Dealing with Bailiffs

Why bailiffs leave documents hanging from letterboxes or communal entrance

It is a recurring concern among members of the public that enforcement agents, commonly referred to as bailiffs, leave documents conspicuously protruding from letterboxes or wedged in communal doorways without engaging with any occupant or knocking at the door. This practice, though presented by enforcement companies as a legitimate method of communication, is fraught with legal irregularity and raises profound questions concerning both lawful enforcement and personal data security.

The financial motive behind visible document placement

The principal motivation behind this conduct is financial. Regulation 5(1)(b) of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 provides that an enforcement stage fee of £235 becomes payable upon a first attendance at the premises with a view to enforcing the debt. A further fee, set out under Regulation 6(1)(c) for the second enforcement stage, may also be triggered depending on the progression of the enforcement process. In practice, however, some enforcement companies exploit these fee provisions by sending individuals who are not certificated enforcement agents to attend addresses, deposit a document in a visible and alarming manner, and then depart without meaningful engagement. This tactic creates the appearance of enforcement activity for the purposes of triggering fees while sidestepping the legal requirement that only a certificated enforcement agent may lawfully take control of goods and recover the prescribed charges for doing so.

Improper and unlawful service of documents

Such conduct is not only improper but is likely unlawful. The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 specify strict procedural requirements for notices, including the controlled goods agreement. Where, for example, a vehicle has been removed and the bailiff intends to serve a notice of a controlled goods agreement, Regulation 15(5)(a) mandates that the notice be left at the premises in a sealed envelope addressed to the debtor. Paragraph 52 of the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards, issued by the Ministry of Justice in April 2014, similarly directs that enforcement agents must avoid disclosing the purpose of their visit to third parties and must leave documents in a sealed envelope addressed to the debtor where the debtor is not seen. Leaving documents hanging from letterboxes in plain view breaches these standards and potentially exposes the debtor’s personal information to third parties, giving rise to a breach of the Data Protection Act 2018 and the UK General Data Protection Regulation.

Using documents to trace debtors

Beyond these regulatory breaches, there is an insidious motive at work. The visible placement of documents is a crude method of tracing. Bailiffs, uncertain whether a debtor resides at a particular address, use this technique to gauge occupancy. If the document disappears or if someone telephones the mobile number printed on it, often accompanied by language threatening imminent locksmith attendance or vehicle removal, it enables the enforcement company to confirm the debtor’s location. This method resembles the tactics of criminals who test whether a property is vacant by leaving flyers protruding from the letterbox and checking later to see whether they have been taken inside. The analogy is apt and disquieting.

Tracking debtor responses through QR codes

Even more troubling is the use of QR codes and personalised reference numbers on these documents, which function as digital tripwires. When scanned or entered into a payment portal, they confirm the recipient’s identity and location, thereby allowing the bailiff company to claim a successful enforcement stage, justify retention of fees, and proceed with further enforcement activity. This is an unauthorised form of debtor tracing, contravening the spirit, if not the letter, of the enforcement framework. If a debtor is traced to a new address, then enforcement must lawfully recommence with fresh notice under Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

No lawful basis for theatrical notice posting

It must be emphasised that no lawful enforcement action is achieved by posting or displaying documents in this manner. The relevant regulations prescribe both the form and method of service for enforcement notices, and there is no provision for casual or theatrical deposit of red-letter notices designed to alarm or provoke. Moreover, the fact that an individual acting without a certificate undertakes these actions, while the enforcement company later claims fees as if a certificated agent had attended, constitutes a form of misrepresentation and may amount to fraud. It is well-established in law that enforcement fees are recoverable only where the agent is lawfully authorised and the action taken falls within the statutory framework. The bailiff company itself cannot hold an enforcement certificate, and therefore cannot lawfully engage in fee-earning enforcement activity.

Reporting and responding to improper practices

Should you encounter a document left hanging from your letterbox or placed in a communal area in this fashion, you are strongly advised not to contact the person named on it. Instead, the correct course is to deliver the document to the local police station and to report the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office online. In your report, you should include a photograph of the document in situ, a copy of the document itself, and a statement explaining whose data was improperly exposed. This may constitute a breach of Article 5(1)(f) of the UK GDPR, which requires that personal data be processed in a manner that ensures appropriate security.

Challenging enforcement and seeking redress

In addition, if it can be shown that the document was left with the intention of obtaining fees without lawful authority, there may be a basis to challenge the validity of any fees charged and to seek reimbursement. In appropriate circumstances, it may also be possible to pursue a claim in tort for unlawful interference with goods or for misuse of private information. Enforcement activity carried out in breach of the relevant regulations may also be stayed or set aside upon application to the court, supported by evidence of the impropriety.

Conclusion

The practice of leaving documents hanging from letterboxes is not merely a procedural irregularity. It undermines the integrity of the enforcement system, risks personal data breaches, and offends against the basic principles of transparency and accountability which must govern the conduct of those who are vested with coercive powers by the State. Accordingly, such conduct warrants robust scrutiny, legal challenge where appropriate, and regulatory intervention.