The legislation does not specify the threshold for what constitutes excessive levy. However, one can reference official guidelines and precedents from legal cases when pursuing a claim for excessive levy.

For instance, if a bailiff removes two or more vehicles for a single parking ticket (PCN) or a minor debt, it may be deemed excessive levy.

Excessive levy claims can only be made if the bailiff opts for goods or a vehicle with a higher value when there were other items available at the time of removal that were closer in value to the debt and associated fees.

---

Official Guidelines:

The Government published official guidelines called, Taking Control of Goods: National Standards 2014, of which Paragraph 66 states:

---

Case law

Taking control of goods having a combined value of £46,300 for a debt £7400 is excessive. Steel Linings Limited, Mark Harvey v Bibby & Co [1993] EWCA WL 964281

Excessive levy is wrongful at common law and the debtor may issue a claim for damages: Statute of Marlborough 1267 c.15

Taking control of goods worth £35m selling them for £5 for a £1 debt is excessive levy: Josephs v London County Stores & Evans [1911] 78 EH 170.

Taking control of goods worth worth 175% of the debt would be treated as excessive levy, Merry v Lovell [1888] The Times November 16 3g QBD

Goods worth £602 sold for £73 resulted in damages of £350 being awarded, Webb v Pennell [1907] The Times December 5 10a.

Taking control of a single article (e.g. a vehicle) having a value that is more than 300% of the debt being recovered is excessive, Sullivan v Bishop [1826] 2 C&P 359 11

Taking control of goods valued at £6 but the debtor valued them at £100 and sued, The court awarded £50 reduced to £30 on appeal, Lowry v Read [1889] The Times March 9 5b & 33 EG 139

A slight excess being 3.5% over the sum recovered is not excessive, Fitzgerald v Longfield [1850] 7 Ir Jur 21

There is no need for the claimant to prove malice on the part of the bailiff when claiming excessive levy. Field v Mitchell [1806] 6 Esp 71

A claim for excessive distress and interference of goods cannot be awarded for both and the claimant must decide one for judgment, Clarke & Roe [1954] 4 Ir Ch R 1

Taking control of goods having an excessive value is a wrongful act. Gawler v Chaplin [1848] 2 Exch. 593

If no actual loss arising from taking control of goods with an excessive value compare to the debt results in no claim for damages. Watson v Murray & Co [1955] 2 QB 1

If a bailiff is uncertain of the value of a single item and wants to avoid a claim for excessive levy, then he should make a number of small inventories. Hutchins v Chambers [1758] 1 Burr 579 or Bagge v Mawby [1853] 8 Exch 64

A debtor has to show the value of the goods (or vehicle) being taken into control on the first occasion was sufficient to cover the debt and costs. Lear v Edmonds [1817] 1 B&A 157

Second levies are oppressive and excessive and should be avoided. If a second levy is made without good reason the debtor can claim damages, Lear v Caldecott [1843] 4 QB 123

Debtors may have a tendency to over-value their own goods. Cyril Morgan (Holdings) v Dyer [1995] 11 CL 193 or Bhatnagar & Elanrent v Whitehall Investments [1996] 5 CL 166

Bailiffs have a longstanding duty to conduct a thorough and diligent levy to ensure it is not an excessive levy, Doe d Haverson v Franks [1847] 2 C&K 678 or Mullett v Challis [1851] 16 QBD 239