Fact Sheet - Bailiffs and Traffic Contravention Debts (PCN's)

 

 

 

The bailiff unexpectedly attended and immobilised or removed your vehicle.

Paragraph 7.1 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts, and Enforcement Act 2007 mandates that the bailiff issues a Notice of Enforcement to the debtor before taking control over goods. The presence of bailiffs without prior notice indicates that the Warrant of Control contains the debtor's former address, rendering it a "defective instrument." Pursuant to Paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts, and Enforcement Act 2007 and sections 3-4 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, the debtor has the right to pursue legal action. In cases where the vehicle was recently purchased, the debtor's name on the Warrant of Control may belong to the previous owner. As outlined in Paragraph 60 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts, and Enforcement Act 2007, the debtor can file a third-party claim or seek an injunction under section 4 of the Torts Act 1977 if the bailiff clamped or removed the vehicle more than 7 days prior. Refusal by the bailiff to present the Warrant of Control serves as evidence he knows he is acting under a defective instrument to obtain pecuniary advantage, a breach of sections 2-4 of the Fraud Act 2006.

 

The bailiff's FEES are too high

Regulation 5 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 establishes a Compliance Stage fee of £75 upon the debtors receipt of the Notice of Enforcement from the bailiff. Regulation 5(1)(b) specifies an Enforcement Stage fee of £235 when the bailiff attends, while Regulation 5(1)(c) designates £110 when the bailiff initiates the removal of controlled goods. Bailiffs may impose "storage fees," which can reach as high as £48 per day for vehicle storage. Regulation 16 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 outlines procedures for disputing excessive bailiff charges. According to Regulation 8 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014, bailiffs' disbursements must be both "reasonably and actually incurred." This entails a two-part assessment. Firstly, bailiffs must provide evidence demonstrating the actual disbursement of funds (evidence of the flow of money) for the claimed storage fees. Secondly, they must justify the reasonableness of paying high storage fees for a vehicle, particularly when commercial vehicle storage services offer indoor storage for less than £12 per day. Failure to satisfy either criterion allows for the return of the money under Civil Procedure Rule 84.16 by applying for a detailed assessment.

I want to challenge the original traffic contravention but I missed the deadline.

Paragraph 5.2 of Practice Direction 75 within the Civil Procedure Rules outlines the process for the respondent (you) to seek court intervention to overturn a penalty for contravention. If the contravention involves a moving traffic violation, the respondent can submit a sworn form PE3 (Statutory Declaration - unpaid penalty charge) along with a sworn form PE2 (Application to File a Statutory Declaration Out of Time). For non-moving traffic contraventions or unpaid crossing charges, the respondent may submit a completed form TE9 (Witness statement-unpaid penalty charge) along with a form TE7 (Application to file a statement out of time/extension of time). Begin by verifying the accuracy of your address on the warrant of control and collate the PCN numbers, which always commence with two letters followed by eight numbers. Contact the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at 0300 123 1059, providing your PCN number first, and undergo a "security check" by confirming your postcode, as indicated on your V5 document (not your current postcode). If the TEC acknowledges your previous postcode, it suggests the Warrant is "defective", as it fails to display your correct address, implying that the bailiff took unauthorised measures to find you. This contravenes Paragraph 12 of the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards issued by the Ministry of Justice on 6 April 2014, which prohibits creditors from issuing warrants with knowledge that the debtor is not at the address for tracing purposes at no expense. Moreover, the council breaches Civil Procedure Rule 75.7(7), which permits the authority to request warrant reissuance if the respondent's address has changed. The respondent can seek damages for enforcement under the defective instrument by initiating a claim pursuant to Paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts, and Enforcement Act 2007 and Sections 3-4 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977.

You filed a Form TE9 or PE2 with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (The TEC) but the bailiff clamped your car or taken money from you

Paragraph 8.1 of Practice Direction 75 within the Civil Procedure Rules outlines the procedure for the "respondent" (you) to seek court intervention (via the TEC) to halt enforcement by filing a PE2 or TE7 to tec@justice.gov.uk. According to Paragraph 6(3)(b) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts, and Enforcement Act 2007, the enforcement power under Warrant of Control ceases to be excersisable. If a bailiff clamps a vehicle after you've submitted a PE2/TE7 to the TEC but before the TEC has made a determination, it constitutes a breach of Paragraph 6(3)(b) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts, and Enforcement Act 2007. In such instances, the debtor has the right to seek damages and apply for an order compelling the bailiff to return the vehicle under Paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts, and Enforcement Act 2007 and Sections 3-4 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977. A TE7 form is referred to as an Out of time witness statement, while a TE9 form is also known as an Out of time witness statement. A PE3 form is designated as a Statutory declaration, and a PE2 form is identified as an Out of time statutory declaration. If you submit a PE2/TE7 to the TEC and receive no further communication, or if court personnel mishandle your submission, Paragraph 6(3)(b) stipulates that enforcement power remains indefinitely suspended, rendering the Warrant of Control defective.

The bailiff charged you £235 "Enforcement Stage fee" MORE THAN ONCE

Regulation 11 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 permits bailiffs to levy the £75 Compliance stage fee for each enforcement power being concurrently pursued against the same debtor. However, Regulation 11(4) stipulates that bailiffs are entitled to recover the £235 Enforcement Stage fee once irrespective of the number of enforcement powers being simultaneously executed against the same debtor. Regulation 16 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 grants you the right to seek redress from the court to reclaim any excessive fees demanded or taken by the bailiff.

The bailiff charged you a £110 "Sale Stage Fee"

Regulation 5(1)(c) of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 says the bailiff may recover a sale stage fee of £110 when he starts removing controlled goods. To take control of goods, the bailiff must comply with one of the four prescribed methods at Paragraph 13(1) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Bailiffs cannot recover a Sale Stage fee because he tells you he has "called a tow truck".

The bailiff is enforcing someone else's debt

Paragraph 10 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts, and Enforcement Act 2007 stipulates that the bailiff is only permitted to take control of goods that belong to the debtor. If the bailiff is enforcing a warrant bearing a different individual's name, you, as the owner of the goods (such as a vehicle), have the right to make a third-party claim to the controlled goods in accordance with Paragraph 60 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts, and Enforcement Act 2007. Moreover, if the bailiff took control of your vehicle more than 7 days prior, you can seek damages and apply for an order to retrieve the goods under sections 3-4 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977.

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 the bailiff must provide you with a Notice of Enforcement at least seven clear days before taking control of goods. If bailiffs unexpectedly confront you without issuing a Notice of Enforcement, it indicates the Warrant of Control has a different enforcement address from the one where the bailiff attended, the warrant is considered a "defective instrument." In such cases, you have the option to file a claim under Paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts, and Enforcement Act 2007. The incorrect address listed on the Warrant of Control serves as evidence that the bailiff did not furnish you with a Notice of Enforcement, as per the criteria outlined in Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978. If the bailiff refuses to present the Warrant of Control, it indicates his awareness of acting under a defective instrument.

The bailiff attended LESS THAN 12 CALENDAR DAYS from the date printed on the Notice of Enforcement.

Regulation 6 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 stipulates that the bailiff must provide the debtor with a Notice of Enforcement no less than 7 days before taking control of goods. According to Part 6.26 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a document is considered served via ordinary post on the second business day following its posting. If the Warrant of Control indicates an enforcement address different from the debtor's service address, it renders the Warrant a "defective instrument". It is evidence the bailiff did not issue a Notice of Enforcement as per the rule outlined in Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978. This Act specifies that a document sent via ordinary post is deemed served unless evidence to the contrary is proved. The incorrect address on the Warrant of Control serves as such contrary evidence.

You've paid the debt, the bailiff is pestering you for his FEES

Paragraph 6(3)(a) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 states that once the debtor settles the "Amount Outstanding," the enforcement power ceases to be excersisable. According to Paragraph 50(3) of Schedule 12 of the same Act, the "Amount Outstanding" encompasses the outstanding debt and any sum recoverable from the sale of the debtor's goods, known as "proceeds." If the bailiff has not engaged in any of the prescribed enforcement procedures outlined in Paragraph 13(1) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, it indicates that the bailiff has not taken control of any goods, and consequently, there are no proceeds from the sale of goods. In this scenario, the outstanding amount consists solely of the debt owed. There is no provision in the enforcement regulations that permits bailiffs to remove goods to recover fees once the enforcement power has ceased. If the bailiff demands payment under the threat of removing goods, you have the right, under Regulation 16 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014, to pursue a claim for that sum along with your incurred expenses.

You recently MOVED

Paragraph 7.1 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts, and Enforcement Act 2007 stipulates that before the bailiff takes control of goods, they are required to furnish the debtor with a Notice of Enforcement. Should the Warrant of Control display your previous or other address, it renders the warrant "defective". As per Paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, the debtor retains the right to reclaim goods or money taken under such circumstances. While some motoring advice forums may recommend submitting a late statutory declaration or witness statement, such action is unnecessary in this case due to the defective nature of the Warrant of Control. Paragraph 66(6)(b) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 holds the council (creditor) responsible for enforcement under a defective warrant. Furthermore, Civil Procedure Rule 75.7(7) places an obligation on the council to request a new Warrant of Control in situations where the respondent's (i.e., your) address has changed.

You are a VULNERABLE PERSON

Paragraph 77 of the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards, published by the Ministry of Justice on 6 April 2014, delineates the categories of vulnerable debtors, encompassing individuals such as the unemployed, seriously ill, recently bereaved, single parents, and disabled persons. Regulation 12 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 specifies that bailiffs are prohibited from taking Enforcement Stage fees and charges from vulnerable debtors unless they afford them a sufficient opportunity to seek advice before taking control of goods. If a bailiff removes your vehicle without providing this opportunity, you have the right to request the return of the seized vehicle. While regulations do not mandate the return of controlled goods under these circumstances, you may seek reimbursement for the Enforcement Stage fees and all storage charges levied against you. Some bailiff companies may claim to have a "welfare department," but this assertion is a red herring. Bailif companies lack the medical qualifications necessary to assess the debtor's vulnerability.

The bailiff has clamped your vehicle

Paragraph 13(1)(a)-(b) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 outlines provisions for bailiffs to immobilise (clamp) the debtor's vehicle. It is imperative to document the condition of your clamped vehicle through video recording. According to Paragraph 35 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, bailiffs bear responsibility for the care of goods they remove. If your address on the warrant is outdated, rendering the warrant defective, you have grounds for action. If your vehicle is subject to hire-purchase or lease, then under Section 3-4 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, you can seek an injunction and recover damages. Should the clamped vehicle be located on private land other than where you reside or conduct business, it constitutes a breach of Paragraph 14(6) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Furthermore, if the clamped vehicle is situated on a highway, Regulation 18(5) of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 mandates that the bailiff must leave the vehicle there for a minimum of two hours before removing it.

The traffic contravention debt is more than 12 months old

Paragraph 7.1 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 stipulates that the bailiff is required to furnish the debtor with a Notice of Enforcement before taking control of goods. Regulation 9 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 imposes a time limit of 12 months for the bailiff to take control of goods, and Paragraph 6(3)(c) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 states that the enforcement power ceases to be excersisable thereafter. Additionally, under section 9 of the Limitation Act 1980, the traffic debt itself becomes a nullity after a period of 6 years.

The council fobbed you off with "contact the bailiffs"

Paragraph 6(3)(a) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 states the enforcement power ceases to be excersisable upon payment of the "amount outstanding". Paragraph 50(3) of Schedule 12 of the same Act defines the "amount outstanding" as the debt specified on the Warrant of Control. If you settle the debt directly with the council via online payment, Paragraph 59 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 indicates that the bailiff is not held accountable for taking enforcement measures unless you give notice to the bailiff that you have made the payment directly to the council. It is necessary to email the bailiff company, informing them of the direct payment to the creditor. Additionally, ensure to copy yourself in the email and take a screenshot of the copied email to document the date on which you provided notice to the bailiff. This is commonly referred to as a "paragraph 59 notice."

A bailiff left a DOCUMENT hanging out of your letterbox or communal doorway

Criminals monitor vacant properties by leaving a document protruding from the letterbox. Upon someone retrieving the document upon their return home, the criminal identifies the presence of occupants. Similarly, bailiffs employ a comparable strategy by leaving documents dangling from letterboxes to ascertain whether the debtor has returned home or if any individual contacts the mobile number provided on the document by the bailiff. This method serves as a means of tracing debtors, as bailiffs place conspicuous notices at addresses believed to be associated with the debtor and monitor any subsequent contact from them.

The bailiff removed an exempt vehicle or exempt goods

Regulation 4 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 outlines a catalogue of goods that are exempt from enforcement. Paragraph 11(1)(b) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 specifies that bailiffs are prohibited from taking control of exempt goods. Despite the enforcement provisions and associated regulations being silent on the process of claiming exempt goods, Civil Procedure Rule 85.8 permits debtors to make such claims within 7 days of the bailiff taking control of the goods. However, if the bailiff has already taken control of exempt goods more than 7 days prior, the debtor can seek redress under Sections 3-4 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 for the breach of Paragraph 11(1)(b) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. This entitles the debtor to claim damages and incurred costs.

The bailiff turned up with a TV film crew

According to Section 47 of the Data Protection Act 2018, you have the right to request that the "data controller," in this case, the production company, erase your data if you suspect they may use recordings of you in a broadcast entertainment TV program. Should you appear in an entertainment TV show without your consent, you have the option to take legal action against the broadcaster and seek compensation, the amount of which will be determined by the court. Between 2018 and 2021, Channel 5 paid damages totaling £50,000, £60,000, and £100,000, along with associated costs, to individuals who were unwilling participants in the broadcast of the show Can't Pay? We'll Take It Away!.

The bailiff sold your vehicle without giving you a valuation

Paragraph 36 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 stipulates that bailiffs are obligated to provide the debtor with a valuation of the vehicle. However, Regulation 35(1) of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 allows bailiffs to arbitrarily determine a valuation. This loophole incentivises bailiffs to inflate the value of goods when taking control of exempt vehicles and deflate them when reporting proceeds of sale. To obtain an accurate valuation of your vehicle, you can conduct a thorough search of completed listings on eBay for vehicles similar to yours that have been sold within the last 30 days and calculate an average. In the event of a breach of enforcement provisions by the bailiff, you can use your valuation to assess the replacement cost of the vehicle, which can then be reclaimed from the creditor.

The bailiff refused to show evidence of his identity

Paragraph 26(1)(a) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 mandates that bailiffs must present evidence of their identity upon request by the debtor or any person in charge of the premises being attended. This identification typically takes the form of an enforcement certificate, which includes the bailiff's name, photograph, and a court seal. The enforcement certificate is signed by a judge using wet ink. Unfortunately, some bailiffs engage in the practice of displaying counterfeit police-like warrant cards adorned with a badge, reminiscent of scenes from American television shows, before swiftly concealing them back into their pocket. This action constitutes an offence under section 90 of the Police Act 1996. In other cases, bailiffs may present homemade ID cards. If bailiffs are not lawfully carrying out their duties, they can be evicted from the premises or relocated to the curtilage of the property until their true identity is confirmed. Notably, individuals who challenge the legitimacy of a bailiff's identity under Paragraph 68 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 are not liable for any offence.

The bailiff refused to show you the Warrant of Control

Paragraph 26(1)(b) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 mandates that bailiffs must provide evidence of their authority to enter premises. This authority is typically demonstrated by presenting a Warrant of Control, which specifies the enforcement address and grants permission to enter. If a bailiff refuses to show their authority, they are in breach of Paragraph 26(1)(b) and are not considered to be "lawfully acting." When bailiffs decline to show the Warrant of Control, it suggests that they are aware that the warrant does not accurately reflect your address and are therefore operating under a "defective instrument." In such cases, the debtor has the right to take legal action for the breach under Paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

The bailiff does not have a valid enforcement certificate

Section 63(6) of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 stipulates that it constitutes an offence for any individual to knowingly or recklessly claim to act as an enforcement agent without proper authority. Should such an offence occur, it can be reported to the police for investigation. Additionally, Section 26(6) of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 deems it an offence for a police officer to neglect to apprehend the suspect in question.

The bailiff towed your vehicle away.

Contact TRACE at 0845 206 8602 and inform them of the car theft. Even if the police say the offence is a 'civil matter', it's crucial to make the report to ensure the time of the call is logged on the police CAD (Computer Aided Dispatch) system. Notify the DVLA that the car has been "taken without permission" to safeguard yourself from any potential traffic offences. If your vehicle is subject to hire-purchase, lease, rental, or purchased by someone using their own funds, the enforcement action is in breach of Paragraph 10 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

The bailiff is enforcing two or more warrants against the same debtor simultaneously.

Regulation 11 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 specifies that bailiffs are permitted to recover the Enforcement stage fee of £235 only once, regardless of the number of warrants they are executing simultaneously against the same debtor. However, some bailiff companies exploit this by segregating warrants pertaining to the same debtor in order to charge multiple £235 Enforcement Stage fees against them. Regulation 16 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 enables debtors to reclaim multiple £235 Enforcement Stage fees that have been unlawfully taken from them.

The Bailiff clamped (immobilised) someone else's vehicle

PParagraph 10 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 stipulates that bailiffs are only authorised to take control of goods that belong to the debtor listed on the Warrant of Control. According to Sections 3-4 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, the owner of the vehicle has the right to apply to the court for the return of the vehicle, along with a claim for damages.

The bailiff clamped MORE THAN ONE vehicle

Paragraph 12(1) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts, and Enforcement Act 2007 prohibits bailiffs from takin gcontrol of goods whose total value surpasses the "amount outstanding," including any anticipated future expenses. Paragraph 50(3) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts, and Enforcement Act 2007 defines the "amount outstanding" as encompassing the debt owed and any associated costs. Notably, the legislation does not explicitly allow bailiffs to recover "fees". Regulation 5 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 outlines fees separately from costs.

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

If your RING video doorbell captures footage of bailiffs clamping vehicles before 6 am, it indicates a breach of Regulation 13 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013. This regulation explicitly prohibits bailiffs from taking control of the debtor's goods (night time clamping) before 6 am or after 9 pm on any given day. Even if the bailiff documents the time as "06:05," the breach of regulation still stands.

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 remove the debtor's goods from a highway. Additionally, Paragraph 14(6) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 permits bailiffs to take control of goods from "relevant premises," which include locations where the debtor conducts business or resides. Notably, private areas such as your neighbour's driveway or any private car park are not classified as "relevant premises." Should the bailiff seek to remove goods from other designated locations, they must make an application to the court as outlined in Paragraph 15 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. In the event of a breach, Paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 empowers debtors to seek recourse by applying to the court for an order compelling the bailiff to return the goods and seek damages for the breach.

The bailiff threatened you with a LOCKSMITH

Paragraph 18(a) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 stipulates that bailiffs are prohibited from forcibly entering domestic premises when attempting to recover a traffic contravention debt. While bailiffs may enter through an unlocked door, they are not permitted to do so if they find the key under a mat or if it is provided by the landlord for unlocking the door, as established in the case of Miller v Curry [1893]. Regulation 20 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 allows bailiffs to enter through "usual means," however, climbing through an open window is not considered a usual method of entry. Furthermore, bailiffs are not permitted to insert their hand through a letterbox to manipulate a key or latch to open the door from the inside, as established in the case of i>Ryan v Shilcock [1851] 7 Exch 72.

The bailiff refused to explain his fees and charges.

Regulation 7(e)(iv) of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 mandates that the Notice of Enforcement must include details regarding potential additional enforcement costs if the outstanding sum remains unpaid. Paragraph 7.1 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 specifies that the bailiff is prohibited from taking control of goods until the debtor has been provided with a Notice of Enforcement. Failure to adhere to Paragraph 7.1 means that, according to Regulation 3 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014, the bailiff is not entitled to recover any fees and charges from the debtor.

The bailiff charged you a "card fee"

The schedule to the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 outlines the fees that bailiffs are permitted to recover from the debtor. However, card fees are not specified within this schedule. If card fees were charged, you have the option to request a refund for the entire transaction by initiating a chargeback through your card provider or bank.

The bailiff charged VAT on his fees

The Schedule to the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 outlines the fees that bailiffs, referred to as "enforcement agents," are permitted to recover from the debtor. To verify the bailiff's VAT registration, conduct an online search. If the bailiff is not registered for VAT, they are not authorised to recover VAT. According to Section 63 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, an enforcement agent, referred to as a "bailiff," must be an "individual" with a valid enforcement certificate. As bailiff companies are registered as limited companies, they do not meet the criteria to be classified as an "enforcement agent" or an "individual" under Section 63. Consequently, debtors are not obligated to pay VAT to bailiff companies as input tax, and bailiff companies cannot reclaim their input tax from debtors using the enforcement provisions outlined in Schedule 12.

The bailiff charged "storage fees" for storing your vehicle

Regulation 8 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 addresses the recovery of "disbursements" by bailiffs from the debtor, where a disbursement refers to a monetary payment. Subsection 8(2) further stipulates that these disbursements must be both "reasonably and actually incurred," setting forth two essential conditions for bailiffs to adhere to. The first condition pertains to the expenditure being "reasonably" justified, while the second condition relates to the actual occurrence of the expenditure. As outlined in Regulation 16 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014, debtors reserve the right to contest disbursements that bailiffs have allocated for the storage of their vehicle. To validate such disbursements, the bailiff must demonstrate the rationale behind the payment for vehicle storage and furnish evidence of the actual payment made i.e evidence of thew flow of money. This necessitates providing a record of the monetary flow directed towards the vehicle storage facility by the enforcement agent. Should the storage fees exceed £9 per day, surpassing the typical cost of professional vehicle storage in central London, the debtor may pursue reimbursement for the surplus funds taken, alongside associated costs.

 

The bailiff wrote on a document you paid VOLUNTARILY

Paragraph 10 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 outlines that bailiffs are only permitted to take control of goods that are rightfully owned by the debtor. In cases where bailiffs are aware that they are receiving a monetary transfer from a party other than the debtor, they may falsely indicate on a document that the transfer was made "voluntarily", even if it was obtained under the threat of removing someone else's belongings. If a third party is subjected to such circumstances, they retain the right to reclaim the funds taken by the bailiff. This can be pursued through a chargeback process with their bank on their banking app, supported by evidence demonstrating that they are not the debtor specified in the bailiff's Warrant of Control. Banks typically require bailiffs to confirm that the cardholder's name matches the one listed on the Warrant of Control; failure to do so may prompt the bank to reimburse the funds to the cardholder's account. Once the enforcement power under a Warrant of Control ceases to be exercisable, as indicated in Paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, it cannot be reinstated thereafter.

You paid the PCN directly to the council, but the council said they gave the money to a bailiff company

Paragraph (6)(3) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 stipulates that the authority granted by a Warrant of Control, or enforcement power, ceases to be excersisable once the debtor settles the "amount outstanding". According to Paragraph 50(3) of the same schedule, the "amount outstanding" encompasses the debt specified in the Warrant of Control, along with any associated costs paid from the "proceeds" of enforcement. Section 62(1) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 defines "enforcement" as the process of removing goods and selling them to recover the money owed. In cases where bailiffs have not taken control of goods, there are no proceeds from their sale. Therefore, as outlined in Paragraph 50(3), the debt remains, which the debtor has directly settled with the council. Despite councils believing that transferring public funds to a private enforcement company revives the enforcement power, it does not. Paragraph 31 of the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards, published by the Ministry of Justice on 6 April 2014, explicitly states that enforcement agents should refrain from pursuing the recovery of fees once an enforcement power becomes inactive. Bailiffs often voice their grievances to councils and their trade association CIVEA, alleging that debtors circumvent their services by directly settling debts with creditors, leading to bailiffs losing their commission.

The bailiff said he is a "High Court Enforcement Officer"

Section 63 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 defines an "Enforcement Agent" as an "individual" trading under a valid enforcement certificate. Regulations 4-6 of the High Court Enforcement Officers Regulations 2004 outline the specific criteria that an individual must meet to qualify as an "enforcement officer". Bailiffs, often referred to as agents, sometimes prefer to present themselves as officers because the term "officer" carries a more authoritative connotation, resembling that of the police.

The bailiff called the Police

Contact the police through the non-emergency number 101 and obtain the call details logged in the police CAD (Computer Aided Dispatch) system. This will provide you with insight into the communication exchanged between the bailiff and the police, as well as the actions taken by the police in response. It's important to note that this information falls under the exemption outlined in Paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018. In some instances, bailiffs may feign calling the police on their mobile phones as a tactic to intimidate you.

The bailiff has blackmailed you. Deploy "Pay & Reclaim"

According to section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006, an individual commits an offence if they make a false representation with the intention of gaining for themselves or another person, or causing loss to another. If bailiffs have taken control of your vehicle and are demanding excessive charges for its return, you may need to resort to the "Pay & Reclaim" strategy. This involves paying the demanded fees and then seeking reimbursement through a DEtailed Assessment hearing. However, it's crucial to be certain that the bailiff's actions are not lawful or that the enforcement is in breach of the provisions outlined in Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 or its underlying regulations. Paragraph 35 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 stipulates that bailiffs are responsible for the proper care of controlled goods after their removal. If your vehicle sustains damage after being removed, Paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 or Sections 3 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 allow the owner to seek compensation for repair costs or the replacement value of the vehicle.

You told the bailiff to leave your property, and he refused

Paragraph 26 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 mandates that bailiffs must present evidence of their identity and authority upon request by the debtor or the person in charge of the premises. Failure to comply with this requirement renders the bailiff as not lawfully acting, and they must promptly leave the premises as stated in the case of Morris v Beardmore [1980] 71 Cr App 256. According to Paragraph 14(6) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, bailiffs are permitted to enter premises where the debtor resides or conducts business. If the address being attended by the bailiff does not fall under these categories and the occupant provides documentation proving that someone else occupies the property, yet the bailiff refuses to leave, they are liable to compensate the occupant with the sum of £10,000, as established in the case of Neil Tunstall v DCBL and Hussain.

You displayed a notice telling the bailiff to leave the property

Bailiffs are permitted to disregard the notice only if they are attending the address specified on the Warrant of Control. Otherwise, they are obligated to leave the premises promptly, as established in Morris v Beardmore [1980] 71 Cr App 256. Paragraph 26 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 mandates that bailiffs must provide the debtor with evidence of their authority to act. The Warrant of Control serves as the authorisation to take control of the debtor's goods. Furthermore, Paragraph 18(a) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 specifies that bailiffs are prohibited from using force to enter premises when recovering traffic contravention debt.

Bailiffs are sending nuisance text messages which are distressing you.

Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 outlines the offence of transmitting an electronic message that is highly offensive, indecent, obscene, or menacing in nature. Similarly, Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 prohibits sending messages containing threats. Although the police may regard these offences as a 'civil matter', you can take action by blocking the sender's phone number on your Android phone handset select "report" which stops the sender from further messages without telling them. If the sender conceals their number, you can file a complaint online with the Information Commissioner's Office under Section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and set your Android phone to block "unknown callers".

The Bailiff's controlled goods agreement is not compliant with the regulations

Paragraph 13(1)(d) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 allows bailiffs to make a controlled goods agreement with the debtor. Regulation 15 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 specifies the requirements for the content of the controlled goods agreement. If the bailiff's agreement does not meet the standards outlined in Regulation 15 or if the listed goods do not belong to the debtor, the controlled goods agreement is invalid.

The bailiff jammed his BOOT into your DOOR stopping you closing it

Paragraph 18(a) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 prohibits bailiffs from usinf force to enter premises during the recovery of a traffic contravention debt. Additionally, Paragraph 24 of Schedule 12 of the same Act prohibits bailiffs from using force against individuals. In the event of a breach of these provisions, Paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 allows debtors to seek damages and request a court-determined sum as compensation.

The bailiff recorded you with a body worn camera

Regulations do not mandate bailiffs to wear body-worn cameras that continuously record their interactions from the moment they approach a property until they depart and return to their vehicle. However, if you observe a bailiff wearing a body camera and they contravene any enforcement regulations, it's advisable to capture photographic evidence of the bailiff with the body camera. Pursuant to Rule 6 of the Pre-action Conduct and Protocols, you have the right to request access to the body camera recordings. In the event that the bailiff has deleted these recordings, you can provide a witness statement, and the court will determine whether the production of these recordings would have supported your claim or countered their defence. Some bailiff companies erroneously suggest that debtors must request body camera recordings under Section 45 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (referred to as a "DSAR"). However, this advice is inaccurate, and bailiff companies may complicate matters with legal technicalities. Rule 6 of the Pre-action Conduct and Protocols obliges bailiffs (the respondents) to adhere to a Rule 6 request within 14 days or provide valid reasons for not disclosing the body-worn camera recordings.

The bailiff damaged your business reputation

According to Section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013, a statement is considered defamatory if it is probable to significantly damage the reputation of the individual making the claim. In cases where the claimant is a corporation, "serious harm" is interpreted as a substantial financial detriment.

The bailiff looked like the Police

Section 90 of the Police Act 1996 establishes a criminal offence for individuals who impersonate a police officer or wear police-related attire or equipment, such as uniforms, body armor, or radio loops, with the intention to deceive others. If you record a bailiff wearing attire resembling that of a police officer or displaying a warrant card or badge resembling those used by police, you have the right to report this conduct to the police.

The bailiff snatched car keys, a mobile phone or other article out of your hand, or from your vehicle

Regulation 10 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 stipulates that bailiffs are prohibited from taking control of goods that are currently in use by someone, as this action could lead to a breach of the peace. Additionally, forcibly taking an item from someone's possession may also breach Paragraph 31 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, which prohibits bailiffs from using force against individuals. Furthermore, according to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, committing common assault constitutes a summary offence.

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

Section 26(6) of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 specifies that a police officer commits an offence if they neglect to apprehend a suspect engaged in criminal activity with the intention of securing an advantage or disadvantage for another party.

The police arrested you or threatened to arrest you

Section 26(2) of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 outlines that a police officer commits an offence if they misuse their authority as a constable and are aware or should be aware of the impropriety of their actions. Paragraph 68 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 establishes that an individual is in breach if they deliberately impede someone who is lawfully performing duties as an enforcement agent. However, if the individual did not intend to obstruct the enforcement agent, or if the agent was not lawfully acting in execution of their duties due to breaches of the enforcement provisions outlined in Schedule 12 or its underlying regulations, the individual arrested is not culpable. In such cases, the arrested individual has the right to pursue legal action for wrongful arrest and unjust imprisonment.

A bailiff assaulted you

It's imperative that you seek medical assistance without delay. Prompt action is vital as it enables you to pursue a Personal Injury Claim, with supporting medical documentation being essential. According to section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, you have the option to report the assault to the police. However, it's possible that the police may consider the matter a civil matter or take measures to hinder your efforts in bringing your complaint to courtpt.

The bailiff damaged your property or vehicle.

Paragraph 35 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 stipulates that bailiffs are obligated to handle goods they remove with reasonable care. According to Regulation 34 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, bailiffs must ensure that the vehicle remains in a similar condition to when they initially removed it. Additionally, Regulation 18(5) of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 mandates that if a bailiff clamps a vehicle on a highway, they must leave it clamped for at least two hours before removing it. Paragraph 13(1)(b) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 grants bailiffs the authority to take control of goods by clamping them. It's important to note that the bailiff bears responsibility for the vehicle from the moment they clamp it until its return. In the event that the bailiff returns your vehicle in a damaged state, you can seek compensation for the harm inflicted on the controlled goods under Paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 or Sections 3 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977. To substantiate your claim, it's advisable to document the condition of the clamped vehicle with a video before the bailiff removes it.

You want to make a formal complaint about the bailiff

Part 84.20 of the Civil Procedure Rules outlines the procedure for lodging a complaint regarding a bailiff's fitness to hold an enforcement certificate. This complaint must be submitted to the court responsible for issuing the bailiff's enforcement certificate. It is imperative that your complaint includes "reasonable grounds" or evidence demonstrating that the certified individual is not a fit and proper person to hold an enforcement certificate.

You want to prosecute a bailiff

Section 1 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 stipulates the process of submitting written information to a justice of the peace alleging that an individual has committed or is suspected of committing an offence. The magistrate can then issue a warrant to a constable to bring the suspect to court to respond to the allegations and enter a plea. It is advisable to engage a solicitor to undertake this process on your behalf. Your solicitor must persuade the Director of Public Prosecutions that prosecuting the case serves the public interest and that there is adequate evidence to secure a conviction. Attempting to file the information personally at the magistrates' court may encounter resistance from court staff, which could potentially constitute the offence of perverting the course of justice at common law. In such cases, it is recommended to record the names of the staff involved and submit a complaint online to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

You would like to speak to the MEDIA about a corrupt bailiff of police officer

Your narrative about the bailiff should be captivating and serve the public interest. It's crucial that you have no ongoing legal cases at court, as media attention could jeopardise your case. Journalists are drawn to stories with intrigue, such as uncovering misconduct by bailiffs, police officers, or solicitors. When pitching your story, use an attention-grabbing subject line, tailor your approach to your audience, and remember to keep the message straightforward and concise.

 

 

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