For example, if a bailiff takes control of multiple vehicles for a single traffic contravention or a small debt, this may constitute an excessive levy.

You may claim an excessive levy if the bailiff selects higher-value goods or a vehicle when items or a vehicle of a value more proportionate to the debt and fees were available at the time.

The Government's official guidelines, "Taking Control of Goods: National Standards 2014," specifically Paragraph 66, state:

Enforcement agents should take all reasonable steps to satisfy themselves that the value of the goods taken into control to cover the sum outstanding is proportional to the value of the debt and fees owed.

Case law

Taking control of goods having a combined value of £46,300 for a debt £7400 is excessive.
Steel Linings Limited, Mark Harvey v Bibby & Co [1993] EWCA WL 964281

Excessive levy is wrongful at common law and the debtor may issue a claim for damages.
Statute of Marlborough 1267 c.15

Taking control of goods worth £35m selling them for £5 for a £1 debt is excessive levy.
Josephs v London County Stores & Evans [1911] 78 EH 170.

Taking control of goods worth 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.

Taking control of 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

Taking control of goods valued at £6 but the debtor valued them at £100 and sued, The court awarded £50 reduced to £30 on appeal.
Lowry v Read [1889] The Times March 9 5b & 33 EG 139

A slight excess being 3.5% over the sum recovered is not excessive.
Fitzgerald v Longfield [1850] 7 Ir Jur 21

There is no need for the claimant to prove malice on the part of the bailiff when claiming excessive levy.
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

Taking control of goods having an excessive value is a wrongful act.
Gawler v Chaplin [1848] 2 Exch. 593

If no actual loss arising from taking control of goods with an excessive value compare to the debt results in no claim for damages.
Watson v Murray & Co [1955] 2 QB 1

If a bailiff is uncertain of the value of a single item and wants to avoid a claim for excessive levy, then he should make 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

Debtors may have a tendency to over-value their own goods.
Cyril Morgan (Holdings) v Dyer [1995] 11 CL 193 or Bhatnagar & Elanrent v Whitehall Investments [1996] 5 CL 166

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