Bailiff took your money by mistake? Get it back legally

Bailiffs Took Money from You for Someone Else's Debt

The lawful limits of enforcement powers

When a bailiff takes money from you in satisfaction of a debt for which you bear no liability, particularly under threat of seizing your goods, they exceed the lawful scope of their authority and expose themselves, and their principals, to liability in both civil and potentially criminal law. The enforcement of debts by taking control of goods is strictly governed by Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Paragraph 10 of that Schedule makes clear that an enforcement agent may only take control of goods if they are goods of the debtor. This restriction is fundamental. The entire framework of lawful enforcement rests on the principle that a writ or warrant of control is enforceable only against the debtor identified in the enforcement instrument.

Unlawful enforcement against a third party

It follows that if the enforcement agent takes your goods or compels you to pay under threat of doing so, in respect of another person's debt, he has no lawful power to act against you or your property. Your remedy lies primarily in the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977. Section 3 of that Act provides that where a person wrongfully interferes with goods, the rightful possessor or bailee may bring a claim for damages. That includes conversion or trespass to goods, and the tortious act can be complete even without the goods being physically removed. Threat of seizure alone suffices where payment is obtained under such duress.

Fraud by misrepresentation and criminal liability

Moreover, if the enforcement agent knowingly accepts a payment from a person who is not the debtor, while asserting an entitlement to remove that third party's goods, the conduct may satisfy the elements of an offence under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006. This provision criminalises dishonest representations made with the intent to cause a gain or loss. A threat to remove a non-debtor's goods, thereby inducing payment, is both a misrepresentation and a dishonest abuse of power. Where such conduct occurs, it is open to the injured party to make a formal police complaint, although police forces regrettably often fail to act on the misconception that such matters are civil. That position is not legally sustainable. Criminal liability arises where there is evidence of dishonest conduct aimed at securing a gain at another's expense.

Available civil remedies and procedure

Civil remedies remain available in the alternative or in addition. A money claim in the county court may be issued, whether under Part 7 or Part 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules, depending on the quantum and complexity. Where the sum sought is below £10,000, the small claims track will generally be appropriate. Such a claim may include the return of the money paid, any loss suffered as a result, and reasonable costs of pursuing the action. CPR 44.2 governs the court's discretion to award costs, and where misconduct is established, a departure from standard small claims cost rules may be sought under CPR 27.14(2)(g).

Remedy under paragraph 66 of schedule 12

In circumstances where the enforcement agent's act amounts to a breach of the Schedule 12 restrictions or is carried out under a writ or warrant that is defective or misapplied, paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 enables the injured party to bring proceedings against the agent, the creditor, or both. The court may order the return of goods and the payment of damages. Importantly, paragraph 66(5)(b) permits an award of damages for loss suffered as a result of the breach. Although sub-paragraph (8) introduces a defence for enforcement agents who act in reasonable belief of the legality of their conduct, such belief is not objectively sustainable where the agent is knowingly enforcing against a non-debtor.

Voluntariness and duress in legal context

It is immaterial whether the bailiff records that you paid voluntarily. The courts have long held that a payment made under threat of distress is not voluntary in the true sense. In Maskell v Horner [1915] 3 KB 106, the Court of Appeal held that money paid under duress is recoverable unless the payer had a genuine choice. Payment extracted under the threat of unlawful seizure of property falls squarely within this principle. A purported voluntary payment that is in fact the result of an abuse of authority is not binding, nor does it deprive the claimant of a cause of action.

The pre-action letter of claim

In terms of pre-litigation procedure, the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, at paragraph 6, requires a party to send a letter of claim before issuing proceedings. This letter should set out the factual background, the legal basis of the claim, the sum claimed, and a reasonable deadline for response. You should also enclose copies of key documents such as a receipt or a screenshot evidencing the payment made. It is prudent to include your bank details to allow early settlement, and to make clear that court proceedings will be issued in the event of non-payment.

Company debts and third party liability

If the enforcement was under a writ or warrant naming a company, it must be remembered that directors are not personally liable for corporate debts in the absence of fraud or personal guarantees. Paragraph 10 of Schedule 12 must again be emphasised. Goods not owned by the company cannot be taken. Where the bailiff acts contrary to this, any person whose property is interfered with may bring proceedings for recovery and damages.

Chargeback as an expedient remedy

Where the transaction was by card or bank transfer, it may be expedient to raise a chargeback with your bank. Banks typically require the merchant, in this case the enforcement company, to demonstrate that the payment was due from the account holder. If the enforcement company cannot produce evidence linking you to the debt or to the enforcement instrument, the bank is under an obligation to refund the money. This remedy, while informal, is often the swiftest.

Protecting the rights of third parties

The broader public policy concern is that third parties must not be subjected to unlawful demands by those purporting to exercise state-backed enforcement powers. The law provides clear remedies, and where civil liability is established, it is no defence that the enforcement agent acted under pressure or followed internal policy. The protection afforded by statute and the common law must be robustly upheld, and courts will not permit the circumvention of legal safeguards through mere administrative convenience or fabricated assertions of voluntariness.

Immediate action to recover your money

If you have suffered such an injustice, your immediate steps should be to compile the relevant evidence, send a formal letter of claim, and if necessary, issue proceedings without delay. The legal system provides a complete framework to obtain redress, including restitution of the sums taken, compensation for any consequential loss, and the censure of improper conduct by enforcement officers and those directing them.