Dealing with Bailiffs

Improper Demands Made to Third Parties

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.

Fraud by False Representation

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.

Chargeback and Restitution Claims

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.

Voluntariness and Legal Presumptions

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.

Gathering Evidence and Taking Action

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.