Dealing with Bailiffs

Remedies for Damage to Goods or Vehicles During Enforcement

When a bailiff takes control of goods, including a motor vehicle, the law imposes a strict duty of care. This duty begins from the moment the enforcement agent exercises control under Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. If the vehicle or goods are damaged during this period, the debtor or the rightful owner may seek redress through the courts. This legal framework ensures that enforcement agents act with responsibility and caution and that those affected by their actions are not left without remedy.

The statutory duty to take care of controlled goods

Paragraph 35(1) of Schedule 12 provides that an enforcement agent must take reasonable care of controlled goods that he removes. This duty is reinforced by Regulation 34(1)(a) of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, which requires the agent to keep the goods, including vehicles, in a similar condition to that in which they were found immediately prior to taking control. The regulations further impose a duty to remove such goods to secure storage and to prevent deterioration or damage for as long as the goods remain in the enforcement agent’s control. If, therefore, a vehicle is scratched, dented, or otherwise harmed following clamping or removal, this will constitute a breach of statutory duty.

Standards and insurance requirements

In addition to statute, the Ministry of Justice's Taking Control of Goods: National Standards (2014) at paragraph 63 confirms that enforcement agents must ensure that goods are handled with proper care and covered by suitable insurance. Where damage occurs, the debtor or owner may claim for such damage. If insurance exists but the claim is not honoured, civil action against the enforcement agent and creditor may be warranted.

Joint and several liability of the enforcement agent and creditor

The controlling authority of paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 goes further. It creates a statutory cause of action where an enforcement agent either breaches the Schedule or acts under a defective instrument. In such proceedings, the court may order the return of goods or award damages. The creditor, as a related party under paragraph 66(6), is jointly and severally liable with the agent. This is a vital protection for debtors, as it ensures that creditors cannot evade responsibility by blaming subcontracted enforcement agents.

Tortious remedies under the 1977 Act

For claimants asserting ownership, section 3 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 provides a cause of action in conversion or negligence, allowing recovery of the cost of repair or, where not economically viable, the replacement value of the vehicle. This includes consequential losses flowing from the loss or damage of the goods in question. The Act thus complements Schedule 12 by offering a route to compensation in tort rather than solely under enforcement legislation.

Control by clamping and removal regulations

Where the agent has clamped the vehicle, paragraph 13(1)(b) of Schedule 12 makes clear that control may be taken by clamping. However, Regulation 18(5) of the 2013 Regulations stipulates that once clamped, a vehicle on the highway must be left for at least two hours before it is removed. This grace period affords the owner an opportunity to respond. Removal in breach of this regulation would render the removal unlawful and give rise to a claim in damages under paragraph 66 or the Torts Act 1977.

Evidence and preservation of condition

If damage arises, it is imperative to record the condition of the goods or vehicle prior to removal. A video recording showing the absence of damage at the time of clamping will serve as compelling evidence. Where enforcement agents are equipped with body-worn cameras, the debtor may request disclosure. If such recordings are withheld or deleted, and this impairs the debtor’s ability to prove their case, a complaint may be made to the Information Commissioner under section 165(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018. Failure to preserve such recordings may amount to a breach of the seventh data protection principle regarding the integrity and security of data.

Use CPR 31.17 to get Evidence. Do not be palmed off with a polite suggestion to send a DSAR

Where damage to a vehicle is suspected following enforcement action, a claimant should consider making an application under CPR 31.17 to obtain specific disclosure of the bailiff’s bodyworn camera footage and any vehicle condition reports completed at the time of removal or return. This rule allows a party to apply to the court for disclosure of documents before proceedings are issued, provided it can be shown that the documents are likely to support the applicant’s case or adversely affect the case of the respondent. Unlike a data subject access request under the Data Protection Act 2018, which can be delayed or fulfilled selectively, an order under CPR 31.17 is enforceable by the court and can compel full and timely production of evidential material. A bailiff’s failure or refusal to comply with such a disclosure order, or their inability to produce the recordings or reports, may seriously undermine the credibility of their defence in any subsequent claim for damages. It may also invite adverse inferences to be drawn under common law principles, particularly where the missing evidence was under their control and material to the dispute.

Valuation and notice to the creditor

To advance a claim, the debtor should calculate the full value of the loss. This includes the cost of repairs, or where the item is beyond repair, the replacement value. For example, if a newly surfaced driveway is damaged by a bailiff’s tow truck, the cost of resurface should be supported by estimates or invoices. The debtor should then write a formal letter to the creditor, enclosing a sworn statement of truth and providing a reasonable deadline for payment.

Pre-action steps and court proceedings

If the creditor fails to respond, replies only to say that an investigation is underway or says it is Data Protection Act, proceedings should commence. A pre-action letter should be served in compliance with Part 3 and paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols. This letter should clearly set out the factual background, the legal basis of the claim, and the remedy sought.

Application by non-debtors for return of goods

Finally, where ownership is disputed, a non-debtor may apply to the court under CPR Part 85 for the return of their vehicle and to seek damages for the interference with their goods. The court has broad discretion to make such orders, particularly where the enforcement action has deprived the true owner of their property without justification.

Conclusion and available remedies

The law therefore provides clear, structured remedies for those whose property has been damaged during enforcement. Claimants should act promptly, gather evidence, and follow procedural rules carefully to ensure they obtain redress for the harm caused.