Your vehicle was damaged in the bailiffs pound

Bailiffs are liable for taking reasonable care of controlled goods. That duty is often neglected when it comes to cars and vehicles, on some occasions the damage is intentional because they know the courts strive to protect bailiffs from claims.

It is very important that all damage is recorded and reported promptly, otherwise, when you bring the claim, the court may attribute the damage to you.

Damage to vehicles is often not discovered until you are driving it away from the bailiff's vehicle pound. It is usually power steering and gearbox issues found while driving it. It is caused by the vehicle being moved around a compound using a forklift which damages steering hydraulics and if it's in gear, the gearbox.

You must pull over to the side of the road, report these to the creditor and bailiff company by email and make a screenshot of the email and text message to the bailiff to record the time the damage was reported.

Steering hydraulics is characterised by stiff steering and potentially leaking hydraulic fluid and gearbox is rough first or second gear.

Damages include the cost of a rental vehicle while yours is in for repair.

This is a sAfter method then claiming for loss of earnings if use your vehicle for work or trade because accounts must be produced to prove a loss. Rental and hire invoices are much easier to prove a loss.

The action to remedy damage to controlled is brought in the small claims court under Paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

The Law:

Paragraph 35 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 states:

Care of goods removed

(1)An enforcement agent must take reasonable care of controlled goods that he removes from the premises or highway where he finds them.

(2)He must comply with any provision of regulations about their care while they remain controlled goods.

Regulation 34 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 states:

Care of controlled goods

(1) Where the enforcement agent removes controlled goods, other than securities, from premises or a highway where the enforcement agent has found them—

(a)the enforcement agent must keep the controlled goods, so long as they remain in the enforcement agent’s control, in a similar condition to that in which the enforcement agent found them immediately prior to taking control of them;

(b)the goods must be removed to storage, unless the goods are removed for sale; and

(c)the storage must be secure and the conditions of that storage such as to prevent damage to or deterioration of the goods for so long as they remain in the enforcement agent’s control.

(2) The enforcement agent must not remove controlled goods to a place where there would be at any time a contravention of any prohibition or restriction imposed by or under any enactment.

The bailiffs liability for the care of controlled goods ends when the goods cease to be bound.

That is usually when the debt is paid and the vehicle is released to the owner.

The Law:

Paragraph 6 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 states:

Time when property ceases to be bound

(1)For the purposes of any enforcement power the property in goods of the debtor ceases to be bound in accordance with this paragraph.

(2)The property in any goods ceases to be bound—

(a)when the goods are sold;

(b)in the case of money used to pay any of the amount outstanding, when it is used.

(3)The property in all goods ceases to be bound when any of these happens—

(a)the amount outstanding is paid, out of the proceeds of sale or otherwise;

(b)the instrument under which the power is exercisable ceases to have effect;

(c)the power ceases to be exercisable for any other reason.

If the bailiff company defends that liability ended when the vehicle is released and the owner does not collect the vehicle under a later date, they claim that liability ended when the owner was given notice the vehicle was released. In this case, the legal action is brought under section 3 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977.

The Law:

Section 3 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 states:

Form of judgment where goods are detained.

(1)In proceedings for wrongful interference against a person who is in possession or in control of the goods relief may be given in accordance with this section, so far as appropriate.

(2)The relief is—

(a)an order for delivery of the goods, and for payment of any consequential damages, or

(b)an order for delivery of the goods, but giving the defendant the alternative of paying damages by reference to the value of the goods, together in either alternative with payment of any consequential damages, or

(c)damages.

(3)Subject to rules of court—

(a)relief shall be given under only one of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (2),

(b)relief under paragraph (a) of subsection (2) is at the discretion of the court, and the claimant may choose between the others.

(4)If it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that an order under subsection (2)(a) has not been complied with, the court may—

(a)revoke the order, or the relevant part of it, and

(b)make an order for payment of damages by reference to the value of the goods.

(5)Where an order is made under subsection (2)(b) the defendant may satisfy the order by returning the goods at any time before execution of judgment, but without prejudice to liability to pay any consequential damages.

(6)An order for delivery of the goods under subsection (2)(a) or (b) may impose such conditions as may be determined by the court, or pursuant to rules of court, and in particular, where damages by reference to the value of the goods would not be the whole of the value of the goods, may require an allowance to be made by the claimant to reflect the difference.For example, a bailor’s action against the bailee may be one in which the measure of damages is not the full value of the goods, and then the court may order delivery of the goods, but require the bailor to pay the bailee a sum reflecting the difference.

(7)Where under subsection (1) or subsection (2) of section 6 an allowance is to be made in respect of an improvement of the goods, and an order is made under subsection (2)(a) or (b), the court may assess the allowance to be made in respect of the improvement, and by the order require, as a condition for delivery of the goods, that allowance to be made by the claimant.

(8)This section is without prejudice—

(a)to the remedies afforded by section 133 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, or

(b)to the remedies afforded by sections 35, 42 and 44 of the Hire-Purchase Act 1965, or to those sections of the Hire-Purchase Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 (so long as those sections respectively remain in force), or

(c)to any jurisdiction to afford ancillary or incidental relief.