Dealing with Bailiffs

Unlawful Seizure of Goods in Use: Bailiffs Snatching Items or Vehicles

In circumstances where a bailiff snatches car keys, a mobile phone, or any other item from a person’s hand or immediate possession, the law is both clear and protective. Such conduct may amount to an unlawful act, and the enforcement action itself may be rendered void or liable to challenge. The relevant legal framework is found principally in Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013.

Legal framework governing seizure of goods in use

The starting point is paragraph 13(3) of Schedule 12 to the 2007 Act, which provides that secondary legislation may prohibit certain enforcement methods in particular circumstances. This provision empowers Regulation 10 of the 2013 Regulations, which explicitly addresses the situation where goods are in use by a person. Regulation 10(2) stipulates that where an item belonging to the debtor is in the hands of, or being operated by, any person at the time the enforcement agent seeks to take control of it, the agent must not do so if it is likely, in all the circumstances, to result in a breach of the peace.

Snatching items from a person as a breach of the peace

Snatching a mobile phone being used to film an enforcement, or seizing car keys from a person’s hand while they are using or preparing to drive their vehicle, would in most cases constitute a likely breach of the peace. This conduct not only offends Regulation 10(2), but may also breach paragraph 31 of Schedule 12, which prohibits the use of force against individuals. Any physical act such as knocking a phone from someone’s hand may amount to a common assault under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, a summary offence which does not require actual injury but merely the application of unlawful force or the threat thereof.

Police complicity and statutory misconduct

When enforcement agents act in this way under the presence or direction of a police officer, and the officer either facilitates or fails to intervene in the breach, the matter escalates further. Section 26(1) of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 provides that a police officer commits an offence if, in the exercise of their public functions, they act in a way which they know constitutes an abuse of the public's trust. Under subsection (6) of that section, failing to prevent or report a known breach involving physical interference by bailiffs may fall squarely within the ambit of misconduct. Furthermore, where a police officer uses a traffic stop to assist in the seizure of goods in civil enforcement, this may be construed as misconduct in public office contrary to section 50(3) of the Police Act 1996.

Interpretation of "in use” under regulation 10(2)

Of particular concern is the practice of enforcement agents taking control of a vehicle while it is in use, whether being driven or actively relied upon by someone for travel. This includes cases where a car is parked temporarily away from the debtor’s home but is nevertheless in active use. The concept of "in use” within Regulation 10(2) is not limited to literal operation but includes where the item is in the hands of or being operated by a person. Courts have taken a purposive view of such phrases in similar contexts, interpreting them in a way that gives full effect to the protection intended by Parliament.

Right of action and judicial remedies for unlawful seizure

Where enforcement is carried out in contravention of the relevant regulations or the Schedule to the 2007 Act, a debtor may bring proceedings under paragraph 66 of Schedule 12. The court has jurisdiction either in the High Court or County Court, depending on the nature of the enforcement power. Under paragraph 66(5), the court may order the return of the goods or award damages to the debtor to compensate for the loss suffered as a result of the breach. This route provides a direct remedy for those whose rights have been infringed by unlawful enforcement.

Importance of timely evidence collection

To succeed in such an action, it is essential to gather evidence promptly. A sworn statement confirming that the goods were in use at the time of seizure is highly advisable. Where possible, dashcam footage or mobile phone video capturing the incident is vital, particularly in cases involving roadside enforcement. Such evidence can establish the sequence of events and support claims of improper conduct by the enforcement agent or abuse of authority by any police officer present.

Further legal consequences and complaints

In the most serious cases, the seizure of goods in these circumstances may also give rise to a claim for trespass to goods or unlawful interference with property. The fact that paragraph 66(2) provides that the breach does not render the enforcement agent a trespasser does not immunise them from civil liability for unlawful interference. Rather, it limits the remedy to one under the statutory framework rather than under general tort law. Nevertheless, damages may still be awarded under the statutory scheme, and in aggravated cases, claims may be accompanied by a complaint to the relevant professional body or the Independent Office for Police Conduct if officers were involved.

Conclusion and next steps

In conclusion, enforcement agents and police officers must exercise their powers lawfully and with regard to the rights and dignity of the public. Where there has been a snatching of keys, mobile phones, or seizure of goods in use, particularly in a manner likely to breach the peace, the enforcement is prima facie unlawful. The correct course is to bring proceedings under paragraph 66 of Schedule 12, supported by witness evidence, sworn statements, and where available, video recordings. These claims serve not only to vindicate the individual’s rights but to maintain the rule of law in the conduct of civil enforcement.