Dealing with Bailiffs

What to Do When a Bailiff Says They Called the Police

When a bailiff asserts that he has called the police during the course of an enforcement visit, the legal implications are often misunderstood by debtors and frequently misrepresented by enforcement agents themselves. It is essential, both as a matter of legal precision and procedural fairness, to scrutinise such claims through the lens of verifiable evidence and the applicable statutory framework.

Your right to access police records

Any individual has a right of access to personal data held by the police where it relates to them, including records of police involvement in incidents reported by or involving third parties such as bailiffs. This right is grounded in section 45 of the Data Protection Act 2018 and Article 15 of the UK General Data Protection Regulation. The appropriate course is to contact the police via the non-emergency 101 service, providing them with the date, approximate time, and location of the alleged incident. The call handler should be able to identify the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) entry, provide you with the incident or crime reference number, and offer a readback of any recorded log entries, which often contain a summary of the report made by the bailiff and the police response.

What a CAD record contains

If a CAD record exists, it will contain a time-stamped audit trail of communications and actions taken by police officers. These may include initial 999 or 101 calls, radio traffic, visit logs, and notes from the attending officers. If you are intending to bring a legal claim or make a formal complaint, you are advised to make a subject access request for this information in writing. While some forces may insist this is a matter to be handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, citing section 1 of that Act, this is generally incorrect where the data relates to you and a specific incident, in which case it is subject to the right of access under data protection law. However, police may refuse disclosure if the information is protected by legal professional privilege, as provided by section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. If such an exemption is cited, it must be justified and proportionate, and can be challenged by complaint or judicial review.

Sending a letter of claim

If you are pursuing a civil claim in which the conduct of the bailiff or the actions of the police are relevant, the proper procedural route is to issue a letter of claim in accordance with the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols. Paragraph 6 of that Practice Direction requires the letter to include a concise summary of the facts, the legal basis of the claim, the remedies sought, and a calculation of any sums claimed. It is wise to annex evidence, including any CAD transcripts or responses to subject access requests, in support of your assertions. This can be particularly probative where, for example, the bailiff stated in a witness statement that the police were called due to obstruction or breach of the peace, yet the CAD reveals no such allegation was made.

When the bailiff lied about calling the police

There are further implications where the bailiff has fabricated or misrepresented contact with the police. If a CAD search reveals no record of any communication on the date and time claimed, this may constitute a false representation. In more serious cases, where a bailiff knowingly makes a false report to the police to gain assistance in enforcing a debt where no such power exists, he may be liable to criminal sanction. Section 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 makes it a summary offence to knowingly make a false report which tends to show that an offence has been committed, causes apprehension for the safety of any person or property, or purports to provide information material to a police inquiry. A conviction under this section may result in imprisonment or a fine. Such misuse of police time and authority ought to be reported through the force's online non-emergency crime reporting portal and evidenced with supporting material, such as settlement receipts proving the debt had already been discharged.

Understanding the limits of enforcement power

It is also critical to understand the statutory limitation on enforcement once the amount outstanding has been paid. Under paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, the power to take control of goods ceases when the amount outstanding has been paid in full. If a bailiff seeks to continue enforcement solely for the purpose of recovering additional fees once the principal sum has been paid, then his legal authority to remain on the premises or take further control measures has expired. Should the bailiff, under such circumstances, call the police to compel compliance, he would not only be acting outside the scope of his lawful authority but potentially be inviting the police to do likewise. The resulting CAD data may become central to any future litigation alleging unlawful enforcement, trespass, or abuse of process.

Conclusion and available remedies

In conclusion, when a bailiff purports to involve the police, the prudent course is to obtain the CAD reference promptly, make a formal request for the associated records, and consider the legal and evidential implications of any discrepancy between what the bailiff claims and what the police record shows. This information may support a civil claim, a regulatory complaint, or in some instances, a criminal allegation. The bailiff's conduct must always be assessed against the framework of Schedule 12 of the 2007 Act, the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, and the common law duties of fairness and good faith which underpin the enforcement process. Where the bailiff is found to have acted dishonestly or unlawfully, appropriate redress should be pursued through the courts or the relevant regulatory authority.