Notable Cases

12 September 2018, a concerning incident unfolded when my client, a heating engineer, had his Volvo car seized and sold at auction by a bailiff firm. The firm's admission of using an ANPR camera (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) to locate the car, a clear breach of enforcement rules, raised serious questions. This case served as a wake-up call, leading to a new rule that now requires bailiffs to thoroughly check who owns the goods before taking them.

21 November 2018, my client, a company director, bought a pre-owned Porsche Cayenne from an authorised Porsche dealer. Soon after, the car was stolen, and she reported it to the police. It was later found that enforcement agents had taken the car on behalf of a London council to settle an outstanding traffic fine owed by the previous owner. The warrant listed the previous owner's details, so my client submitted a third-party claim for the car. Despite this, the enforcement agent rejected her claim, leading her to take legal action. The court ruled in her favour, granting her claim along with costs and damages. She found a disorganised scrapyard with damaged vehicles when she went to the vehicle compound in southeast London. When trying to start her car, she noticed many warning lights and engine issues. She arranged for the Porsche dealer to inspect the car and discovered the engine had been replaced with one from another vehicle. Despite reporting this to the police, they did not investigate due to lack of resources. I then advised her to hire a private investigator. The investigator uncovered a troubling connection: the enforcement agent who took the car was the brother of the scrapyard owner, and they were involved in a scheme to steal and export cars for use as taxis. In a show of goodwill, the Porsche dealership replaced my client's vehicle and used their legal team to seek damages from the London council that had instructed the enforcement agent.

14 January 2019, Bailiff's Tangle with Pooch Puts the Bite on Claim: Judge Throws Bone to Homeowner! My client was sued after her dog attacked and injured a bailiff. However, I got the claim dismissed because the dog was not a breed banned by the Dangerous Dogs Act, and the incident happened in my client's own back garden. It was also revealed that the bailiff had trespassed onto a neighbour's property and climbed a fence to get to my client's back garden to reach the open patio doors.

15 March 2019, my client, an accountant, was awarded £51,000 in compensation from Channel 5 after being filmed during a documentary about High Court Enforcement agents without permission. Channel 5 then aired the footage in their TV series Can't Pay We'll Take It Away.

19 January 2020, my client, a vehicle rental firm, received compensation for replacing a rental car and for lost rental income in response to a situation where bailiffs took the car while it was rented to a different customer, and then sold the car at auction. Before the auction, the car was involved in a road accident. Like many rental cars, it was owned by a third-party leasing company. Upon getting the new owner's address from the DVLA, the leasing company recovered the car from outside their home. However, to our surprise and concern, the car had undergone a poor-quality Category C repair, significantly reducing its value.

15 February 2020, Bailiff's Joyride: Doctor's Car Used for Speeding, Court Awards £13K in Hilarious Traffic Tango! My client, a doctor got a notice saying she was being prosecuted for speeding. Surprisingly, this happened shortly after a bailiff had taken her car because of a different traffic debt. My client asked the court to return her car, saying the warrant to take it was wrong because it didn't have her current address. When they looked at the evidence, including pictures from the speed camera, they discovered that a man was driving the car with a woman in the front seat. Later, they discovered that the man was the bailiff, and the woman was his girlfriend. Shockingly, the bailiff had been driving my client's car for personal use. Even though my client reported it to the police, they said it was a civil matter. Further investigation showed that the bailiff had a friend at a car dealership help him get keys and a device to drive the car. Ultimately, my client got her car back and was given £13,266 in damages, plus extra money to cover the cost of getting new keys and the device. Also, the court said she wasn't guilty of speeding because the address on the summons was wrong.

20 March 2020, the bailiff company DCBL had to pay over £4000 in compensation, plus costs, for sending an Enforcement Agent to enforce a writ of control even though the court had cancelled it.

11 May 2020, the police arrested my client on suspicion of interfering with controlled goods. This suspicion arose when a bailiff placed a wheel clamp on my client's car, which my client removed. However, I was able to have the charges dropped by presenting evidence that the bailiff had acted without proper authority, as the car did not belong to my client. Subsequently, the police complaints authority informed me that they had initiated additional training for the arresting officer, specifically on the protocols for dealing with bailiffs and controlled goods. These protocols dictate that when police officers encounter bailiffs, they are required to verify the bailiff's identity and authority to be on the premises. In cases of uncertainty, the police officer is mandated to remove the bailiff to the edge of the property.

16 May 2020, my client, a single mother, was subjected to a gross injustice when a bailiff, without proper authorisation, forced his way into her home by placing his foot in her front door, preventing her from closing it. The bailiff then applied force to the door to gain entry. This unauthorised entry was even more egregious as the bailiff, acting on the council's instructions, had a Liability Order for my client's previous address. The case against the police for their failure to diligently check the bailiff's authority is currently under review.

19 August 2020, my client, the resilient owner of a hair salon, emerged victorious in a legal battle after a bailiff unlawfully entered her shop early in the morning. The bailiff's intent was to collect money for an unpaid water bill from the previous tenant. However, justice prevailed when a camera in the shop recorded the bailiff surreptitiously pocketing £700 from the cash register. This evidence led to my client being awarded damages.

1 September 2020, a London police officer was disciplined after a 'RING' doorbell camera caught him checking vehicle records on the Police National Computer (PNC) for a bailiff outside my client's house. The bailiff wanted to know if any cars parked on the street belonged to my client.

11 November 2020, a car rental company in London took legal action and won over £10,000 in damages when bailiffs towed away a Tesla Model 3 rental car due to an unpaid traffic debt from a previous rental. My client, determined to right this wrong, obtained a court order for the return of the car. Tragically, the vehicle was severely damaged while in the compound due to the forklift truck's improper handling, which led to an underfloor lithium battery pack rupture. However, the Tesla Model 3, unbeknownst to the bailiffs, had recorded a video of the incident, a crucial piece of evidence that proves their negligence beyond doubt.

15 November 2020, Single Mum's Standoff with Bailiffs and Police Turns into a Doorbell Comedy! My client, a single mum, faced bailiffs and police outside her home trying to collect a court fine. She was scared for herself and her kids, so she didn't want to open the door. A police officer then threatened to handcuff her if she didn't open up. Feeling pressured, she opened the door, and police and bailiffs rushed in. Because she gets benefits as a single parent, she's considered a vulnerable person under regulations. At first, she talked to Citizens Advice, who told her to complain to the police. But the officer denied threatening her with handcuffs and was exonerated. When she told me about her RING doorbell camera recording what happened, I referred her to a lawyer specialising in police corruption. She brought a case against the police, but the police agreed to settle out of court.

9 December 2020. a doctor's medical practice won £41,000 in damages after bailiffs, in a shocking display of negligence, mishandled a medical laser. They took it out and carelessly threw it into the back of a van. The bailiff's insurance company said they disagreed with the claim, but records from the medical office showed the laser was working fine, and CCTV showed the bailiffs mishandling the laser.

11 February 2020, my client, an elderly woman in her eighties, was confronted by three enforcement agents, tooled up in police-like body armour and flashing police-like warrant cards, recovering a debt from her son living in Barcelona. These agents, in their overzealous pursuit, not only harassed but also disturbed the elderly lady by searching through her home and moving furniture outside. Despite the presence of the police, who claimed to be there solely to prevent a breach of the peace, my client felt compelled and paid the enforcement agents with her credit card to make them leave. Disturbed by the incident, my client contacted me, and I promptly stopped the payment and initiated a claim for damages. The damages included the cost of emergency workers to move the heavy furniture back inside, reconnect the TV and internet, and repair the property. Additionally, the enforcement agent took a set of keys from the house. In the end, my client agreed to a settlement of £5,600, which included the cost of changing the locks and the damage caused to the property.

2 April 2020, my client, a railway worker, bought a BMW 3 series on eBay and later won £19,515.27 in damages following a bailiff, using a numberplate camera, taking his car and selling it at an auction to pay off a traffic debt. When I looked at the Warrant, I discovered that the person named on it wasn't my client but the previous keeper. So, I contacted the person who bought the car at auction, a motor trader, and I got a copy of the sales receipt and proof of what he paid. Also, my client got a statement from the bailiff company showing the price attained at auction. It turned out that the auction sale price didn't match what the motor trader had paid. After looking into it more, I discovered that the person who operated the car pound, where they kept the cars for bailiffs, had sold the car on eBay. Even though my client reported it to the police, they said the crime was a civil matter. So, my client took action against the council named on the warrant for falsifying the sale amount of his car. He also won damages to cover the cost of getting a replacement car, general damages for each day he was deprived of using his car, and legal costs.

21 May 2020, my client was awarded £3,711.15 in damages, and the High Court set aside (cancelled) the writ of control. A High Court Enforcement agent then came to collect a debt of over £7,000 without giving the required legal notice. The agent then demanded more than £12,000, including his fees. Undeterred, my client took a stand and asked for a detailed review of the agent's charges. The High Court, in a clear demonstration of justice, found that the agent had charged more than the regulations allowed.

30 June 2020, when a bailiff arrived at my client's doorstep, demanding a money transfer for an unpaid traffic debt and threatening to clamp her car, everything initially seemed proper. However, my client, displaying remarkable courage, provided CCTV footage that revealed the bailiff driving a fancy Mercedes-Benz, a sight unusual for a bailiff. This act of bravery led to a deeper investigation, uncovering the truth about how the bailiff acquired the car. The previous owner's claim he reported it stolen to the police, countered by the police's denial it was stolen, revealed a shocking truth that the bailiff had taken and sold the car at auction, buying it for himself. In response, I requested a detailed assessment under CPR 84.16 to review the auction details and the distribution of the proceeds. The court, upon reviewing the evidence, declared the auction a sham and ruled that the bailiff had unlawfully taken (embezzled) the Mercedes-Benz. This successful legal intervention not only brought justice but also reassured the public of the legal system's integrity. As a result, the car was rightfully returned to its owner.

11 August 2020, my client had just moved into a new rental property when a bailiff, acting on a High Court order meant for the previous tenant, aggressively demanded entry. Despite my client's protests, the bailiff tried to force his way in, resulting in a scuffle. When the police arrived, my client saw the bailiff look at a single-occupancy council tax bill, which clearly showed my client as the only resident and then discarded it. Despite my client's requests for the bailiff to leave, he refused. The police, treating it as a civil matter, did not intervene. I advised my client to contact a specialist solicitor for police misconduct and started legal proceedings. In court, it was proven that by ignoring the council tax bill, the bailiff acted without 'reasonable belief', a legal term meaning a belief that is based on reasonable grounds, that the goods belonged to the debtor. This case, Tunstall v DCBL, set a precedent that bailiffs must leave promptly when there is proof that the debtor does not live at the address. Additionally, the police must quickly escort the bailiff away from the property.

16 July 2021, an enforcement agent, acting on a writ of control for an outstanding water bill owed by the previous tenant, visited my client's restaurant in East London. The agent, in a gross display of misconduct, caused a disturbance among the customers and called the police. While there, he turned off his body-worn camera, went behind the bar, and unlawfully took money from the cash register. A CCTV camera above the till captured him stealing cash and card receipts, which he pocketed. The head waiter reported the theft to the police, who deemed it a 'civil matter'. The police complaints authority is investigating the officers involved. If the complaint is dismissed, my client plans to pursue a private prosecution against the officer under section 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. Additionally, my client has started legal action against the creditor named on the writ of control to recover the stolen funds and seek compensation for a day's lost business earnings, totalling £4,760 in restaurant and bar sales.

21 July 2021, London Supermarket Manager's Car Saga: From Classic Ride to Shipping Container Hide. My client, a London supermarket manager, bought a rare classic sports car from a private seller. Weeks later, an enforcement agent, who was tasked with recovering an unpaid Congestion Charge from the original seller, used an ANPR camera to tow the car from my client's driveway, despite the address not being listed on the warrant of control. I helped my client lodge a third-party claim for the controlled goods, but the enforcement agent's office rejected it. My client then applied to the court, which granted her claim and awarded damages and costs. However, the bailiff company had already disposed of the car. Using Google Maps, my client tracked the car to a industrial site in Kent, where it was still registered in her name. Despite reporting this to the police, they deemed it a civil matter and took no action. I referred my client to a private investigator in London, who found the car hidden in a steel shipping container to block its GPS transponder signal. The police, upon opening the container, found the car ready for export and discovered that the enforcement agent had researched the car's background online using his mobile phone. My client then took legal action against the creditor named on the warrant of control. She eventually withdrew the claim after receiving compensation for damages, the return of her car, and reimbursement of the private investigation costs. Enquiries later revealed that the car had not entered the Congestion Charge zone; it was being transported on a trailer to a vehicle pound, with the back number plate uncovered due to a mistake by the transport company.

17 September 2021, my client, a former company director, successfully recovered £51,000 after bailiffs unlawfully entered her home while she was away. The bailiffs acted on a debt allegedly owed by her former company, which had never operated from her residential address. A lone enforcement agent, previously a Romanian police officer, entered her home and, despite my client not being liable for the debt, stole jewellery, car keys, her passport, and cash from various rooms. Upon her return, she found the bailiff upstairs in her 12-year-old daughter's bedroom. When she tried to call the police, the bailiff knocked the phone out of her hand and called 999 himself, falsely claiming he was assaulted. The police arrived, allowed the bailiff to leave, and failed to investigate the theft properly. CCTV footage showed the bailiff stealing items, but the police did not investigate thoroughly. Weeks later, my client's Range Rover was stolen from outside her property without signs of forced entry. The police considered it a civil matter and took no further action, preventing my client from making an insurance claim. We are now negotiating with the police force for a claim of negligence and offences under section 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, based on the police's failure to verify the bailiff's identity and legal right to enter the property.

24 October 2021, despite the adjudicated amount being £4,348.18, the enforcement agent shockingly demanded £5,916.49, which included his fees and charges. This significant difference was not overlooked by the detailed assessment hearing, which found that the agent's fees and charges exceeded the legal limit. Consequently, the judgment claimant was ordered to pay my client's costs.

29 October 2021, my client, a housewife, was unexpectedly confronted by a lone bailiff demanding £5,766 for a judgment debt of £3,219 owed by a former tenant. The bailiff, dressed in police-like combat gear and body armour, refused to leave and stayed for four hours. Despite my client’s requests, the bailiff would not show the writ of control with the enforcement address. My client provided evidence that the debtor didn’t live there and even gave his current address, but the bailiff continued to harass her and went through her personal belongings. Feeling pressured, she transferred £5,766 online. She later recovered the money by contacting her bank. The debtor named in the writ then sought my help and applied for a detailed assessment of the bailiff’s fees and charges, which was granted. It was found that the bailiff had not followed enforcement rules and couldn’t recover any fees. In a satisfying turn of events, my client, the debtor, was awarded £4,211 in costs. Additionally, my client, the housewife, was awarded £957 plus costs for the bailiff’s intrusion without a writ of control specifying her address, which included £500 for the first hour the bailiff spent on the property, £100 for each subsequent hour, and £157 for damages to her furniture.

4 November 2021, my client, a plumber, was awarded over £9,000 in compensation after bailiffs towed away his van while at work. The van should have been exempt because its auction value was below the £1,350 statutory threshold. However, the bailiff company's solicitor argued that enforcement agents have the right to determine valuations independently. Despite this, the court, in its fair judgment, ruled in my client's favour, noting the lack of evidence for the agent's valuation compared to the solid proof provided by my client showing the van's actual auction value. As a result, my client received damages equal to 90 days' lost earnings, covering the period he was without his van for work.

28 November 2021, my client, a midwife, exercised her legal rights and won £5,410.11 in damages, including costs. She also obtained an injunction to remove a wheel clamp from her car, and the bailiff was ordered to remove a sticky notice from the car window affixed using industrial strength glue. Despite the car being under hire purchase, my client recorded the bailiff stating that he could clamp the car but not remove it due to her 'beneficial interest' in it, reaffirming her legal protection.

16 December 2021, my client, a London black cab driver, received £21,455 in damages after bailiffs clamped his leased taxi while working on a taxi rank. The bailiff called the police and forcibly removed my client from his cab and bundled him on the ground. Other taxi drivers working on the same rank recorded the incident. Claims of police brutality, false arrest, and unlawful arrest are ongoing. If the police don't address the complaint, my client plans to take legal action against the officers under section 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.

15 February 2022, the reputation of my client's boutique hotel in central London is at stake. Bailiffs, armed with a writ of control that listed the wrong address for enforcement, arrived at the hotel. Despite the presence of the police, the mistake went unnoticed. The bailiffs, threatening to disturb the guests if not paid, took £ 21,731.42. My client applied to the court for the return of the money, and a hearing to discuss my client's costs is imminent.

4 March 2022, my client, a delivery driver for a fast-food company, was awarded £6901 in damages plus costs after a bailiff company clamped and towed his delivery van while he was on duty. The court, in a significant move, also granted an injunction due to the van's active use for deliveries at the time of the incident. This decision underscores the court's recognition of the van's crucial role in my client's work. Additionally, my client, upon further inspection, noticed fresh damage to the van's underbody, which was not present before the bailiff's intervention. This damage appeared to be the result of a forklift lifting the van's off its rear wheels in the vehicle compound. Despite the bailiff company's claim that the enforcement agent wore a body camera during the van's removal, they refused to share the recordings. This refusal led the court to reject their defence.

22 March 2022, on appeal, my client was awarded £13,727 in damages and costs after a bystander filmed a police officer smashing the passenger window of my client's car and forcibly removing him from it. Later, three more police officers restrained my client on the ground. Initially, my client was charged with obstructing an enforcement agent because the agent had a warrant with my client's old address (which is considered 'defective' under CPR 75.7(7)), and the car was under hire-purchase, making it ineligible for enforcement action according to Paragraph 10 of Schedule 12. However, my client was acquitted due to these factors. The police force paid for the repairs to my client's car and provided a temporary rental vehicle. Though a deputy district judge rejected my client's initial claim, it was appealed to a circuit judge due to concerns of bias against my client, which goes against R v Purdy. Additionally, the solicitor representing the police force disputes my consultation fee. Currently, legal representatives are in discussions to reach a fair settlement.

24 May 2022, good news for vulnerable debtors! On the 4th of November 2021, bailiffs removed my client's Audi A5, a clear act of injustice considering his anxiety and vulnerability. The bailiff was enforcing a High Court writ for £8575.65, despite being presented with medical evidence about the debtor's condition. Shockingly, the enforcement continued. Under CPR 84.16, my client applied for a detailed assessment for breaching Regulation 12 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. The High Court found that the bailiff didn't allow the debtor enough time to seek advice before taking the money. As a result, all fees and charges imposed by the bailiff were cancelled, highlighting the injustice of the bailiff's actions.

11 January 2023, Car Wash Comedy: Motorcycle 'Enforcement Agent' Leaves Cleaners in Suds with Trash Can Treasure Hunt! My client, a drive-through car wash, contacted me after an incident involving a man on a motorcycle who harassed staff, demanding entry into the office. The cashier called the police, leading to a standoff as the man claimed to be an enforcement agent. To address the loss of business, my client sought my help. CCTV footage showed the man searching through a trash bin and taking a small device, later identified as an Apple AirTag. It had fallen from behind the back number plate of a customer's car during the jet wash. Further investigation revealed that the customer was being tracked by bailiffs using AirTags. I contacted the customer, who had been subjected to an enforcement ambush by High Court bailiffs searching her home for a debt owed by a company she had been a director. With my intervention, the enforcement actions were stopped. Despite reporting the use of electronic tracking devices to the police, they dismissed it as a civil matter. So, my client took legal action against the two police officers for professional incompetence and abuse of public office. Their police force intervened, and an out-of-court settlement was reached.

May 2023, my client, a landlord, sought my help when bailiffs visited his home regarding the council tax owed for a vacant rental property he owned. The bailiffs mistakenly stuck the notice for the rental property at his home. When my client asked for proof of their authority, they refused. So, my client took legal action under the law, stating bailiffs must show their authority when asked. Also, the bailiffs used a liability order with the wrong address, which the court deemed defective. On 20 September 2023, the esteemed Judge Harrison ruled in my client's favour, affirming the fairness of the legal system and ordering the bailiff company Bristow and Sutor to pay £10,700, covering costs as well.

11 January 2024, Attention, High Court Enforcement Officers: It's not just 'Monkey see, monkey do' – you're responsible for the whole monkey business!. In 2019, a debtor with a writ of almost £24,000 sought my help due to claims of overcharging by High Court Enforcement Agent (HCEA) Gary Brown. My client applied for a temporary stay of enforcement and a review of Mr Brown's fees. Master Davison at the High Court agreed to stay (pause) the enforcement and ordered a review of Mr Brown's fees. However, despite this pause, Mr Brown went to my client's home as an enforcement agent. This action was later reviewed by High Court Master, Lisa Sullivan, who also allowed HCEO Simon Williamson to include Mr Brown as a co-defendant. Master Sullivan then dismissed my client's fee assessment and claim for damages against Mr Brown for breaching the stay order. She said my client should cover all the legal costs of HCEO and Mr Brown. I advised my client to appeal Master Sullivan's judgment as it was incongruous with Parliamnentary intent which says HCEOs are responsible for their agents' actions. My client shouldn't have to pay Mr Brown's costs after being added as a defendant by Mr Williamson. The Court of Appeal said Mr Williamson, as the HCEO, is liable for his agents, and my client was right not to pursue the dispute against Mr Brown as an HCEA. The Court of Appeal also overturned Master Sullivan's costs judgment against my client and ordered Mr Williamson to pay my client's costs. Three High Court Judges at the Court of Appeal found that Master Sullivan had difficulty in understanding the relationship between Mr Brown and Mr Williamson, and my client rightly focused the dispute only on Mr Williamson. So, the Court of Appeal told Mr Williamson to pay my client's costs—Bone v Williamson [2024] EWCA Civ 4.

21 June 2024, Creditors bear responsibility for their bailiffs. In 2022, bailiffs clamped my client's hire purchase vehicle for 29 days to recover an unpaid magistrates court fine. My client sued the Ministry of Justice, the department responsible for the magistrates' court. The Ministry of Justice initially convinced a judge that it was not liable for the bailiffs acting under its authority. However, this ruling conflicted with Paragraph 66(6) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Consequently, I referred the case to a solicitor for appeal. My client appealed to the Court of Appeal, which determined that the Ministry of Justice, as a principal, is liable for its bailiffs as agents and awarded my client damages—Burton v Ministry of Justice [2024] EWCA Civ 681.

28 July 2024, Akita Spits Out Burglar's Finger: Paw and Order Legal Drama Ensues!. In 2022, a client came to me with a highly distressing issue. They had returned home to find their normally exuberant Akita acting uncharacteristically subdued, with its ears flattened and staying low to the ground. Despite a thorough search, nothing seemed out of place. However, an hour later, the Akita unexpectedly spat out a human finger! The client immediately contacted the police and preserved the finger in a bag of frozen peas. The police found the suspect at a local A&E; he had attempted to burgle the client's house, but surprisingly, the police did not arrest him because he claimed to be an enforcement agent. Upon examining the suspect's paperwork, I discovered that my client had no outstanding debts. The enforcement was linked to a debt owed by a former company. Shockingly, the police arrested my client for keeping a dangerous dog. Through diligent work, I was able to find a solicitor to persuade the Crown to drop the prosecution. Negotiations are currently underway to recover my client's legal expenses following their false arrest and imprisonment.