Dealing with Bailiffs

Bailiff Demands After the PCN is Paid: Legal Position and Remedies

When enforcement power ends after payment

When a person has paid the amount outstanding on a Penalty Charge Notice directly to the council or issuing authority, the enforcement power conferred by a warrant of control is immediately extinguished. This is not a matter of discretion or policy but a point of settled statutory law. Paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 provides in explicit terms that the enforcement power ceases to be exercisable when the amount outstanding has been paid. This includes any payment made not only by the debtor but by any third party acting on the debtor’s behalf.

Statutory definition of the amount outstanding

The statutory definition of the amount outstanding is found in paragraph 50(3) of Schedule 12, which consists of two parts: first, the sum specified in the enforcement power, which is the principal debt; and second, any costs incurred by the enforcement agent in the process of enforcement, but only if those costs are lawfully recoverable. The term costs is to be construed narrowly and should not be conflated with fees, which are prescribed under a distinct regime. Regulation 8 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 identifies costs as those incurred in specific enforcement activities, such as removing controlled goods.

Fees are not recoverable without enforcement power

The enforcement agent has no authority in law to recover fees once the enforcement power has ceased. The power to take control of goods is circumscribed within the meaning of enforcement in section 62(1) of the 2007 Act. This definition refers only to the process of taking control and sale of goods to recover a sum. It does not extend to the mere demand or imposition of fees in the absence of an active enforcement power. A bailiff who seeks to enforce for fees after the amount outstanding has been paid is acting ultra vires and is likely to be committing a civil wrong, and depending on the method employed, may also incur criminal liability.

Unlawful redirection of payments to bailiff firms

It is not uncommon for councils to refer to funds received after the issuance of a warrant as having been redirected to the bailiff company, allegedly in discharge of their fees. There is, however, no statutory mechanism which authorises a local authority to transfer such sums to a third-party enforcement firm after enforcement power has ended. This attempt to recharacterise a lawful payment as one still subject to enforcement is entirely without legal foundation and may well amount to a misrepresentation of the legal position. The Supreme Court has made clear in Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53 that clarity and transparency in legal rights and remedies are essential. That principle applies equally here.

Limits imposed by the regulations

Further, Regulation 17 of the Fees Regulations provides that where enforcement ceases to be exercisable, no further fees may be recovered in relation to that enforcement stage. Regulation 17(1) states plainly that an enforcement agent may not recover fees or disbursements for any stage of enforcement where the enforcement power has ceased to be exercisable. Regulation 17(2) goes further, prohibiting recovery even where the amount outstanding has been paid by a person other than the debtor.

2017 case on civil recovery of fees

In 2017, the courts dismissed a claim brought by a bailiff seeking to recover fees after the debtor had paid the amount outstanding directly to the council. The court held that no entitlement to fees remained, and that any such recovery would have to be pursued through a separate contractual claim, subject to the ordinary rules of contract law. In that case, the bailiff's role as an agent of a commercial enforcement firm was fatal to any assertion of personal entitlement.

Failure to take control of goods prevents fee recovery

Where the warrant of control is no longer in force and no goods have been taken into control under one of the four prescribed methods under paragraph 13(1) of Schedule 12, then no proceeds of sale arise and the only component of the amount outstanding is the principal debt. Once paid, the enforcement power is extinguished and the enforcement agent becomes a legal stranger to the process. Any continued threats, presence at the debtor’s home, or communications seeking payment of fees in such circumstances may well amount to harassment within the meaning of section 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, or even blackmail under section 21 of the Theft Act 1968.

Right to seek injunctive relief

A debtor so harassed may seek an injunction under section 3 of the 1997 Act or, alternatively, under paragraph 6 of Schedule 12 to the 2007 Act to restrain unlawful enforcement activity. The latter route offers a specific remedy where a person asserts that enforcement power is being exercised improperly or without lawful authority.

National Standards confirm statutory limits

It should be noted that the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards published in April 2014 reinforce these statutory obligations, stating clearly at paragraph 31 that bailiffs must not seek to recover fees where the enforcement power has ceased to be exercisable. These Standards, while not legally binding, are persuasive and often cited by the courts as reflecting the expected conduct of enforcement agents.

Conclusion and protective action

A bailiff who seeks to assert a continuing entitlement to fees in the absence of an active enforcement power is acting contrary to law. The debtor is under no legal obligation to pay such fees, and any attempt to coerce or pressure payment may give rise to legal action. The correct course of action is to notify the bailiff, preferably in writing, that the amount outstanding has been paid and that any further attempt to recover fees will be treated as unlawful. If necessary, an application should be made to the County Court for an injunction to prevent further contact or demands. Such action will protect the debtor's rights and ensure that the enforcement process remains within the bounds prescribed by law.

A bailiff who continues to demand fees after the amount outstanding has been paid is acting without lawful authority and may be committing a civil or criminal wrong. The debtor has no legal obligation to pay such fees, and any continued pressure or harassment should be treated seriously. In such circumstances, it is essential that the debtor gives formal notice to the bailiff confirming that the amount outstanding has been paid and that the enforcement power under the warrant has ceased. This notice is important because, under paragraph 59(2) of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, a bailiff is not liable for acting without authority if they were unaware that the enforcement power had ended. Providing notice removes that defence. You should therefore write promptly to both the bailiff and the council to confirm the payment and to put them on notice. If the harassment continues despite this, you are advised to apply to the County Court for an injunction under paragraph 6 of Schedule 12 or section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 to restrain further contact. Keep a clear record of all communications, visits, and attempted contacts to support any legal application. Seeking early legal advice or assistance from a qualified adviser can help you act swiftly and protect your rights effectively.