Dealing with Bailiffs

The Bailiff Sold Your Vehicle Without Giving a Valuation

When an enforcement agent proceeds to sell a debtor’s vehicle, the law imposes specific duties to ensure the process is both fair and transparent. Chief among these duties is the requirement to produce a written valuation before the sale takes place. This obligation is not merely procedural but is rooted in statute to protect the debtor from abuse of process and to ensure that goods taken in enforcement are not disposed of unlawfully or undervalued to the debtor’s detriment.

The statutory requirement to give a written valuation

Paragraph 36 of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 provides that, before the end of the “minimum period”, the enforcement agent must either make or obtain a valuation of the controlled goods. The “minimum period” in this context is clarified by Regulation 37(1) of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, which stipulates that seven clear days must elapse between the removal of the goods and their sale. The statutory aim is to provide the debtor with a window of time not only to redeem their property but also to scrutinise and, if necessary, challenge the valuation. Under paragraph 36(1)(b), the debtor must also be afforded the opportunity to obtain an independent valuation, ensuring the process remains just.

Form and content of the valuation

The regulations go further. Regulation 35(2) provides that if the enforcement agent himself carries out the valuation, it must be committed to writing and signed by the agent. It must also include the agent’s name, reference number, the date of the valuation, and separate values for each item if applicable. This written valuation must then be provided to the debtor and any co-owner. Should the enforcement agent instead obtain a valuation from a third party, then Regulation 35(3) mandates that it must be a qualified, independent valuer who produces a written assessment, again to be served on the debtor and any co-owner.

Why enforcement agents may manipulate valuations

In practice, enforcement agents may be tempted to manipulate valuations to suit their purposes. For example, where a vehicle is used in the course of a debtor’s employment, it may attract exemption under Schedule 12, but only up to a value of £1,350. To circumvent this exemption, a bailiff may overvalue the vehicle so as to render it seizable. Conversely, when a vehicle is sold, there may be financial motive to undervalue it, thus generating greater residual proceeds to apply against costs, fees, or even for personal enrichment in cases where oversight is poor. In such circumstances, the debtor’s protection lies in the proper application of the law.

Remedies available for breach of the valuation requirement

Should an enforcement agent fail to provide the requisite valuation, or deny the debtor an opportunity to obtain an independent one, then enforcement is defective. The debtor is entitled to seek redress under paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 to the 2007 Act. This paragraph permits a debtor to bring proceedings against both the enforcement agent and any related party including the creditor for damages in respect of the loss suffered. The court is empowered not only to award damages but also, where appropriate, to order the return of goods wrongfully sold. The enforcement agent may attempt to resist liability by asserting, under paragraph 66(8), that he acted in the reasonable belief that no breach had occurred. However, such a defence will not avail him where there is no evidence of compliance with paragraph 36 or Regulation 35.

Proving the true market value of the vehicle

In assessing the quantum of damages, the court will consider the actual market value of the vehicle at the time of sale. As established in relevant case law, the market value is usually determined by the auction value. Debtors are therefore advised to undertake a search of recent completed sales for comparable vehicles, such as through eBay or other vehicle auction platforms, ideally capturing at least three recent sale prices to form an average. This evidence may form the basis of a replacement cost claim or provide proof of the vehicle’s true value against which damages can be assessed.

Investigating an undervalued or unlawful sale

Where there is suspicion that the vehicle was sold below market value, further investigation may be warranted. The debtor, or someone acting on their behalf, may apply to the DVLA using Form V888 to obtain the name and address of the new keeper. This can be done under the pretext of a minor traffic incident, for which insurance details are required. Upon obtaining this information, the debtor can approach the new keeper for a copy of the bill of sale. This allows the debtor to compare the recorded sale price with what the enforcement agent has declared in any return of sale.

CPR 31.17 relief where DVLA new keeper disclosure request is refused

In the event that the DVLA refuses the V888 request, the debtor may apply for a disclosure order under Civil Procedure Rule 31.17, requiring the DVLA to disclose the name and address of the new keeper who can tell you the price they actually paid for your vehicle at auction. The application must be supported by evidence that the disclosure is necessary to identify a wrongdoer and to bring a claim.

Requesting proof of service and date of sale

Additionally, the debtor has the right to request proof of the date on which the written valuation was allegedly served and the actual date of sale. If the enforcement agent claims to have served the valuation, then he should be asked to produce evidence of service, such as a Certificate of Service pursuant to CPR 6.29, or other documentary proof that the valuation entered the postal system. Absence of such evidence will bolster the debtor’s claim that no valuation was given, thereby substantiating the breach.

Using pre-action correspondence to strengthen your position

Debtors may also utilise pre-action protocols to obtain such documentation. A letter requesting proof of valuation service, the date of sale, and supporting evidence should be sent to the bailiff company in compliance with the Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols set out in Rule 6 of the relevant Practice Direction. This letter should be delivered by post with a certificate of posting retained, email with a screenshot of the sent item showing the date and time, and by SMS again with a screenshot for record. These precautions will ensure a full audit trail and strengthen the debtor’s position in the event that court proceedings become necessary.

Commencing legal proceedings for non-compliance

Where the enforcement fails due to non-compliance with the statutory requirements, proceedings should be commenced in the appropriate forum. Where the enforcement power derived from a county court warrant, proceedings lie in the county court. Where the power derived from a High Court writ, proceedings may be brought in the High Court. In any other case, the debtor may elect to proceed in either forum. The debtor is advised to prepare a concise but fully pleaded particulars of claim, citing the specific breaches, referencing the valuation provisions, and setting out the nature and amount of the loss claimed.

Recovering legal costs and disbursements

Finally, if legal costs or disbursements are incurred in pursuing recovery, such as court fees, valuation reports, or application fees for Norwich Pharmacal relief, these may be claimed within the action and recovered under an N260 costs schedule. The conduct of the enforcement agent and the creditor may also attract judicial criticism, particularly if the breaches are found to be knowing or systematic.

Conclusion and summary of your rights

In summary, where a vehicle has been sold without a written valuation being provided, and the debtor was not given an opportunity to obtain one independently, the enforcement process is in breach of Paragraph 36 of Schedule 12 to the 2007 Act and Regulation 35 of the 2013 Regulations. The remedy lies in damages recoverable under Paragraph 66, and the courts are equipped to grant compensatory relief, enforce transparency, and uphold the integrity of the enforcement framework.