Dealing with Bailiffs

Bailiffs and vulnerable people: legal protections and remedies

The regulation of enforcement agents, commonly known as bailiffs, in relation to vulnerable debtors is governed by a series of statutory instruments, guidelines, and case law that together impose stringent procedural and ethical obligations on both bailiffs and their instructing creditors. These duties arise not only from express statutory provisions but also from judicial recognition of the fundamental need to safeguard individuals whose circumstances render them less able to protect themselves from financial or procedural harm. This area of law is not only one of statutory interpretation but also of practical compassion and careful procedural observance.

Guidance under the national standards

At the heart of the regulatory framework is the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards published by the Ministry of Justice on 6 April 2014. Paragraph 77 of these standards identifies various classes of people who may be considered vulnerable, including the elderly, those with disabilities, the seriously ill, the recently bereaved, pregnant women, unemployed persons, single-parent families, and individuals who have obvious difficulty understanding or communicating in English. Paragraphs 70 to 78 set out detailed expectations on how enforcement agents should identify and respond to signs of vulnerability. Paragraph 70 in particular imposes a joint responsibility upon enforcement agencies and creditors to ensure that vulnerable and socially excluded individuals are adequately protected, including the establishment of procedures for how such cases are to be handled.

Duty to withdraw from enforcement action

Critically, enforcement agents must exercise discretion and withdraw from enforcement action where vulnerability is present, particularly if the only person at home is a child or someone deemed vulnerable. Paragraph 72 obliges enforcement agents to withdraw from domestic premises if the only person present is under the age of 16 or appears to be vulnerable. This is echoed by Regulation 10(1)(b) of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, which expressly prohibits the taking of control of goods where a child or vulnerable person is the only person present in the relevant premises. Paragraph 73 extends this safeguard further by requiring immediate withdrawal without further inquiry where the only person present is a child under the age of 12.

Vulnerability and the regulation of fees

The concept of vulnerability is not defined in the primary legislation but is nonetheless a material consideration within the enforcement framework. Regulation 12 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 addresses this directly. It provides that enforcement stage fees and any associated disbursements are not recoverable where the debtor is a vulnerable person, unless the enforcement agent has first provided an adequate opportunity for the debtor to obtain assistance and advice. This was the focus of judicial scrutiny in Progressive Property Ventures LLP v Mrozinski [2022] EWHC 1256 (QB), in which the High Court confirmed that fees and disbursements must be disallowed where there has been non-compliance with Regulation 12. The case affirms that vulnerability is a live and relevant issue and that any omission to afford a vulnerable debtor the necessary opportunity to seek advice has financial and procedural consequences for the enforcement agent.

Legal definition of disability and vulnerability

The legal definition of disability is relevant here. Section 6(1) of the Equality Act 2010 provides that a person is disabled if they have a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. This definition mirrors that found in Section 1(1) and (2) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and both are applied when determining whether an individual’s condition places them within the ambit of a protected class for the purpose of enforcement action. Additionally, the 1997 Law Commission report on vulnerable adults defines a vulnerable person as someone who, by reason of mental or other disability, illness or age, may be unable to protect themselves from harm or exploitation. This broader social care context informs the equitable interpretation of enforcement conduct and the nature of appropriate remedies.

Remedies available to vulnerable debtors

Where a bailiff has taken goods or money from a vulnerable debtor without having first allowed that debtor an adequate opportunity to obtain advice, Regulation 12 provides the remedy. The debtor may apply to the court for the return of the controlled goods or, alternatively, to recover the fees unlawfully charged. The relevant procedural gateway for such an application lies within Civil Procedure Rule 84.16(3)(d), which enables the court to deal with any dispute over the fees or disbursements levied by an enforcement agent. Regulation 16 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 supplements this by permitting the court to make a costs order following such an assessment.

Suspension of enforcement and notification

Vulnerability also affects the enforcement of parking and traffic debts. Although the underlying liability for the debt remains unaffected by the debtor’s vulnerability, the process of enforcement is suspended upon appropriate notice being given. The debtor may serve a notice, either by email, post, or even by text message, to the enforcement agent and the creditor, advising them of their vulnerable status and requesting that enforcement be paused. This acts as a temporary stay, affording the debtor time to seek advice or to resolve the debt directly with the creditor. The efficacy of such notice is supported by Regulation 12 and underpinned by the practical guidance in paragraphs 70 to 78 of the National Standards.

Exemption of essential vehicles and medical items

Where the vehicle taken is exempt, further remedies arise. Regulation 4(1)(d) of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 exempts from seizure any vehicle displaying a valid disabled person’s blue badge, where it is used for or in connection with the carriage of a disabled person. This is particularly relevant in cases where mobility vehicles or essential modes of transport are removed unlawfully. Similarly, Regulation 4(1)(b)(vii) exempts items used for the medical care of any person in the household. Such protections underscore the presumption against enforcement that causes direct harm to health, mobility or care needs.

Bailiff 'Welfare departments' and their limitations

It is often claimed by bailiff companies that the case has been referred to their welfare department. In truth, such references rarely amount to a meaningful safeguarding mechanism. The so-called welfare department often merely imposes a short delay in enforcement, typically thirty days, but lacks any independent medical expertise or formal authority to adjudicate upon the legitimacy of the debtor’s claim to vulnerability. It is not a substitute for the legal safeguards enshrined in Regulation 12 or the obligations under the Equality Act 2010. Enforcement agents must not purport to assess medical or psychological conditions beyond their competence. Instead, they must report their concerns to the creditor as required by paragraph 70 of the National Standards.

Respect for religious and cultural observance

Cultural and religious sensitivities are also expressly protected. Paragraph 55 of the National Standards requires enforcement agents to consider the appropriateness of conducting enforcement on days of religious or cultural observance, including major festivals such as Christmas, Easter, Ramadan, or Eid. Enforcement Services Agreements between local authorities and private enforcement companies often stipulate a moratorium on enforcement over the Christmas and New Year period, reflecting this principle in contractual form.

Relief for breach of standards

Where a breach of these standards occurs, the debtor may seek relief in several forms. Firstly, by applying to the court for a declaration that the enforcement stage fees are not recoverable. Secondly, where goods such as a vehicle have been removed in breach of the regulations, the debtor may apply for their return and for damages, including consequential losses. Thirdly, the debtor may seek to recover the costs of any application made necessary by the improper conduct of the enforcement agent. In doing so, the debtor may rely upon CPR 44 and the general discretion of the court to make an appropriate costs order reflecting the unreasonable or improper behaviour of the enforcement party.

Conclusion and next steps

Finally, it is important to emphasise that vulnerability, properly evidenced and communicated, imposes legal limits on the conduct of enforcement. It does not extinguish the underlying debt, but it suspends the coercive machinery of collection and enables the debtor to address the matter with dignity and adequate support. The rights of vulnerable individuals are firmly embedded in the enforcement regime, and those rights are not aspirational. They are enforceable through law and remedy. Any debtor who believes these rights have been infringed would be well advised to take legal advice and, where necessary, to apply to the court for relief. In such matters, the role of the court is not merely supervisory but protective. The law will not tolerate enforcement that proceeds in ignorance or defiance of the needs of the vulnerable.