Dealing with Bailiffs

Third-Party Payments to Bailiffs: Your Rights

Key Takeaways

  1. Bailiffs have no legal power to demand or accept payment from anyone other than the named debtor on the enforcement order.

  2. If a bailiff coerces a third party into paying by threatening to remove goods or refusing to leave, this may amount to intimidation, unlawful interference, or fraud under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.

  3. Police may wrongly dismiss such conduct as a civil matter, but dishonest representations made to obtain money from a third party fall within the scope of criminal fraud.

  4. If you were pressured into making payment, you may be able to use your banking app to initiate a chargeback and recover the money swiftly.

  5. If a chargeback is not possible, you may bring a third-party restitution claim to recover the money, along with interest and legal costs, based on the principle of unjust enrichment.

  6. The law presumes that money paid is a loan unless there is clear evidence it was a gift. Bailiffs cannot rely on their own internal records to prove otherwise.

  7. Even if the enforcement agent claims the payment was voluntary, the court will consider whether you acted under pressure or duress at the time.

  8. You should record all events, communications, and transactions, and prepare a clear written chronology. This will support any claim you may choose to bring for recovery of your money.

Where a bailiff knowingly accepts payment from a third party who is not the named debtor, and that payment is induced by threats, pressure or coercive conduct, the enforcement action exceeds the statutory powers granted under Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The enforcement power is confined strictly to goods or money belonging to the named debtor, and any conduct designed to extract payment from another person is both improper and, in some circumstances, unlawful. If threats are made to remove goods or remain on premises unless money is handed over by a third party, that conduct may also give rise to a claim in tort for intimidation or unlawful interference with goods, in addition to potential criminal liability under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.

Section 2 of the 2006 Act defines fraud by false representation, which includes dishonestly making a representation, knowing it is untrue or misleading, with the intention of causing gain to oneself or loss to another. A bailiff who misrepresents the legal obligation of a third party to pay a debt, or who asserts a right to remove goods not belonging to the debtor, may fall within the scope of this offence. While it is regrettably common for police officers to assert that such conduct is a civil matter, the statutory definition in the Fraud Act is clear. Criminal liability arises not from the civil enforceability of the debt, but from the dishonest representation and its intended effect.

Where money has been taken in these circumstances, your immediate remedy may lie in a chargeback request to your bank. Most banking apps allow a swift challenge to a transaction made under duress or through deception. If the chargeback succeeds, the money will be returned without the need for litigation. If this route is unavailable, you retain the right to bring a third-party claim for restitution. This is a civil action based on unjust enrichment, where you recover money paid in circumstances where the recipient had no legal entitlement to it. Interest may be recoverable under Section 35A of the Senior Courts Act 1981 or the County Courts Act 1984, depending on the court's jurisdiction.

It is not open to the enforcement agent to resist repayment simply by asserting that you made the payment voluntarily. The presumption at law is that a transfer of money is a loan unless the contrary is clearly stated. In Re a Solicitor [1945] KB 368, the Court confirmed that where money passes between parties with no contemporaneous documentation of a gift, it is to be treated as repayable. Moreover, if the enforcement agent made notes or internal records suggesting the payment was voluntary, such notes are not determinative. The court will consider the surrounding circumstances, including any undue pressure applied at the time.

If you are unsure whether the conduct in your case meets the threshold for a restitution claim or potential tortious interference, it would be prudent to compile a written record of all events, including copies of bank transfers, correspondence, and any messages exchanged with the enforcement agent. A chronological account will assist in identifying whether the enforcement power was abused and what remedy is most effective. Where the facts support both statutory and common law remedies, a carefully prepared letter of claim can often prompt repayment without formal litigation.

Remedies

Where a bailiff has taken payment from a third party through coercion, misrepresentation, or without legal authority, the following remedies may be available:

  1. Chargeback through your bank: If the payment was made by debit or credit card, you may be able to initiate a chargeback by contacting your bank. This is often the fastest and least costly method of recovering money taken under pressure.

  2. Third-party claim under CPR 85.4: If a chargeback is not possible, you may issue a third-party claim under Civil Procedure Rule 85.4 to assert your legal interest in the money taken. This provision permits a person other than the judgment debtor to apply to the court where enforcement is being carried out, asserting ownership or entitlement to goods or money affected by enforcement action. The claim is treated as civil proceedings and may include a request for repayment, interest under Section 35A of the Senior Courts Act 1981 or the relevant County Courts Act provision, and any consequential costs.

  3. Complaint to the enforcement company: In practice, it is rarely worthwhile complaining to the enforcement company. They have no formal legal standing within the enforcement procedure set out in Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and are not subject to any statutory duty to resolve disputes or refund money. Complaints are often met with generic responses or attempts to justify the agent’s conduct, rather than any meaningful redress.

  4. Letter of claim to the creditor: If informal complaints fail, a formal letter of claim should be directed to the creditor or council on whose behalf the bailiff was acting. The letter should set out your legal position clearly, including reference to Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and, where appropriate, Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006. As the enforcement agent acts under the authority of the creditor, the creditor may be held jointly liable for any unlawful conduct. A well-drafted letter of claim can often prompt resolution without the need for litigation.

  5. Court proceedings: Where necessary, you may issue proceedings in the County Court to recover the money and any consequential loss. If successful, the court may order repayment and costs, especially where coercion or misrepresentation is proven.

  6. Police report: Although police may be reluctant to act, you are entitled to report suspected offences under the Fraud Act 2006. The police buzzword is "it's a civil matter". You should provide clear evidence that the payment was obtained through deception or dishonesty.

In all cases, maintaining clear written records and preserving copies of all correspondence, bank transfers, and notes of any conversations will place you in the strongest position. Depending on the facts, it may be appropriate to obtain advice on how best to present your case and pursue recovery efficiently and proportionately.