Dealing with Bailiffs

Why misreporting the sale price matters

Where a bailiff has misreported the actual auction sale price of a vehicle seized under Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, the debtor is entitled to a number of legal remedies. This conduct is not a mere administrative error; it raises serious issues of misrepresentation, improper accounting of enforcement proceeds, and potentially fraud. The law is clear that enforcement agents must account for the true proceeds of sale and distribute them in accordance with the statutory hierarchy set out under paragraph 50 of Schedule 12. Misreporting the sale price undermines this statutory duty and may result in personal liability for the enforcement company or its officers.

Requesting a statement of account

The debtor is entitled to receive, on request, a statement of account from the enforcement company showing how the proceeds of the sale were applied. This obligation arises under paragraph 50(3) of Schedule 12. Where such a statement is provided but appears inconsistent with the true value of the goods sold, the debtor may take steps to verify the actual sale price. A practical first step is to obtain the name and address of the new registered keeper of the vehicle from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency by submitting Form V888. The request should cite a lawful reason, for example, that the applicant wishes to contact the new keeper about a parking incident on a recent date. Where the request is refused, the debtor may apply to the High Court for a Disclosure Order under Civil Procedure Rule 31.17 to compel disclosure of the necessary documents from a third party, such as the name and address of the new keeper.

Contacting the new owner for proof of sale

Upon obtaining the new keeper's details, the debtor may approach them and request a copy of the bill of sale or auction receipt. This will reveal the amount actually paid for the vehicle. If the amount differs from that declared by the bailiff, there are grounds to challenge the enforcement company's account. This is particularly important where the bailiff declared that storage fees or other disbursements had consumed the entire sale proceeds, leaving no surplus. The debtor may then apply for a detailed assessment of the enforcement costs under Civil Procedure Rule 84.16. At the hearing, the court may require the bailiff to produce documentary proof of the sale, including the auctioneer's receipt and the full breakdown of how the sale proceeds were allocated.

Making a restitutionary claim

In the event the debtor can prove that the bailiff sold the vehicle for more than was declared, a claim may be brought for the difference. This is properly characterised as a restitutionary claim to recover the gain made by the bailiff through misappropriation of the sale proceeds. It is distinct from a claim for compensation and is typically easier to establish, requiring only that the bailiff obtained a benefit to which he was not entitled. The principle is well established in cases such as Attorney General v Blake [2001] 1 AC 268 and applies equally to the misappropriation of funds by those exercising public enforcement powers.

Misrepresentation and potential fraud

Where the misrepresentation of the sale price was deliberate or reckless, the debtor may also have grounds for a claim in deceit or under section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006. If the misstatement was made by a director or senior officer of the enforcement company in the course of their duties, personal liability may also arise under section 993 of the Companies Act 2006, which deals with fraudulent trading. If the conduct was pursuant to a company policy, a claim may be brought against the company itself under section 12 of the same Act.

Verifying storage fees and disbursements

Storage fees are frequently cited by enforcement companies as justification for depleting the proceeds of sale. However, the law requires that disbursements must be both actually and reasonably incurred. Regulation 34 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 provides that only disbursements paid to third parties may be recovered. In Culligan v Marston Group Ltd (Claim No. 8CL51015), District Judge Avent made clear that the court will not permit enforcement agents to deduct fictitious or exaggerated fees for storage. The agent must produce proper receipts or evidence of payment to justify any deduction.

Your right to surplus proceeds

Where the sale price of the vehicle, or its actual value, exceeded the outstanding liability, any surplus must be returned to the debtor. This requirement is mandatory and derives from paragraph 50 of Schedule 12. A failure to do so gives rise to a cause of action in debt. If a bailiff misrepresents that the proceeds were less than they were and retains the difference, then the debtor may also have a cause of action in conversion, fraud or unjust enrichment.

Establishing the true market value

To determine whether the declared sale price is credible, debtors may conduct their own valuation by searching for similar vehicles sold on eBay Motors or other public marketplaces within the previous 30 days. A printout of three or more comparable listings will assist in persuading the court that the vehicle was sold below market value. The debtor should also request a copy of the auctioneer's receipt from the enforcement company, or failing that, demand a sworn statement of truth from a company director verifying the sale price. A refusal or evasion may support an inference of dishonesty.

Starting your legal claim

Should a discrepancy be established, the debtor may file a claim in the County Court for restitution and damages. Where the underlying enforcement was for council tax, and the sale price was misreported, an alternative remedy exists by way of complaint to the magistrates’ court under Regulation 46 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992. For fines issued by a magistrates’ court, the proper defendant is the Secretary of State for Justice, with the enforcement company joined as a second defendant. In all other cases, a civil claim for irregular enforcement or misrepresentation should be issued in the County Court, citing the enforcement company and, where appropriate, the instructing creditor.

Conclusion and next steps

In sum, the debtor is not without remedy where a bailiff has misreported the auction sale price of a vehicle. The key is to obtain evidence of the true value realised, compare it with the declared figures, and issue a well-supported application for detailed assessment under CPR 84.16 or a claim for restitution and damages. The court has ample powers to compel the production of evidence, cross-examine directors, and order the repayment of funds. Where evidence of misrepresentation or dishonesty is found, the debtor may also report the matter to the relevant regulatory body or law enforcement authority.