Bailiff Law and Regulations
Enforcement
Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007
The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013
Bailiffs must carry a copy of the warrant : Section 126 of the County Courts Act 1984
Sections 62 - 70 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007
The Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014
High Court Writs
Schedule 7 of the Courts Act 2003
The High Court Enforcement Officers Regulations 2004
Transfer of judgments to the High Court
Practice Direction Rule 30
Reduction in the threshold for transfer to the High Court from £5000 to £2000 Article 8 of the High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1991
Reduction in the threshold for transfer to the High Court from £2000 to £600: The High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction (Amendment) Order 1999
Bailiff certificate and bailiff companies
The Certification of Enforcement Agents Regulations 2014
Bailiff companies: the Approval of Enforcement Agencies Regulations 2000
Official Guidelines
The Taking Control of Goods: National Standards 2014
Operational Guidance to Local Authorities: Parking Policy and Enforcement
Schedule of the Certification of Enforcement Agents Regulations 2014. Layout of forms and documents used by bailiffs.
Application of warrants and other orders
Magistrates Court fine enforcement: Section 75-96 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980
Magistrates Court fine enforcement procedure: CPR 30
Practice Direction CPR 30
Application for traffic debt warrant of control: CPR 75
Practice Direction Rule 75
Council Tax: Regulation 32-57 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992
Application for writs and warrants: CPR 83
Practice Direction Rule 83
Transfer of Judgments to the High Court
Bailiff fee disputes: CPR 84.16
Disputes about ownership of controlled goods: CPR 85
Practice Direction Rule 85
Bailiff crime
Section 3 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981. Counterfeit warrant
Section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Common assault and Actual Bodily Harm
Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986. Bailiff being shouty and swearing. Causing a public disturbance
Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970. Bailiff utters a document to have official character he know it does not
Section 54 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Clamping vehicle on private land that is not where the debtor lives or trades
Section 25 of the Theft Act 1968. Breaking and entering without a warrant or enforcement power
Section 65 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. Threatening a debtor with violence, or a locksmith without lawful authority
Section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Damage to property without lawful authority
Sections 1-5 of the Fraud Act 2006. Fraud by false representation and fraud by abuse of position
Section 90 of the Police Act 1996. Bailiff attire looks like a police officer, or carrying a badge intending to mislead a person he is a police officer
Section 4 of the Criminal Law Act 1967. Assisting an offender
Section 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. Police officer makes or threatens to make false arrest to assist a bailiff
Section 993 of the Companies Act 2006. Liability for directors and employees knowing a bailiff under their charge commits an offence
Misc.
Regulation 4 to 10 of the Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012. Bailiff prohibited from charging card transaction fees
Sections 2 and 9 of the Limitation Act 1980. Limit of 6 years to enforce judgments and statutory debts
Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978. Service of notice by post unless evidence to the contrary is proved (e.g wrong address)
Section 3 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977. Owner of goods may claim damages from bailiffs for wrongful interference
CPR 6.26 Rule on the deemed service of documents on debtors by first and second class post
Bailiff related case law
A debtor can lawfully resist a bailiff without a valid warrant from entering the home if entry is being made against his will, Vaughan v McKenzie [1969] 1 QB 557A door left open is an implied license for a bailiff to enter, Faulkner v Willetts [1982] Crim LR 453
A person standing back to allow the bailiff to walk through, but the bailiff must not abuse this license by entering by improper means or by unusual routes, Ancaster v Milling [1823] 2 D&R 714 or Rogers v Spence [1846] M&W 571
A bailiff entering through an unlocked door can break the lock if the door is subsequently locked while still inside, Pugh v Griffith [1838] 7 A&E 827
A debtor can remove right of implied access by displaying a notice at the entrance, Lambert v Roberts [1981] 72 Cr App R 223.
Placing such a notice is akin to a closed door but it also prevents a bailiff entering the garden or driveway, Knox v Anderton [1983] Crim LR 115 or R. v Leroy Roberts [2003] EWCA Crim 2753
Ringing a doorbell is not causing a disturbance, Grant v Moser [1843] 5 M&G 123 or R. v Bright 4 C&P 387
Refusing to leave a property does not cause a disturbance, Green v Bartram [1830] 4 C&P 308 or Jordan v Gibbon [1863] 8 LT 391
Excessive force must be avoided, Gregory v Hall [1799] 8 TR 299 or Oakes v Wood [1837] 2 M&W 791
A debtor can use an equal amount of force to resist a bailiff from gaining entry, Weaver v Bush [1795] 8TR, Simpson v Morris [1813] 4 Taunt 821, Polkinhorne v Wright [1845] 8QB 197.
Another occupier of the premises or an employee may also use an equal amount of force to resist a bailiff from gaining entry, Hall v Davis [1825] 2 C&P 33.
If a bailiff enters a property and makes a noise and disturbs the peace it is lawful for the occupier to eject him and if he refuses to leave the police may be called, Green v Bartram [1830] 4C&P 308 or Shaw v Chairtirie [1850] 3 C&K 21
A bailiff may not encourage a third party to allow the bailiff access to a property (i.e. Workmen inside a house or a police officer), access by this means renders everything that follows invalid, Nash v Lucas [1867] 2 QB 590
A bailiff may climb over a wall or a fence or walk across a garden or yard provided that no damage occurs, Long v Clarke & another [1894] 1 QB 119
A debtor can lawfully use reasonable force in removing a bailiff without a levy that has refused to leave, the bailiff resisting is the person guilty of a breach of the peace, Green v Bartram [1830] 4 C&P 308.
If police are present when a bailiff commits an offence, the bailiff should be arrested, Foulkes v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police [1998] 3 All ER 705
If a bailiff jams his boot into a debtor's door to stop him closing, any levy that is subsequently made is not valid: Rai & Rai v Birmingham City Council [1993] or Vaughan v McKenzie [1969] 1 QB 557
A debtor gives the bailiff a good slap after refusing a request to remove their foot from the door. R. v Tucker at Hove Trial Centre Crown Court, December 2012
If a bailiff refuses to leave the property after being requested to do so or starts trying to force entry then he is causing a disturbance, Howell v Jackson [1834] 6 C&P 723
A police officer must arrest the bailiff if he makes a threat, Bibby v Constable of Essex [2000] Court of Appeal April 2000
If the debtor strikes the bailiff over the head with a full milk bottle after making a forced entry, the debtor is not guilty of assault because the bailiff was there illegally. Vaughan v McKenzie [1969] 1 QB 557
A bailiff cannot put his hand in a hole (e.g. a cat flap or letterbox) in order to pull back a bar or fastening to open the door or window because this amounts to burglary and trespass, Ryan v Shilcock [1851] 7 Exch 72
The use of a landlord's key to gain entry is unlawful, Miller v Curry [1893]
If the key is found but is not in the lock, entry would be unlawful, Welch v Krakovsky [1919]
Improper use of keys to gain entry is illegal, Alford v Thrupp [1906] 67 EG 226
If a key is in the lock, the bailiff may gain entry using the key, Ryan v Shilcock [1851] 7 Exch 72
Deceiving a debtor is improper conduct, Mutton v Sheppard [1905] 66 EG 806
Bailiff presenting himself in public in police livery even without without the words "POLICE", R. v Michael Allen Northampton Magistrates Court, October 30 2014
Assaulting a debtor commits an offence, Woodward v Day [1894] 2 PMR 753
Bailiff drunk on duty is improper conduct. Gurden Re [1894] 1 PMR 872 or Villenueva v Clark [1890] 33 EG 458
If a bailiff is named on the warrant but is being executed by another then it is illegal, Symonds v Kurtz [1889] 61 LT 559 or R v Whalley [1835] 7 C&P 245 or R v Patience [1837] 7 C&P 775
A person not a certificated bailiff attending a debtor is trespass, Bray v Naldred [1894] 2 PMR 227, Hawes v Watson [1892] 94 LT 191 ;[1890] 29 LJ 556; contrast Varden v Shread [1890] 36 EG 449 or 25 LJ 363, Harker v Browne [1890] 36 EG 59, [1892] 40 EG 402, Thomas v Millington [1894] 2 PMR 472, Bray v Naldred [1894] 2 PMR 227 and Rodgers v Webb [1912] 20 PMR 186
Bailiffs can consider at first sight "prima facie" any goods are the property of the debtor and the burden of proof who owns seized goods lies with the debtor or the owner: Observer Ltd v Gordon [1983]
it IS reasonable for the bailiff to check ownership with the DVLA. The Local Government Ombudsman on 10 July 2012 in a report into complaint no 11 007 684
Items such as perishable foods cash (unless in a cash-box because the identical goods have to be restored to the debtor) and loose food items, bedding and clothing are all exempt from levy, Davies v Property Reversionary Investments Co Ltd [1929] 2 KB 222
A levy that includes exempt goods does not invalidate the whole levy, Canadian Pacific Wine Company v Tuley [1921] 2 AC417 or Elias v Pasmore [1934] 2 KB 164 or Owen & Smith v Reo [1934] 151 LT 274
It is important that ALL enforcement agents should make enquiries about possible insolvencies but it is especially important that officers levying execution should do so, Balme v Hutton [1833] 9 Bing 471 or Cooper v Chitty [1753] 1 Kenyon 395 or Dillon v Langley [1831] 2 B&A 131 or Garland v Carlisle [1837] 4 Bing VC 7 HL.
Bailiffs are required to make enquiries about possible insolvency, Balme v Hutton [1833] 9 Bing 471
Levying on goods or a vehicle having a significantly higher value than the debt and fees being recovered. Steel Linings Limited, Mark Harvey v Bibby & Co [1993] EWCA WL 964281
Taking control of high value goods is wrongful at common law unless no other goods of the debtor are available, a debtor may issue a claim for damages or a claim under Statute of Marlborough 1267c.15
Bailiffs have a longstanding duty to conduct a thorough and diligent levy to ensure it is not an excessive levy, Doe d Haverson v Franks [1847] 2 C&K 678 or Mullett v Challis [1851] 16 QBD 239
Levying on goods worth 35 and selling them for 5 for a 1 debt is excessive levy, Josephs v London County Stores & Evans [1911] 78 EH 170
A levy on goods worth 175% of the debt would be treated as excessive levy, Merry v Lovell [1888] The Times November 16 3g QBD
Goods worth 602 sold for 73 resulted in damages of 350 being awarded, Webb v Pennell [1907] The Times December 5 10a
A levy on a single article (e.g. a vehicle) having a value that is more than 300% of the debt being recovered is excessive, Sullivan v Bishop [1826] 2 C&P 359 11
A slight excess (3.5% over the sum recovered) is not excessive, Fitzgerald v Longfield [1850] 7 Ir Jur 21
If a claim for excessive levy is made, there is no need for the claimant to prove malice on the part of the bailiff, Field v Mitchell [1806] 6 Esp 71
A claim for excessive distress and interference of goods cannot be awarded for both and the claimant must decide one for judgment, Clarke & Roe [1954] 4 Ir Ch R 1
Excessive distress is a wrongful act, Gawler v Chaplin [1848] 2 Exch. 593 unless no actual loss results, Watson v Murray & Co [1955] 2 QB 1
If the bailiff is uncertain of the value of a single item and wishes to avoid a claim for excessive levy then he should take a number of small inventories. Hutchins v Chambers [1758] 1 Burr 579 or Bagge v Mawby [1853] 8 Exch 64
A debtor has to show the value of the goods (or vehicle) being taken into control on the first occasion was sufficient to cover the debt and costs, Lear v Edmonds [1817] 1 B&A 157
Second levies are oppressive and excessive and should be avoided. If a second levy is made without good reason the debtor can claim damages, Lear v Caldecott [1843] 4 QB 123
If the debtor's goods do not meet the debt recovered, the bailiff is excused from taking control of goods, or if the fees and expenses of the levy absorb the proceeds of sale the bailiff can make a return of nulla bona, Dennis v Whetham [1874] 9 QB 345
Taking control of goods just to pay the fees of taking control of them is wrongful, Nargett v Nias [1859] 1 E&E 439
Sofas without the fire safety labels cannot be re-sold commercially and ware worthless. Section 10 and others of the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988 (as amended in 1989 and 1993)
The bailiff should invite the debtor to select items to be treated as exempt, Singer Manufacturing Co v Butterfield [1902] 114 LT 39; [1905] 13 PMR 963; [1910] 129 LT 578
Rented goods or goods subject to a hire purchase cannot be seized, Steel Linings Ltd v Bibby & London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham [1993] EWCA WL 964281
The test of whether or not an item is a fixture is the purpose and degree of permanence of installation, Botham & others v TSB Plc [1996] EGCS 149/ 73 R&CR D1 CA.
If the bailiff makes a controlled goods agreement goods then leaves the premises without a signing it, the goods are not controlled goods: Bannister v Hyde [1860] 2 E&E 627 or Evans v South Ribble Borough Council [1992] QB 757
Bailiffs must be precise and "not vague" as to what goods are being seized, Wilson v Nightingale [1846] 8 QB 1034 or Skene v Midland Railway Co [1911] The Times, February 28, 3b KBD.
A Controlled Goods Agreement is a license for the bailiff to re-enter the premises, Hill, Clerk v Ramm [1843] 5 M&G 789
A Controlled Goods Agreement signed by a debtor's 13 year old daughter is manifestly worthless, Lloyds & Scottish Finance Ltd. v Modern Cars & Caravans (Kingston) Ltd [1966] 1 QB 764
A Controlled Goods Agreement is invalid is void if it was signed under duress or a misrepresentation is made or pressure exerted upon a person to coerce that person to perform an act that he ordinarily would not perform, Barclays Bank v O Brien [1994] 1 AC 180 House of Lords
A spouse cannot sign a Controlled Goods Agreement for the other: H v Sandwell MBC [1992] Legal Action August P15. Held by Magistrates that process was irregular so far as the other spouse was concerned.
A Controlled Goods Agreement must be clearly particularised, Jones v Davies [1892] 40 EG 372
Re-entry may be forced but with the minimum of force and the bailiff should avoid acting in a matter that may constitute a breach of the peace, R. v Lockwood [1856] The Times April 23 10f QBD.
A person removing an illegal wheel clamp is not guilty of criminal damage, R. v Ali Bromley Magistrates Court [2011] unreported April 18 2011
A person who pushes a illegal clamper away from the clamp while it is being removed is not guilty of assault. R. v Ali Bromley Magistrates Court [2011] unreported April 18 2011
A bailiff commits fraud under Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006 if he charges for work he has not done and the police may not consider a civil matter, HM Government in the House of Lords April 20 April 2007
Charges that go beyond the standardised fee schedules should require the Court's sanction to be certain the fees are lawful, Bernard Loynes v Beswicks Solicitors [2010] Queens Bench Division
Van fees must be the actual cost of using the van. Flanagan v John Crilley & Sons [1987] Birmingham County Court, unreported, Adviser Magazine No. 7 p29
Bailiffs cannot charge a fee for using a wheel clamp: Culligan v Simkin & Marston Group Limited [2008]
The bailiff can only charge one fee regardless of the number of warrants involved at the same location: Glasbrook v David & Vaux [1905] 1 KB 615 or Throssell vs. Leeds City Council [1993]
Taking control of somebody else's goods or vehicle: The fees must be refunded, page 6 and 7 of 11 of the Local Government Ombudsman report on 29 November 2012
A High Court Enforcement Officer is not entitled to claim "Rule 12" costs and disbursements for gain, the House of Lords 03 November 2009
The bailiffs choice of remedy or court is not the exclusive remedy: Steel Linings Limited, Mark Harvey v Bibby & Co [1993] EWCA WL 964281.
A debtor can opt to recover the bailiffs fees paid under protest in a civil court claim, Veale v Atwood [1833] The Times February 2, 5g, CP
There is no direct contractual relationship between debtor and bailiffs and the bailiff company bears the risk of running the service if he is unable to recover the debt. Elias, LJ presiding in JBW Ltd v Ministry of Justice [2012] EWCA Civ 8.
Unlawful bailiffs fees are recoverable. Day v Davies [1938] 2 KB 74
The council, and not the bailiff, is liable for refunding unlawful bailiffs fees, Paragraph 24 of complaint number 12 005 084 by the Local Government Ombudsman 13 March 2013
The bailiff is liable if he damages your business reputation: Skidmore v Booth [1834] 6 C&P 777
Damages are not limited to the immediate pecuniary losses occasioned by the distress (the action of taking control of goods) but extend to damages for annoyance and injury to credit and reputation in trade, Smith v Enright [1894] 69 LT 724
Bailiffs have a duty to protect the creditor AND the debtor as well as having a duty to protect the poor from abuse and should normally err on the side of caution and generous treatment of debtors, Taylor v Ashworth [1910] 129 LT 578 or Harrison v Mearing [1843] The Times May 10 8b Exch
There must be very good reasons for arresting a debtor on the grounds of preventing a breach of the peace, only a serious and imminent threat justifies arrest, Foulkes v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police [1998] 3 All ER 705
By common law police officers owe to the general public a duty to enforce the criminal law, 1968 CA Lord Denning re: Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Ex parte Blackburn [1968] 2 QB 118
If a police officer is in attendance and assists the bailiff to gain entry or persuades the debtor to open the door then the bailiff takes control of goods, the action is void and the debtor can sue for damages. Skidmore v Booth [1834] 6 C&P 777
A police officer must arrest a bailiff for breach of the peace if he places the debtor in fear of violence or harm if that offence is made in the presence of that officer, R v Howell (Errol) [1982] 1 QB 427.
A police officer must apprehend and arrest the party that is threatening violence, Redmond-Bate v Department of Public Prosecutions, The Times July 28 1999, Lord Justice Sedley
If a bailiff causes a disturbance but does not make a threat, it is unreasonable for the police to arrest him. Bibby v Constable of Essex [2000] Court of Appeal April 2000
When a government department publishes "guidelines" on how it should operate, then those guidelines must be followed unless contrary legislation is provided. Demonstrated in paragraph 29 and onwards in the judicial review R v South Western Magistrates' Court [2013] EWHC 64 (admin)
The courts must never appear to approve of an unlawful action against a debtor no matter how unsympathetic his record, R v Purdy [1974] 1 QB 288, 1 QB 292F