Your vehicle was damaged by bailiffs

Bailiffs are responsible for exercising reasonable diligence in the handling of controlled goods. However, this obligation is frequently disregarded, particularly in cases involving cars and vehicles. Sometimes, the harm inflicted is deliberate, as bailiffs are aware that courts tend to shield them from liability claims.

It is crucial to promptly document and report any damage incurred. Failure to do so may result in the court attributing the damage to you when you pursue a claim.

Damage to vehicles is frequently detected only after driving away from the bailiff's vehicle pound. Typically, issues with power steering and gearbox arise during driving. This damage is often a result of the vehicle being maneuvered within the compound using a forklift, leading to damage to the steering hydraulics and, if the vehicle is in gear, to the gearbox.

If you encounter such issues while driving, it is imperative to pull over and promptly notify both the creditor and the bailiff company via email. Additionally, it's advisable to take a screenshot of the email and send a text message to the bailiff, documenting the time the damage was reported.

Symptoms of steering hydraulics damage include stiff steering and potential leakage of hydraulic fluid, while gearbox damage may manifest as rough shifting in first or second gear.

Damages encompasses expenses for hiring a substitute vehicle while yours undergoes repairs.

This approach is more straightforward than seeking reimbursement for loss of earnings (mitigation) if your vehicle is essential for work or trade, as providing accounts is necessary to substantiate such a loss. Rental and hire invoices offer clearer evidence of the incurred expense.

The process to address damage to controlled goods is pursued in the small claims court under Paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

The Law:

Paragraph 35 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 states:

Care of goods removed

(1)An enforcement agent must take reasonable care of controlled goods that he removes from the premises or highway where he finds them.

(2)He must comply with any provision of regulations about their care while they remain controlled goods.

Regulation 34 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 states:

Care of controlled goods

(1) Where the enforcement agent removes controlled goods, other than securities, from premises or a highway where the enforcement agent has found them—

(a)the enforcement agent must keep the controlled goods, so long as they remain in the enforcement agent’s control, in a similar condition to that in which the enforcement agent found them immediately prior to taking control of them;

(b)the goods must be removed to storage, unless the goods are removed for sale; and

(c)the storage must be secure and the conditions of that storage such as to prevent damage to or deterioration of the goods for so long as they remain in the enforcement agent’s control.

(2) The enforcement agent must not remove controlled goods to a place where there would be at any time a contravention of any prohibition or restriction imposed by or under any enactment.

The bailiff's responsibility for the custody of controlled goods terminates once the goods are no longer under their jurisdiction.

This typically occurs when the debt is settled, and the vehicle is returned to the owner.

The Law:

Paragraph 6 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 states:

Time when property ceases to be bound

(1)For the purposes of any enforcement power the property in goods of the debtor ceases to be bound in accordance with this paragraph.

(2)The property in any goods ceases to be bound—

(a)when the goods are sold;

(b)in the case of money used to pay any of the amount outstanding, when it is used.

(3)The property in all goods ceases to be bound when any of these happens—

(a)the amount outstanding is paid, out of the proceeds of sale or otherwise;

(b)the instrument under which the power is exercisable ceases to have effect;

(c)the power ceases to be exercisable for any other reason.

If the bailiff company asserts that their liability ceased upon the release of the vehicle and the owner fails to retrieve it within a specified period, they argue that liability ended when the owner was notified of the vehicle's release. In such instances, legal recourse is pursued under section 3 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977.

The Law:

Section 3 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 states:

Form of judgment where goods are detained.

(1)In proceedings for wrongful interference against a person who is in possession or in control of the goods relief may be given in accordance with this section, so far as appropriate.

(2)The relief is—

(a)an order for delivery of the goods, and for payment of any consequential damages, or

(b)an order for delivery of the goods, but giving the defendant the alternative of paying damages by reference to the value of the goods, together in either alternative with payment of any consequential damages, or

(c)damages.

(3)Subject to rules of court—

(a)relief shall be given under only one of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (2),

(b)relief under paragraph (a) of subsection (2) is at the discretion of the court, and the claimant may choose between the others.

(4)If it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that an order under subsection (2)(a) has not been complied with, the court may—

(a)revoke the order, or the relevant part of it, and

(b)make an order for payment of damages by reference to the value of the goods.

(5)Where an order is made under subsection (2)(b) the defendant may satisfy the order by returning the goods at any time before execution of judgment, but without prejudice to liability to pay any consequential damages.

(6)An order for delivery of the goods under subsection (2)(a) or (b) may impose such conditions as may be determined by the court, or pursuant to rules of court, and in particular, where damages by reference to the value of the goods would not be the whole of the value of the goods, may require an allowance to be made by the claimant to reflect the difference.For example, a bailor’s action against the bailee may be one in which the measure of damages is not the full value of the goods, and then the court may order delivery of the goods, but require the bailor to pay the bailee a sum reflecting the difference.

(7)Where under subsection (1) or subsection (2) of section 6 an allowance is to be made in respect of an improvement of the goods, and an order is made under subsection (2)(a) or (b), the court may assess the allowance to be made in respect of the improvement, and by the order require, as a condition for delivery of the goods, that allowance to be made by the claimant.

(8)This section is without prejudice—

(a)to the remedies afforded by section 133 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, or

(b)to the remedies afforded by sections 35, 42 and 44 of the Hire-Purchase Act 1965, or to those sections of the Hire-Purchase Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 (so long as those sections respectively remain in force), or

(c)to any jurisdiction to afford ancillary or incidental relief.