The Court Service: conduct of a visit by bailiffs

Mr X complained that, when county court bailiffs had visited his shoe repair shop on 4 May 2000 to execute a warrant, they had refused to allow him to collect receipts to prove that he was paying the debt in question; continued to demand the keys to his car, so that they could remove it for sale, despite having been told by a solicitor that he had been paying the debt; refused to leave his shop when asked to do so; laid hands on him; and made an unnecessary 999 emergency call requesting police attendance. He also complained that, when he had subsequently telephoned the court to complain about the bailiffs’ actions, an officer of the court had not given his complaint proper consideration, refused to give his name, terminated the call prematurely, and refused to accept Mr X’s return call. The Ombudsman found that, in seeking to remove Mr X’s car, the bailiffs had acted correctly in accordance with an agreement Mr X had signed previously and information that they had been given that morning by the claimant’s solicitor; that their response to Mr X’s claim to have been making payments towards the debt had been reasonable in the circumstances; that they had been entitled to maintain their position while a further check was made, until such time as they received confirmation of the claimant’s wish to suspend execution of the warrant; that the allegation that one of them had laid hands on Mr X, even if proved, would not give grounds for criticism of the bailiff, having regard to the particular circumstances in which the alleged incident had taken place; and that they had been right to summon urgent police attendance when they did. Shortcomings in the court manager’s handling of Mr X’s subsequent telephone call had made their discussion less effective than it might have been as a means of assuring Mr X that his complaint would be dealt with openly and impartially, but the situation had been such that Mr X would in any event have had to be told to pursue the matter in writing if he wished to take it further. The Chief Executive of the Court Service apologised for the court manager’s initial refusal to give his name to Mr X.

Full text

8.1. Mr X complained that, when county court bailiffs had visited his shoe repair shop on 4 May 2000 to execute a warrant, they had refused to allow him to collect receipts to prove that he was paying the debt in question; continued to demand the keys to his car, so that they could remove it for sale, despite having been told by a solicitor that he had been paying the debt; refused to leave his shop when asked to do so; laid hands on him; and made an unnecessary 999 emergency call requesting police attendance. He also complained that, when he had subsequently telephoned the court to complain about the bailiffs’ actions, an officer of the court had not given his complaint proper consideration, refused to give his name, terminated the call prematurely, and refused to accept Mr X’s return call.

Statutory and administrative background

8.2. Under section 85 of the County Courts Act 1984 a creditor who has obtained judgment against a debtor may, in case of default or failure of payment, apply to the court for a warrant of execution empowering the court’s bailiffs to recover the amount payable under the judgment by distress and sale of the debtor’s goods.

8.3. The Bailiff’s Handbook, issued by the Lord Chancellor’s Department, gives county court bailiffs procedural guidance on carrying out their duties. The following parts are relevant to Mr X’s complaint.

Paragraph 2.2 states that bailiffs must carry out their duties with firmness but strict fairness, and treat everyone with tact, consideration and courtesy.
Paragraph 6.2.2 states that the first time a bailiff visits a debtor he must either get payment of the debt in full or, if at all possible, levy on the debtor’s goods. (To levy is to take the goods into the custody of the court, either by removing them physically or by leaving a levy slip with the debtor.)
Paragraph 6.2.14 states that, when the bailiff levies on goods, he should try to persuade the debtor to sign a walking possession agreement, whereby the bailiff leaves the goods with the debtor, who agrees not to dispose of or damage them until the warrant is paid or withdrawn. The debtor specifically authorises the bailiff to re-enter the premises at any time to inspect or remove the goods.
Paragraph 6.2.15 states that the police have a duty to assist the bailiff to execute a warrant. If the bailiff expects trouble when visiting a property, he should refer the warrant to the bailiff manager, who will decide whether to ask the police to accompany the bailiff. Usually the police will not intervene but stand by to prevent a breach of the peace.
Paragraph 6.5.14 states that, when removing a motor vehicle on which he has levied, the bailiff should have a witness to check what items are inside the vehicle. He should try to get the registration document and keys from the debtor. He should ensure that the person who removes the vehicle is properly qualified and insured.
Paragraph 10.2.1 states that the risk of violence to the bailiff can be reduced by taking sensible cautionary measures, talking and acting in ways which will not provoke, and walking away from danger as quickly as possible.
Paragraph 10.3.1 states that, when the bailiff is faced with the threat of violence, the following approaches may be useful, depending on the circumstances:
- stay calm and don’t argue;
- offer to talk about the problem;
- do not touch anyone threatening you;
- keep your distance and avoid prolonged eye contact;
- ask for any weapon to be put down (not handed over);
- do not remain alone with an apparently violent person, withdraw;
- avoid turning your back on an aggressor when you are withdrawing.
Paragraph 11.6.1 states that the bailiff requests police assistance if he experiences difficulty with any job, or expects violence.

Investigation

8.4. On 15 October 1999 a claimant obtained judgment in a county court against Mr X for recovery of the sum of £856.70. On 16 November the claimant applied for a warrant of execution to enforce the judgment. On 17 November the court sent a warrant to bailiffs. On 18 November a bailiff (to whom I refer as bailiff A) visited Mr X and obtained a walking possession agreement (paragraph 8.3) in respect of his car. Mr X applied to the court for the warrant to be suspended, but on 22 March 2000 the court struck out the application. On 31 March the claimant’s solicitors informed Mr X that the claimant would suspend the warrant if he made payments of £25 a week, commencing on 7 April, using a paying-in book that had been sent to him. The warrant was to be suspended after receipt of the first payment, but the claimant reserved the right to reissue the warrant to the bailiff without further reference to Mr X if payment was not maintained. The solicitor informed bailiff A of that arrangement and asked him to hold on to the warrant until 10 April, when she would confirm whether it was to be suspended. On 12 April she telephoned bailiff A and told him that payment had not been received from Mr X, so the warrant should be executed by removing Mr X’s car. On the morning of 4 May bailiff A telephoned the solicitor to check that he should proceed with the warrant. She said that the claimant had still not received a payment from Mr X, so bailiff A should proceed. Bailiff A asked his manager (to whom I refer as bailiff B) to accompany him. (Bailiff A has told the Ombudsman’s staff that that was for two reasons: first, because he was concerned about Mr X’s possible reaction to the visit, and secondly, because he needed someone to drive away Mr X’s car.) The bailiffs visited Mr X at his shop at 11.15 am.

8.5. Mr X subsequently made the following written statement to the Court Service regarding the bailiffs’ visit:

“My shop premises were visited by two men who identified themselves as court bailiffs and who explained that the reason for their attendance was that I had failed to comply with a court warrant. This warrant was in respect of [the claimant]. I informed them that I had paid regularly and this must be a mistake. I was then asked for the keys to my vehicle, I refused and offered to go home and collect the receipts, the answer was “Not in that car, give me the keys” and again I refused. It was then suggested I speak to the solicitor for [the claimant]. The bailiff contacted the solicitor, I informed her that I had made regular payments and had nothing to hide and would not give my keys to the bailiffs.

I then asked the bailiffs to leave the shop, again they refused, I came from behind my counter to open the door and the tallest of the two bailiffs put his hand to my chest, I shouted “Take your hands off me or I will make you”, he immediately dropped his hand.

In an effort to make them leave my shop I told them I was about to spray a shoe black and if the spray ended up on their clothes I would not be held responsible. They then went outside.

I attempted to carry on with my work but noticed they were blocking the door to my shop. I went to the door and attempted to open it but the handle was being held by the tall bailiff, this was an attempt to stop me opening the door, I then pulled the door open wrenching the handle from his grip, I told him to leave the door alone, closed the door and went back inside.

I noticed the same man try the door and heard him speak into his mobile phone “He’s locked the door”, he indicated to me to open it, I then told him if he held the handle and pressed it downwards and pushed the door it would then open. He did this and the door opened. He then said [the solicitor] was on his mobile phone asking to speak to me. [The solicitor] then told me that payments had been received which were probably mine but could not be identified as yet, but were being checked immediately.

The bailiffs were told this and the response was “give us the keys”. I told them I would be leaving the shop in ten minutes and going home for lunch. I was told “not in that car”. I told them that they would not stop me and suggested they get a policeman to sort things out. They were outside the shop and again I returned to my work.

The next thing I knew three police officers arrived, they arrived in two vehicles one of which was a motorway patrol car. I asked what had prompted such a speedy response and why three policemen, I was told it was an emergency 999 call given a zero code. I complained to Inspector [ ] while the officers were in attendance. He sent a sergeant to explain the situation. One of the officers asked for my car keys, I handed them to him and asked if he was handing them to the bailiff, would he check that he had insurance (they would not show me any insurance), the officer said he would. He returned about two minutes later handed me my keys, told me he had sent the bailiffs away to check the facts. He then advised me to go home and collect my receipts.”

(Mr X told the Ombudsman’s staff that the arrangement for paying the debt had been that the claimant had given him a paying-in book. His wife took the book with the cash each week to the bank, who took the slip and stamped the book. He had assumed that any necessary reference details were on the slip; the claimant had later told him that they had expected him to write a reference number on the slip, but he had not been told that at the time. It seemed that, because of a business link between his bank and another bank, the claimant was receiving the payments by way of the other bank. Mr X gave the Ombudsman’s staff an account of the bailiffs’ visit similar to his written statement.)

8.6. Bailiff B gave the Ombudsman’s staff the following account of the visit. On arriving at the shop, bailiff B had introduced himself to Mr X as the bailiff manager and said something to the effect that they had come to execute the warrant. Mr X had offered him the car keys, then asked if he was insured to drive the car. Bailiff B had said that he was. Mr X had asked to see the insurance document. Bailiff B had explained that he did not carry that with him. Mr X had said that he wanted to use the car to go home and get the receipts for the payments he had been making. Bailiff B had said that the car was now the property of the court. He had suggested that Mr X contact the claimant’s solicitor about the payments. Mr X had said that he did not have enough money for his mobile telephone. Bailiff B had lent his own telephone to Mr X. Bailiff B believed that he must have spoken to the solicitor at that stage. She had said that no payments had been received. He could not recall her having indicated any doubt on the point, or saying that she would check. Instead, she had told them to execute the warrant. Bailiff B had therefore told Mr X that they wanted to remove the car. Mr X had said that he wanted the police present if the car was to be released. Bailiff B had telephoned the police. While he was doing so, Mr X had come to stand toe to toe in front of him, shouting at him to get out of the shop; he had also shouted “Get your hands off me”, although bailiff B had not been touching him. Mr X had then gone to get an aerosol spray, saying that if it went on the bailiffs it would be their fault. They had therefore decided to leave the shop. They had waited outside for the police; during that time, they had not held down the door handle. About the time of the arrival of the police, bailiff B had received a call from the solicitor indicating that the claimant had identified some payments that they could not account for, and wished to suspend execution of the warrant. Bailiff B had tried to re-enter the shop, but had had difficulty opening the door. Mr X had come to the door. On arrival, the police had gone into the shop, spoken to Mr X, and come out with his car keys. Bailiff B had explained that they were withdrawing.

8.7. Bailiff A gave the Ombudsman’s staff an account of the visit similar to bailiff B’s. Written statements made by bailiff A and bailiff B to the Court Service on the day of the visit gave accounts similar to those subsequently given to the Ombudsman’s staff. However, according to bailiff A’s written statement, when bailiff B had spoken to the solicitor on the occasion of the first telephone call she had confirmed that no payments had been received from Mr X, but had said that she would check again with the claimant.

8.8. According to the claimant’s solicitor, she received a telephone call from bailiff A, who told her that Mr X was “in an uproar” because he maintained that he had been making payments regularly; she had said that she would telephone the claimant immediately, find out the position, and get back to the bailiffs as soon as possible. She had then contacted the claimant, who had said that they were unaware of any payments having been received from Mr X, but that there were some unidentified payments shown on their bank statements. They had undertaken to contact the bank immediately to check whether those had come from Mr X; they had agreed that in the meantime execution of the warrant should be suspended. The solicitor had passed that information to the bailiffs, who told her that they could not withdraw immediately because the police had been called. The solicitor had asked to speak to Mr X, to whom the telephone had then been passed. Mr X had been very agitated, complaining loudly that he had made the payments but that the bailiffs would not let him leave the shop to get the proof. The solicitor had confirmed that execution of the warrant would be suspended. Mr X had said that the bailiffs should be told that, and passed the telephone back to them. The solicitor had repeated that execution of the warrant should be suspended. (She could not remember whether the police had arrived by then.)

8.9. The Ombudsman’s staff obtained the police tape recording of the emergency call made by bailiff B. (Mr X has subsequently queried why bailiff B found it necessary to dial 999 when there was a community police office and contact number a short distance from his shop. Bailiff A has told the Ombudsman’s staff that he was aware of the proximity of the office, but that it was not always manned; in any case, bailiff B was not based locally and had not known about the office.) The call is recorded as having been received at 11.37 am. On the tape, bailiff B begins by introducing himself and explaining that he is at Mr X’s shop executing a warrant; a car needs to be removed and Mr X is refusing to hand over the keys and give authority to drive it. There is shouting in the background. The operator tries to confirm the address and bailiff B asks the person shouting to be quiet a minute. Bailiff B tries to repeat the address and is interrupted by Mr X asking for them to hurry up before he puts bailiff B through the window. Mr X then shouts “Get your hands off me”. The operator succeeds in confirming the address and tells bailiff B to wait outside the shop. Mr X continues to shout; the words “brain you” are decipherable. The operator informs bailiff B that a unit has been despatched.

8.10. After the incident, Mr X went home and decided to complain to the Court Service. At 1.50 pm he telephoned them and was put through to the court manager, who by then had received and read bailiff A’s written statement. According to Mr X’s account of the discussion that followed, the court manager had interrupted him before he had fully explained the situation, saying that he knew all about it and that Mr X had been aggressive to the bailiffs. Mr X had asked if the bailiffs had mentioned that one of them had laid hands on him. The court manager had replied “no”, whereupon Mr X had said that the court manager evidently had been given only half the story. The court manager had then declined to say why the bailiffs had been unable to produce insurance documents. He had become flustered and threatened to end the call. Mr X had asked for the court manager’s name; he had refused to give it, and put down the telephone. Mr X had contacted the switchboard again and explained what had happened. He had waited a few minutes and then been told that the court manager, whose name the operator gave, did not want to speak to him. He had asked what he should do next, and been advised to contact another official (which he later did).

8.11. According to the court manager’s account of his discussion with Mr X, Mr X had been “extremely obnoxious” from the outset, and had not given him an opportunity to reply to his questions. The court manager had tried to point out that he had a statement from one of the bailiffs which suggested that Mr X’s behaviour had not been all it might have been. He had told Mr X to put his complaint in writing, and given him the name and address of the group manager. Mr X had said that he did not want his complaint investigated by “your sort”. The court manager had continued to try to talk to Mr X but Mr X had continued to shout him down. The court manager had said several times that if Mr X would not listen to him he would end the call, which he had eventually done. He had then gone to the switchboard operator and told her that if Mr X telephoned again she should give him the court manager’s name, but that he was not prepared to speak to Mr X again. While he was talking to the operator, Mr X had called again and he had left the operator to deal with him as instructed.

8.12. Mr X subsequently put his complaint to the Court Service in writing, in the terms set out in paragraphs 8.5 and 8.10 above. He asked for an explanation of how the situation had been allowed to develop, and in particular why the bailiffs had not produced an insurance document; why bailiff B had laid hands on him; why it had been necessary to dial 999; and why the bailiffs had continued to demand his car keys after the solicitor had told them that payments had been received. He concluded by asking how the bailiffs could have thought that they were under any threat when they had been outside the shop, about 20 yards away from him, at the time they had called the police. (Mr X told the Ombudsman’s staff that he was certain that the emergency call had been made after the bailiffs had gone outside the shop, and that he had not been present or aware when it was being made.)

8.13. On 25 May the Court Service replied to Mr X. They summarised the events leading to the bailiffs’ visit on 4 May. They explained that the bailiffs had been acting throughout on the claimant’s instructions, and that the situation appeared to have become heated, which the bailiffs had felt necessitated the attendance of the police to prevent a breach of the peace. They said that bailiff B denied having placed his hands on Mr X. They said that the bailiffs, as employees of the Court Service, were not required to produce insurance documents when executing a warrant. Following further correspondence, Mr X remained dissatisfied and asked the then Member to refer his complaint to the Ombudsman.

8.14. The Ombudsman’s staff sent a statement of Mr X’s complaint to the Chief Executive of the Court Service. In reply, the Chief Executive said that he was sorry that the bailiffs’ visit had given Mr X cause for concern, and that Mr X was unhappy that the court manager had felt it necessary to curtail their discussion. Nevertheless, given the facts in the case, the Chief Executive was satisfied that the bailiffs and the court manager had acted appropriately and in good faith during what had clearly been difficult and contentious circumstances. The Chief Executive did say, however, that he required all staff to identify themselves to callers at the outset of telephone conversations. He apologised for the court manager’s failure to do so in the present instance.

Findings

8.15. A misunderstanding about payment arrangements between Mr X and the claimant appears to have been the cause of the bailiffs’ visit to Mr X’s shop on 4 May 2000. In any event, I am satisfied that the bailiffs acted properly on the instructions that they had been given, and that they checked the position with the claimant’s solicitor immediately before proceeding with the visit. I therefore attach no blame to the bailiffs for the fact that the visit took place. Bailiff A was correct, in view of his expectation that Mr X might react badly to the visit (paragraph 8.4), and in view of the instruction in the Bailiff’s Handbook concerning the need for a witness when removing a vehicle (paragraph 8.3), to take bailiff B with him. (I have considered whether bailiff B ought, in turn, to have sought police accompaniment from the outset; however, in the circumstances that would have been a heavy-handed approach.) The Handbook requires that a person removing a vehicle be properly qualified and insured, but not that proof of such qualification and insurance be made available to the public on request. In the circumstances I see no reason why bailiff B should have shown Mr X insurance documents before being allowed to remove the car; the walking possession agreement that Mr X had signed (paragraph 8.4) did not state or imply any such condition. On the basis of that agreement and of the information that they had been given by the claimant’s solicitor, it was reasonable of the bailiffs to expect Mr X to allow them to remove the car without further query.

8.16. In the event, Mr X said, correctly, that he had been paying the debt. I consider that the bailiffs responded appropriately to that assertion by telephoning the claimant’s solicitor, rather than by allowing Mr X to use the car to go home and obtain his receipts; while the latter course no doubt seemed the most straightforward solution from Mr X’s perspective, the bailiffs were not at that stage in a position to risk losing the opportunity to remove the car if what Mr X was saying turned out to be untrue.

8.17. Accounts as to precisely what the solicitor told the bailiffs on the occasion of the first telephone call from Mr X’s shop, and indeed as to which bailiff she spoke to, conflict to some extent (paragraphs 8.6, 8.7 and 8.8). Given that the solicitor evidently did check the position with the claimant immediately after the call, I consider it unlikely that she would not have told whichever of the bailiffs she spoke to that that was what she intended to do. On the other hand, she would not have been able to instruct the bailiffs to suspend execution of the warrant until she in turn had obtained an instruction to that effect from the claimant. In the circumstances, I regard it as having been a matter for the bailiffs’ discretion as to how they should proceed while a further check was made. In view of the facts that the alleged absence of payments from Mr X had apparently been confirmed only that morning, that the claimant’s wish that the warrant be executed had not been countermanded, and that there was no guarantee that any information which would change the position would be received immediately, I consider that the bailiffs were entitled to proceed to try to execute the warrant.

8.18. There is no dispute that Mr X himself suggested a police presence if the bailiffs intended to proceed. Mr X has since objected to bailiff B’s decision to use the emergency service by dialling 999. However, the police tape of the call (paragraph 8.9) records an exhortation by Mr X that the matter should proceed quickly in order to prevent violence. In view of that, bailiff B’s decision to dial 999 was clearly the right one.

8.19. As to whether bailiff B laid hands on Mr X, the tape indicates that it was while bailiff B was on the telephone to the police that Mr X shouted “Get your hands off me”. That accords with bailiff B’s account of the incident (paragraph 8.6); Mr X’s account that the call to the police was made later from outside the shop (paragraphs 8.5 and 8.12) is at odds with the contemporary evidence. I regard bailiff B’s account as the more reliable of the two. That does not necessarily mean that bailiff B did not touch Mr X (although he and bailiff A have denied that); however, I consider that if Mr X had indeed approached bailiff B closely, while shouting and making the threats of violence contained on the tape, it would have been natural for bailiff B to raise a hand to try to ensure that Mr X kept his distance, and unobjectionable if in those circumstances some physical contact unavoidably took place, the sensible instruction on that point in paragraph 10.3.1 of the Handbook notwithstanding (paragraph 8.3). I therefore find no reason to criticise bailiff B in relation to that element of the complaint.

8.20. It seems that it was after the telephone call to the police that the bailiffs, correctly in view of the threats that Mr X had by then made, withdrew from the shop. I find it unobjectionable that having done so they should have chosen to await the arrival of the police in the shop doorway. I see no reliable means of resolving the conflicting accounts as to whether, while doing so, they at any time held the door handle in an attempt to prevent Mr X from opening the door (paragraphs 8.5 and 8.6). However, in view of Mr X’s threats, I would not find it unreasonable if the bailiffs had tried, as far as possible, to keep a barrier between themselves and Mr X until the police arrived. The evidence suggests that it was very shortly before the arrival of the police that the bailiffs received the telephone call from the solicitor instructing them to suspend execution of the warrant (paragraphs 8.6 and 8.8). In the circumstances I see no blame attaching to the bailiffs that the matter proceeded to the point where the police had taken Mr X’s car keys before the bailiffs confirmed that they no longer required the keys.

8.21. In sum, while the situation in which Mr X found himself on the morning of 4 May 2000 was understandably a cause of anger and frustration to him, I find no grounds on which to criticise the bailiffs for anything that they did or are alleged to have done on that occasion. They acted reasonably on the information available to them and responded justifiably to the situation as it developed.

8.22. I turn finally to the court manager’s handling of Mr X’s telephone call on the afternoon of 4 May 2000 (paragraphs 8.10 and 8.11). It is regrettable that the court manager declined to give Mr X his name during the call; I now pass on to Mr X through this report the Chief Executive’s apology for that (paragraph 8.14). I also consider that it was unwise of the court manager to raise at an early stage in the discussion (as both accounts agree that he did) the statement about the incident that he had by then received from bailiff A, and use that as a basis on which to criticise Mr X’s behaviour. Regardless of whether such criticism was merited, the effect can only have been to suggest to Mr X that the court manager had already made up his mind as to where the rights and wrongs of the incident lay, and so could not be relied upon to deal with his complaint impartially. It is perhaps not surprising, given that Mr X was presumably still angry at that stage, if there remained little room after that for reasonable discussion. In those circumstances, I do not criticise the court manager for having chosen to terminate the call, after warning Mr X of his intention to do so, and for having declined to resume what was evidently by then a fruitless exchange. In view of the nature of Mr X’s grievance and the conflicting accounts of events, a written complaint was clearly the appropriate avenue by which to progress the matter. While, therefore, the court manager’s handling of what was no doubt a very difficult call fell short of the ideal in two respects, I do not regard those shortcomings as having caused any injustice to Mr X, who would in any event have had to pursue his complaint further through more formal channels.

Conclusion

8.23. I have found that, in seeking to remove Mr X’s car, the bailiffs acted correctly in accordance with the agreement Mr X had signed previously and the information they had been given that morning by the claimant’s solicitor; that their response to Mr X’s claim to have been making payments towards the debt was reasonable in the circumstances; that they were entitled to maintain their position while a further check was made, until such time as they received confirmation of the claimant’s wish to suspend execution of the warrant; that they were right to summon urgent police attendance when they did; and that the allegation that one of them laid hands on Mr X, even if proved, would not give grounds for criticism of the bailiff, having regard to the particular circumstances in which the alleged incident took place. Shortcomings in the court manager’s handling of Mr X’s subsequent telephone call made their discussion less effective than it might have been as a means of assuring Mr X that his complaint would be dealt with openly and impartially, but the situation was such that Mr X would in any event have had to be told to pursue the matter in writing if he wished to take it further. The Chief Executive of the Court Service has apologised for the court manager’s initial refusal to give his name to Mr X. I regard that as a suitable response to a largely unjustified complaint.

Last updated: 4 April 2005