Dealing with Bailiffs

Unlawful Duplication of Enforcement Stage Fees by Bailiffs

Where a bailiff has imposed the Enforcement Stage fee of £235 more than once in respect of multiple enforcement powers exercised simultaneously against the same debtor, such conduct is plainly inconsistent with the applicable legal framework and constitutes an unlawful overcharge. This article examines the legal position, the remedies available to the aggrieved party, and the procedures by which redress may be obtained.

The regulatory framework governing bailiff fees

The statutory regime governing bailiff fees is set out in the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. These regulations form a detailed and mandatory code that determines the fees recoverable by enforcement agents acting pursuant to Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Regulation 11 of the 2014 Regulations governs the situation in which an enforcement agent is instructed in respect of more than one enforcement power against the same debtor.

When enforcement powers may be exercised at the same time

Regulation 11(1) provides that where an enforcement agent receives instructions in respect of multiple enforcement powers against the same debtor and those powers can reasonably be exercised at the same time, then a particular fee regime is to apply. Subparagraph 11(1)(b) makes clear that the phrase “can reasonably be exercised at the same time” includes taking control of goods on the same occasion or selling them together, unless it is impracticable to do so.

The compliance stage fee and enforcement stage fee

Regulation 11(3) allows the enforcement agent to recover the compliance stage fee — currently £75 — in respect of each enforcement power. This recognises the administrative burden of initiating multiple enforcement actions. However, Regulation 11(4)(a) unequivocally states that the fixed fee for the enforcement stage — £235 — may be recovered only once, regardless of the number of enforcement powers involved, provided they are being exercised concurrently. This limitation is crucial and aims to prevent the unjust multiplication of fees where enforcement is practically and lawfully unified.

Unlawful fee multiplication by bailiffs

Despite this, some enforcement firms attempt to circumvent the rule by assigning each enforcement power to a different bailiff or by treating the enforcement powers as distinct operations even when they are clearly capable of being executed together. This results in multiple Enforcement Stage fees being charged to the same debtor, often on the same day or visit. Such behaviour is not only in breach of Regulation 11(4) but also offends the principle of proportionality in enforcement set out under paragraph 62 of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

The debtor's right to challenge excessive fees

Where a debtor has been subject to such overcharging, they are entitled to apply for a detailed assessment under Civil Procedure Rule 84.16. This rule permits the debtor to challenge the fees imposed by an enforcement agent and to require the court to determine whether the fees were lawfully charged. The court may order the return of any unlawful fees, as well as award costs to the applicant pursuant to CPR 44.2. In the case of litigants in person, CPR 46.5 and Practice Direction 46.5 paragraph 3.1 allow recovery of reasonable costs for time spent preparing and attending the hearing.

Remedies for non-debtors

It should be noted that this remedy is only available to the debtor, that is, the person against whom the enforcement power was directed. If money was taken from someone who is not the debtor, that person does not have standing to apply for a detailed assessment under CPR 84.16. Instead, they must bring a claim in the small claims track under CPR Part 27, either for unjust enrichment or restitution, depending on the precise circumstances and legal basis of the taking.

Regulation 16 and the recovery of overcharged fees

Further protections arise under Regulation 16 of the 2014 Regulations, which expressly permits the court to determine the proper amount of fees recoverable. This regulation is particularly apt where a debtor has been charged the Enforcement Stage fee more than once, notwithstanding the requirements of Regulation 11(4). If such charges have already been paid, they may be reclaimed through the assessment process.

The sale stage fee and vehicle storage

The schedule of fees in the 2014 Regulations also outlines a £110 Sale Stage fee, applicable only when goods are removed and prepared for sale. However, this fee is not recoverable merely because a vehicle is removed to storage. Removal must be for the purpose of sale. If a debtor discovers that a vehicle was placed in storage with no sale process initiated, they may challenge the validity of the Sale Stage fee using the same procedural route under CPR 84.16.

Tactics used to conceal overcharging

In practice, enforcement companies have devised tactics to mask the duplication of enforcement fees. These include assigning each warrant to different enforcement agents, artificially separating visits, or scheduling nominally different enforcement actions on the same occasion. However, the court will look beyond such stratagems to assess the substance of the enforcement action. Where enforcement was capable of being exercised at the same time, and was in fact so exercised, only one Enforcement Stage fee is permissible. The approach of the courts is grounded in the legislative intention to prevent oppressive enforcement and to ensure that debtors are not subjected to exploitation.

Summary and practical recommendations

In summary, where the Enforcement Stage fee of £235 has been charged more than once against a single debtor on the same occasion, this amounts to an overcharge prohibited by Regulation 11 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. The debtor may apply to the court for a detailed assessment under CPR 84.16 and seek recovery of the excess sum, together with legal costs. Any person not the debtor must proceed by way of a small claim under CPR 27. In either case, it is prudent to act promptly and to keep records of all enforcement notices, correspondence, and payments. If representation is required to draft or attend a detailed assessment hearing, that work may be recoverable as a disbursement from the errant enforcement company once the fees are found to have been wrongly applied.