Challenging Bailiff Fees: Getting a Wrong Charge Assessed

There is a specific court remedy for this. A dispute about the amount recoverable under the fees regulations is determined by the court, and there is a rule of court setting out how to bring the dispute and what evidence to file. This page covers what tends to be wrong, how to get the breakdown that proves it, and how the court application works. For the scale itself and what each stage covers, see bailiff fees.

Get the breakdown first

Almost every successful challenge starts with a written breakdown, because a challenge to a total is an opinion and a challenge to a line is a fact.

Ask the enforcement firm in writing for an itemised statement showing every fee and disbursement charged, the date each stage was reached, the date and time of each attendance, the sum outstanding at each point, and every payment received with the date it was received and how it was allocated. Ask for the date the notice of enforcement was sent and the method used. Ask, if more than one debt is involved, which enforcement powers the instructions relate to and how fees have been apportioned between them.

Put a deadline on it, keep it factual, and keep the reply. Firms answer this kind of request routinely, and the answer is usually where the error becomes visible. If the breakdown does not arrive, that absence is itself something to put in front of the court.

What is commonly wrong

A stage charged that was never reached. The enforcement stage fee is for attending at premises to take control of goods. If the only contact was letters and phone calls, the compliance stage fee is the one that applies. A sale stage fee where nothing was removed, valued or prepared for sale is the same error one step further on.

Multiple stage fees where one was due. Where a firm holds instructions covering several debts against you, the compliance stage fee can be charged for each enforcement power, but the fee for each later stage may be recovered only once however many enforcement powers the instructions relate to. Regulation 11 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 is the provision, and splitting one visit into several enforcement stage fees for several liability orders is a frequent and expensive mistake.

Disbursements that are not on the list. The recoverable disbursements are narrow: the cost of storing goods that have been taken into control and removed, the cost of a locksmith where reasonable force is used to enter and to secure the premises afterwards, and court fees for applications the agent has made where the court approved them. Anything else, an admin charge, a letter fee, a card payment charge, a vehicle or attendance charge dressed up as an expense, is not recoverable as a disbursement. Costs above the normal level need the court's approval as an exceptional disbursement.

VAT added when it should not be. Where the creditor is registered for VAT, the agent may not recover VAT, or a sum equivalent to it, on the fees or disbursements from you. A sum equivalent to VAT can only be recovered where the creditor is not VAT registered. Councils and most large creditors are registered, so VAT appearing on a council tax or business rates account is worth questioning.

Fees charged to a vulnerable debtor without the required opportunity. Where the debtor is a vulnerable person, the enforcement stage fee and the disbursements related to it are not recoverable unless the agent gave the debtor an adequate opportunity to get assistance and advice before removing goods taken into control. See how bailiffs should treat you if vulnerable.

The percentage applied to the wrong figure. The percentage element applies only to the part of the sum to be recovered above the statutory threshold, and it is calculated on the sum to be recovered rather than on a total that already includes fees.

The court route

Raise it with the firm first, in writing, setting out the line you say is wrong and the reason. Many disputes end there, because the error is arithmetical and the firm can see it. If the firm holds its position, raise it with the creditor who instructed them, since the creditor can withdraw the instruction and it is the creditor's money the process is recovering.

If neither resolves it, apply to the court. The rule of court covering this applies where there is a dispute about the amount of fees or disbursements recoverable and a party wants the court to assess the amounts under regulation 16. The application must be accompanied by evidence, and the categories of evidence the rule names are a useful checklist of the arguments the court expects to hear: the amount in dispute, that the fees were not applicable because the debt was settled before the stage was reached, that the multiple enforcement powers provision should have been applied, that the enforcement stage fees are not recoverable because of the vulnerability provision, or, where the dispute is about the percentage fee, evidence of the sum to be recovered.

That list is worth reading as a drafting guide. An application that identifies which of those grounds it relies on, and attaches the breakdown and the correspondence, is doing what the rule asks for.

The wider remedy for a defective instrument

A fees dispute is about arithmetic. Where the problem is bigger than that, where an agent has breached Schedule 12 itself, or has acted under a warrant, liability order or other instrument that was defective, there is a separate remedy. The debtor can bring proceedings and the court may order goods to be returned and may order the enforcement agent or a related party to pay damages for the loss suffered.

The two routes answer different questions and it is worth being clear which one your case is. If the fee scale was misapplied, the assessment route is the right one. If goods were taken under an order that should never have existed, or the procedure itself was breached, the damages route is the one that fits. See how to complain about a bailiff for the non court routes that run alongside both, and get help before you file anything. Initial advice is free.

Two practical points. Paying under protest does not waive the challenge, and it is often the sensible course where enforcement is otherwise going to continue while the dispute runs. And keep the dispute about fees separate from any argument about whether the debt is owed, because combining them tends to slow both down.