Bailiffs made you pay someone else's debt
In situations where it's clear that the person is not the debtor or the debtor is not present, enforcement officers sometimes wrongly claim authority to collect debts from others. This action constitutes a criminal breach under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.
Enforcement agents are authorised only to act against the debtor. Options for seeking redress include:
If the bailiff took control of goods to pressure you into making a payment, you can choose to lodge a claim in the small claims court.
For the bailiff to have exercised control over your goods, they must have undertaken one of the following actions:
The Law:
Paragraph 13(1) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 states:
(1)To take control of goods an enforcement agent must do one of the following—
(a)secure the goods on the premises on which he finds them;
(b)if he finds them on a highway, secure them on a highway, where he finds them or within a reasonable distance;
(c)remove them and secure them elsewhere;
(d)enter into a controlled goods agreement with the debtor.
Enforcement agents are only permitted to take control of goods owned by the debtor.
The Law:
Paragraph 10 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 states:
An enforcement agent may take control of goods only if they are goods of the debtor.
The cause of action is brought 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—
(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—
(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.
Criminal Law:
Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 states:
Fraud by false representation
(1)A person is in breach of this section if he—
(5)For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).
(1)A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b)intends, by making the representation—
(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss
(2)A representation is false if—
(a)it is untrue or misleading, and
(b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
(3)"Representation" means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of—
(a)the person making the representation, or
(b)any other person.
(4)A representation may be express or implied.(5)For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).
Criminal Law:
Section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006 states:
Fraud by abuse of position
(1)A person is in breach of this section if he——
(1)A person is in breach of this section if he——
(a)occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person,
(b)dishonestly abuses that position, and
(c)intends, by means of the abuse of that position—
(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2)A person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his conduct consisted of an omission rather than an act.