall within the scope of prescribed relevant premises. In situations where the bailiff seeks to seize goods at locations other than relevant premises, they must obtain permission from the court as per Paragraph 15 of Schedule 12. Should the bailiff unlawfully seize goods, Paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 enables the debtor to seek redress through the courts, requesting the return of the goods and pursuing a claim for damages.

 

The bailiff refused to show evidence of his identity.

Paragraph 26(1)(b) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 stipulates that bailiffs are obligated to provide evidence of their identity upon request by the debtor or anyone responsible for the premises. According to Section 63 of the same Act, bailiffs must possess a valid enforcement certificate, typically a laminated card measuring 6 inches by 2 inches. This certificate features the bailiff's photograph, name, and the court that issued the certification, all authenticated with a wet-ink signature by a judge. However, some bailiffs resort to using counterfeit police-like warrant cards along with a badge resembling those used by law enforcement officers. This deceptive practice, outlined in Section 90 of the Police Act 1996, constitutes an offence, as it involves possessing police equipment with the intent to deceive others into believing the individual is a member of a police force.

 

The bailiff does not have a valid enforcement certificate

Section 63(2) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 stipulates that an individual may serve as an enforcement agent if they operate under a valid enforcement certificate. However, according to Section 63(6) of the same Act, it is considered a criminal offence for an individual to knowingly claim to act as an enforcement agent without proper authorization. If you become aware of such an offence, you can report it through your local police force website.

 

The bailiff is enforcing a debt that is over 12 months old

Paragraph 7.1 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 outlines that the bailiff is prohibited from taking control of the debtor's goods until they have provided proper notice. Regulation 7(c) of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 specifies that the Notice of Enforcement must include the date it was issued. Furthermore, Regulation 9(1) of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 mandates that the bailiff cannot take control of the debtor's goods after 12 months from the issue date indicated on the Notice of Enforcement.

 

The bailiff clamped a vehicle before 6am or after 9pm.

Regulation 13 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 stipulates that bailiffs are prohibited from taking control of the debtor's goods prior to 6 am and after 9 pm on any given day. If your RING doorbell camera captures bailiffs clamping a vehicle during these restricted hours, they are not acting within the bounds of the law. In such a situation, dial 999 to contact the police, who will document the time of your call on the police CAD (Computer Aided Dispatch), establishing undeniable proof that the bailiff clamped the vehicle outside of the designated hours. The time noted by the bailiff, such as 06:05 on the Warning of Immobilisation, holds no relevance in this context.

 

The bailiff threatened you with a locksmith

A Writ of Control does not grant the authority to forcibly enter commercial premises. Paragraphs 18 and 19 stipulate the conditions under which entry may be forcibly made, specifically when recovering an outstanding court fine or when enforcing a Writ of Control at commercial premises where the debtor conducts business. According to Paragraph 20 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, the bailiff must separately aply for this authorisation. Paragraph 24(2) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 prohibits the use of force against individuals. Bailiffs may enter through an unlocked door or use a key left in the lock, as established in the legal case Ryan v Shilcock [1851] 7 Exch 72. However, accessing premises using a landlord's key is illegal, as demonstrated in the case Miller v Curry [1893]. Regulation 20(a) of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 specifies that bailiffs may enter through "normal means." Climbing through an open window is not considered a standard means of entry.

 

The bailiff wrote on a document that you paid a sum of money voluntarily

Paragraph 10 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 specifies that bailiffs are only authorised to take control of goods belonging to the debtor. When bailiffs knowingly accept a money transfer from someone other than the debtor under the threat of removing their possessions, they often label it as "voluntarily paid" on documentation. According to Paragraph 60 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, a third-party claimant has the right to reclaim money or goods taken by a bailiff to settle another person's debt. Bailiffs may attempt to dispute such claims by alleging that the third party willingly provided the funds. However, the bailiff's documentation serves as evidence that they accepted the money under false pretences. Third parties can seek reimbursement by initiating a chargeback through their bank. The bank typically requires proof that the cardholder is listed as the debtor on the Writ of Control; otherwise, they will return the funds to the account holder. According to Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006, an individual commits an offence if they deceitfully misrepresent a situation to gain personally or cause harm to another party.

 

The judgment debt arises from a consumer credit agreement

According to Section 141 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, a creditor is only permitted to pursue a debt stemming from a consumer credit agreement within a county court. Civil Procedure Rule 83.7(3) allows the debtor to apply to stop the execution of the enforcement process.

 

The controlled goods agreement is not compliant with regulations

Paragraph 13(1)(d) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 permits bailiffs to enter into a controlled goods agreement with the debtor. Regulation 15 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 outlines the required format and information for such agreements. If a bailiff's controlled goods agreement fails to adhere to the regulations, or if the listed goods do not belong to the debtor named on the Writ of Control, the agreement is deemed invalid.

 

The bailiff is charging you interest

In cases where the county court judgment includes interest on the debt, Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 stipulates that interest can be reclaimed from the debtor at the statutory rate of 8% per annum or at a rate determined by the court. Furthermore, Section 24(2) of the Limitation Act 1980 establishes a six-year limit for the accrual of simple interest from the date of judgment.

 

A bailiff left a document hanging out of your letter-box or communal doorway

Criminals often employ tactics such as leaving documents protruding from letterboxes of unattended properties to gauge activity. Similarly, bailiffs adopt a strategy of affixing red notices in letterboxes or communal areas of residential complexes, observing any responses. These notices typically feature a mobile number, aiming to elicit contact from individuals who may identify themselves as the debtor mentioned in the Writ of Control. This method serves as a means for bailiffs to locate elusive debtors, albeit resulting in the Writ of Control containing an incorrect enforcement address. Furthermore, this approach is utilised by bailiffs to generate Enforcement Stage fees. According to Regulation 6 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014, these fees are applicable upon the bailiff's initial visit to the debtor's residential or business premises.

 

The enforcement agent said he is a "high court enforcement officer"

Section 63 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 mandates that a bailiff must be an individual operating as an "enforcement agent" possessing a valid enforcement certificate. Regulation 6 of the High Court Enforcement Officers Regulations 2004 delineates a "High Court Enforcement Officer" as an individual duly authorised to function as an "officer". Despite this, bailiffs often prefer to refer to themselves as "officers" due to its connotation with law enforcement. However, it is imperative to note that bailiffs are designated as enforcement "agents" and are not permitted to assume or portray themselves as officers.

 

The bailiff damaged your business reputation

According to Section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013, a statement is deemed non-defamatory unless its dissemination has resulted in "serious harm" to the claimant's reputation. Section 1(2) stipulates that harm inflicted upon a business or company is not considered serious unless it leads to significant financial detriment.

 

Bailiffs are sending you nuisance text messages causing you alarm or distress.

Under Section 127(1)(a) of the Communications Act 2003, an individual commits an offence by transmitting an electronic message with menacing content. Similarly, as per Section 1(1)(a)(ii) of the Malicious Communications Act 1988, it is an offence to send an electronic message containing a threat to another person. Reporting such offences to the police online is possible, regardless of whether the message originates from a private number.

`

 

You told the bailiff to leave your property

If the bailiff lacks a Writ of Control displaying your accurate address, or if they decline to present the Writ of Control upon your request, you have the authority to instruct the bailiff to vacate the premises promptly. According to Morris v Beardmore [1980] 71 Cr App 256, the bailiff is obligated to depart with reasonable haste. Paragraph 26 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 stipulates that the bailiff must furnish the Writ of Control upon the debtor's demand. Should such requirements be flouted, Paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 empowers the debtor to initiate legal action for the breach.

 

You displayed a notice telling the bailiff to leave the property

Paragraph 14(6) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 grants bailiffs permission to enter premises where the debtor resides or conducts business activities. A bailiff, acting within the bounds of the law, can disregard a notice instructing them to depart. According to Paragraph 66(2) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, a bailiff who acts in contravention of the provisions outlined in Schedule 12 or operates under a defective instrument does not qualify as a trespasser. Section 63 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 specifies that an individual may serve as an enforcement agent provided they possess a valid certificate. In the event that the bailiff lacks a valid certificate, the debtor retains the right to pursue legal action against the bailiff for trespassing.

 

The bailiff jammed his boot into your door to stop you from closing it

Paragraph 24(2) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 explicitly prohibits bailiffs from employing force against individuals. In accordance with Paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, should such a breach occur, the debtor maintains the right to pursue legal recourse. If a bailiff resorts to forceful tactics, such as forcibly entering premises, the enforcement action is deemed unlawful, as established in Rai & Rai v Birmingham City Council [1993]. Section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 delineates that causing grievous bodily harm constitutes a offence. While law enforcement may categorise such incidents as civil matters, the term "civil matter" is often employed as a euphemism within policing circles to denote crimes that they are disinclined to investigate.

 

The bailiff was wearing a body worn video camera

Rule 6 of the Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct and Protocols mandates that prior to commencing legal proceedings, parties must engage in correspondence to ascertain each other's respective positions. The use of body-worn camera recordings by bailiffs serves as pivotal evidence in determining whether their actions align with the provisions outlined in Schedule 12 or its associated regulations. Refusal by the bailiff to provide copies of these recordings through correspondence may be interpreted as an acknowledgment of potential breaches. It is important to note that bailiff companies often erroneously assert that requests for such recordings fall under section 45 of the Data Protection Act 2018, commonly known as a "DSAR." However, this assertion is inaccurate. Debtors possess the right to seek court intervention to compel bailiffs to furnish copies of body-worn camera recordings. Failure by the bailiff to comply with such a court order renders them liable to legal action by the applicant.

 

The bailiff ambushed you with a TV film crew

Section 47 of the Data Protection Act 2018 empowers individuals to instruct both the production company and the broadcaster to cease the utilization of recordings featuring them. Upon receiving such notice, as stipulated in Section 47(1)(b), the data controller is obligated to promptly delete the recordings. Failure to comply with this directive may result in the affected individual seeking recourse through legal channels, including applying to the court for damages. Notably, recent cases, such as those involving Channel 5's broadcast of individuals without consent on the television program Can't Pay? We'll Take It Away!, have resulted in significant compensation awarded by the court, often exceeding £210,000, alongside additional legal expenses.

 

The bailiff looked like the police

According to Section 90 of the Police Act 1996, individuals who are not police officers but wear attire resembling police uniforms or possess equipment resembling that of law enforcement, such as police-like markings, warrant cards, or badges, are in violation of the law and may face penalties. If your RING doorbell camera or CCTV captures footage of a bailiff impersonating a police officer, you can submit these recordings to the police through their online portal for investigation and potential legal action.

 

The bailiff said he called the police

Contact the police using the non-emergency number 101, providing the date and time of the bailiff's contact with the police. Inquire about the details shared by the bailiff during the call. The CAD system will have recorded this information along with the timing of the bailiff's call. According to Paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018, this information is not protected by data concealment provisions. It's worth noting that bailiffs may occasionally claim to contact the police as a scare tactic.

 

The bailiff committed a crime against you in the presence of police

Section 26(7) of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 stipulates that a police officer commits an offence if they neglect to arrest a suspect with the aim of gaining an advantage for themselves or someone else. According to Section 1 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, you have the authority to direct a solicitor to present the information to a justice of the peace regarding the potential misconduct of the police officer. The magistrate can then issue a warrant to summon the officer to appear in court to address the allegations and enter a plea. It's essential to persuade your solicitor that pursuing prosecution against the police officer serves the public interest and that you possess ample evidence to secure a conviction.

 

The police arrested you or threatened to arrest you

Section 26(1) of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 specifies that a police officer breaches the law if they intentionally make an improper arrest. In accordance with Paragraph 68 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts Act 2007, individuals are liable for the offence of obstructing a bailiff who is "lawfully acting" or for interfering with controlled goods. However, if the bailiff acted in contravention of the Schedule 12 provisions and underlying regulations, individuals are not culpable for these offences. In such cases, the police may opt to make arrests for assaulting a bailiff. If the prosecution does not succeed, the debtor retains the right to pursue legal action for false arrest and unlawful imprisonment.

 

The bailiff assaulted or injured you or a member of your staff

Call police by dialing 999, ensuring that the assault is documented on the Police CAD (Computer Aided Dispatch) system, with the call being recorded by the 999 call-handler. Seek medical assistance promptly as detailed medical reports will be essential in initiating a personal injury claim.

 

The bailiff damaged your property or vehicle

Paragraph 35 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 mandates that bailiffs exercise reasonable care in handling controlled goods post-removal. Regulation 34 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 stipulates that bailiffs must maintain controlled goods in the condition they were in before their removal. Breach of these provisions entitles the debtor to seek damages under Paragraph 66 of Schedule 12. Additionally, Section 3 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 permits the goods' owner to claim damages for unlawful interference, with "unlawful interference" potentially encompassing violations outlined in Paragraph 35 of Schedule 12. To document the condition of your vehicle pre-seizure, it's advisable to create a video record. Furthermore, pursuant to Rule 6 of the Practice Direction - Pre-action conduct and protocols, requesting the bailiff's body worn camera recordings can provide evidence of the vehicle's condition immediately before its removal.

 

Is the High Court Enforcement Officer (HCEO) personally liable for botched enforcement by his bailiffs?

Regulation 4 of the High Court Enforcement Officers Regulations 2004 defines an enforcement officer as an "individual". Regulation 7 of the same regulations mandates that the enforcement officer must execute enforcement actions for all received writs of execution. Paragraph 66(6)(a) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 grants the debtor the right to pursue legal action against the individual whom the enforcement power is conferred.

 

You want to make a formal complaint about the bailiff

The Certification of Enforcement Agents Regulations 2014 stipulates that individuals have the right to raise concerns about a bailiff's suitability to hold a certificate. According to Civil Procedure Rule 84.20, complaints should be directed to the county court that issued the bailiff's enforcement certificate and must be supported by reasonable grounds indicating the bailiff's unsuitability. The court may grant the opportunity to question the bailiff in the presence of a judge, so it's essential to prepare well-reasoned arguments, gather supporting evidence, and have a list of questions ready in advance.

 

You want to prosecute the bailiff

Section 1 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 enables individuals to present evidence, referred to as "information," to a justice of the peace at a magistrate's court. Subsequently, the magistrate has the authority to issue a warrant to a constable, instructing them to bring the suspect before the court to respond to the information and enter a plea. It is imperative to have a solicitor present the information, as the Director of Public Prosecutions assesses whether there is sufficient evidence for a conviction and if pursuing the case is in the public interest before the information is submitted to the magistrate.

 

You would like to speak to the media about your experience

After the legal proceeding is completed, you have the option to engage a journalist to publish your account involving the bailiff. Your narrative should be compelling and captivating, ideally with an attention-grabbing headline. There is public interest in stories that expose corruption among bailiffs and law enforcement officers. Compile your evidence, provide a detailed chronology of events, and allow the journalist to transform your bailiff experience into an impactful news article.

 

If all else fails, apply to stay the writ and vary the judgment.

Even if the bailiff has already taken money or goods from you, you still retain the option to seek a stay on the writ and amend the judgment. This action effectively stop further enforcement fees and prevents any money taken by the bailiff from reaching the creditor. Pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 83.7(3), debtors are empowered to apply to the High Court for a suspension (called a "stay") of enforcement proceedings. Additionally, as outlined in Civil Procedure Rule 23:10, individuals have the right to request a modification of the original judgment to accommodate a repayment schedule aligned with their financial means. It's important to note that under Regulation 17(1) of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014, bailiffs are prohibited from recovering fees and charges once the enforcement authority has been terminated.

 

 

 

(c) 2023 Jason Bennison. Please ask before copying from this website.