The legislation does not specify how to calculate damages for harm to your business reputation or business defamation resulting from unlawful bailiff actions or conduct.

Under Paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, the debtor can initiate legal action.

Precedent exists, outlining the basis and quantification of damages.

Engaging an expert is essential to assess and substantiate the damages, which must be demonstrable losses. Your legal argument should delineate which enforcement provisions were breached

Begin by documenting in your own words the chronological sequence of events leading to the claimed damage. Subsequently, gather evidence supporting the extent of the inflicted harm.

---

Case law

Huntress Search Ltd v Canapeum Ltd & Anor [2010] EWHC 1270 (QB)

The proceedings were initiated by the Interpleader claimant (Third party claimant) against the enforcement agent who visited their premises. The Interpleader Claimant was not the judgment debtor; however, the enforcement agent declined to review documents provided by the Interpleader Claimant, which evidenced that he was not the debtor.

To stop the enforcement, the Claimant settled the debt using their personal debit card. Subsequently, the enforcement agent sought to prevent the Interpleader Claimant from pursuing damages, but this application was denied. The enforcement agent then lodged an appeal.

Brief judgment details:

1. Paragraph 33. The Claimant had suffered a real and substantial loss in respect of the attitude and conduct of the enforcement agent.

2. Paragraph 36(i). The enforcement agent refused to consider any of the oral and documentary evidence that they were not the judgment debtor

3. Paragraph 36(ii). The premises did not belong to the judgment debtor and that there were no assets belonging to the judgment debtor on the premises.

4. Paragraph 35. The Claimant also suffered financial loss as a result of the interruption to business and the need to destroy food which was being processed at the material time and which had become contaminated as a result of the enforcement agents attendance at the premises wearing incorrect apparel.

5. Paragraph 37. The enforcement agent attended at an address not on his documents and the enforcement agent only had authority to carry out execution at that address.

Skidmore v Booth [1834] 6 C&P 777

The claimant rented warehouse premises in East London from the defendant. In June 1834 the tenant informed his landlord that he would he away in Liverpool on business for a few days, but upon his return would pay the quarterly rent that was about to fall due. The landlord stated that he was content with this and so the plaintiff departed, leaving a boy aged about 14 to look after the warehouse.

The next day the landlord met the boy outside the warehouse and assaulted him, demanding the key to the premises. Two days after that the landlord entered the warehouse with two other men and declared he had come to distrain.

They set about making an inventory, but as the boy still refused to give up the keys, the landlord called the police. The youth was threatened with arrest by the landlord and the boy began to cry whilst a crowd assembled outside.

The men conducting the levy remained about two hours; after they left the constable remained outside the door for about half an hour. The landlord put up a "to let" notice in the window of the warehouse and, when a customer of the tenant came to collect some goods, initially refused to release them to him.

When the tenant returned to London he settled the rent immediately, but then issued a claim for trespass and damage to reputation.

The jury awarded the Claimant damages.

Judgment of Tindal, CJ (summing up for the jury)

"... the defendant bailiff comes and says, "I am come to seize these goods"; and you will have to say whether what took place on that day satisfies your minds that a distress for rent was taken at that time.

There is no doubt that there was rent due... The difficulty I feel in the case is upon what the policeman has said. Circumstances may arise which may require the presence of a peace-officer. But it must be shown, to justify such a proceeding, that it was necessary, either from the apprehension of violence, the threat of resistance, or some similar circumstance.

It does not appear that either of the men remained in possession.

If the policeman was introduced other than as an assistant in taking the distress, you must find your verdict for the claimant, and give him such damages as you think he is entitled to.

It appears that people assembled on the outside, and asked what was going on. The landlord cannot justify under this form of pleading for anything but a distress. You may, therefore, consider whether he intended what he did as a distress, by seeing whether he confined himself to it.

Now, it seems, that he did more, for he put up a bill in the window. I think that, being in to make the distress, he might put up the bill without creating a new trespass.

If you are not perfectly satisfied that the intention was to make a distress, and that the policeman was introduced for the purpose of the distress, and was necessary for that purpose, you must find your verdict for the claimant."

The jury awarded damages (of 1/-).

Smith v Enright [1894] 69 LT 724

Damages are not limited to the immediate pecuniary losses occasioned by the enforcement action, but extend to damages for annoyance and injury to credit and reputation in trade.