Dealing with Bailiffs

Bailiff Removal of Exempt Vehicles or Goods: Legal Remedies and Enforcement Failures

Where a bailiff seizes a vehicle or goods that are exempt from control under the applicable law, the debtor is entitled to a remedy both in substance and in procedure. The legal framework governing this area is primarily found in Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, and the Civil Procedure Rules, most pertinently Part 85.

What are exempt goods under the regulations

It is first necessary to identify what constitutes exempt goods. Regulation 4 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 provides a clear and exhaustive list. Paragraph 4(1)(a) makes explicit that tools, books, telephones, computer equipment, and vehicles may be exempt if they are necessary for the debtor’s personal use in employment, business, trade, profession, study, or education, provided the aggregate value of such items does not exceed £1,350. Regulation 4(1)(b) through (f) extends this exemption to essential household items, clothing, domestic provisions, certain medical and security equipment, animals including assistance dogs, and vehicles associated with disabled persons, emergency health services, and certain public functions. The statutory purpose here is to protect the means by which a person may maintain a basic standard of living and continue productive work.

Legal prohibition on taking control of exempt goods

It follows that any attempt by a bailiff to take control of goods falling within these protected categories is strictly unlawful. Paragraph 11(1)(b) of Schedule 12 to the 2007 Act prohibits the taking of control of exempt goods. Furthermore, paragraph 4(1) of the same Schedule confirms that exempt goods are not bound by the enforcement power. This renders any such act by an enforcement agent ultra vires and actionable in tort.

Time limits and CPR 85.8 claims to exempt goods

In practice, where exempt goods are taken, the debtor has recourse under Civil Procedure Rule 85.8. That provision allows the debtor to issue a claim to exempt goods, provided it is done within seven days of the taking control. It is imperative to note that this rule applies only if the time limit is still open. Once that window has closed, the debtor must rely upon the remedies available under the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, most notably under sections 3 and 4, which permit the recovery of damages for wrongful interference, including conversion or trespass.

Valuation of exempt vehicles and regulatory requirements

A particularly common issue arises in respect of work vehicles. Regulation 4(1)(a) does indeed recognise a work vehicle as potentially exempt, but only where its value does not exceed £1,350. The issue of valuation becomes critical, and enforcement agents frequently inflate the value of vehicles to circumvent the exemption. However, regulation 35 of the 2013 Regulations imposes a statutory duty on enforcement agents to provide a written valuation, signed and itemised, specifying the reference number, date, and item values. This is reinforced by paragraph 36(1)(a) of Schedule 12 which obliges the agent, before the minimum sale period elapses, to obtain or make such a valuation and to allow the debtor the opportunity to obtain their own independent valuation. Regulation 37(1) confirms that the minimum period prior to sale is seven clear days from the date of removal of the goods.

The effect of auction value and the Larnyou case

If the enforcement agent fails to comply with the valuation requirement or sells goods valued below the exemption threshold, the enforcement is defective. Case law supports this view. In Larnyou v LB Croydon and Newlyn Plc (Central London County Court, 2015), the court accepted that the value of goods for the purpose of determining exemption must be the actual auction value achieved. If that value falls below the threshold, the goods were, in law, exempt at the time of seizure and should not have been subject to enforcement.

How to evidence exemption based on vehicle value

In practical terms, a debtor challenging the seizure of an exempt vehicle ought to gather documentary evidence of the vehicle’s market value, preferably using a recognised public source such as completed listings from eBay or trade valuation sites. Where multiple listings show vehicles of the same make, model, and condition sold for less than £1,350, this evidence can rebut the agent’s purported valuation. Absent a compliant written valuation, the enforcement fails in any event.

Making a claim to exempt goods and suspending enforcement

The remedy available to the debtor is threefold. First, a notice of claim to exempt goods must be issued under CPR 85.8 and served on both the enforcement agent and the instructing creditor. Once served, paragraph 60(2) of Schedule 12 suspends the enforcement power pending resolution of the claim. If the enforcement agent or creditor does not accept the claim within ten days, the debtor may apply to the court under CPR 85.9 for a determination. The court has discretion to order the return of the goods, and under CPR 44.2, to award costs in favour of the debtor.

Remedies available where exempt goods are sold

If the goods have been sold or cannot be returned, the debtor may recover the replacement cost. This includes the cost of obtaining equivalent goods or, where that is not possible, the cost of new items. The debtor may also recover damages for the period of unlawful deprivation. Section 3 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 supports such recovery, and paragraph 66(5)(b) of Schedule 12 further confirms that damages may be awarded where an enforcement agent breaches the statutory protections afforded to exempt goods.

Service of notice and preservation of evidence

To ensure compliance and to support the claim, the debtor should send the notice of claim to exempt goods by post with a certificate of posting, and also by email and text message, retaining screenshots and transmission details as proof of service. This approach evidences prompt and proper notice and preserves the debtor’s entitlement to costs and damages.

Conclusion and judicial remedies

In summary, the statutory regime provides both protective provisions and enforceable remedies where a bailiff wrongfully seizes exempt goods. Debtors must act swiftly, relying on CPR 85.8 where the time limit permits, or invoking tortious remedies otherwise. The evidential burden must be met through valuation records, auction listings, and proof of the item’s personal or professional use. Where properly presented, the court has the power to vindicate the debtor’s rights by ordering return, damages, and costs.