Summary: Mr and Mrs B complain about the conduct of an enforcement agent acting on behalf of the Council. The Ombudsman finds the enforcement agent was at fault in acting in an aggressive and intimidating manner and in forcibly entering Mr and Mrs B’s property and failing to leave when requested to do so. The Ombudsman has recommended a remedy for the injustice suffered by Mr and Mrs B.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs B complain about the conduct of an enforcement agent (bailiff) acting on behalf of the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered all the information provided by Mr and Mrs B, made enquiries of the Council and considered the documents provided. I have also considered the bailiff’s body worn video footage of the incident and interviewed an independent witness.
6. I have written to Mr and Mrs B and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

7. The Civil Enforcement Association (CIVEA) Code of Practice states “enforcement agents must carry out their duties in a professional, calm and dignified manner… will act responsibly and shall do nothing to prejudice the reputation and integrity of their client or employing organisation”.
8. The Code also states, “enforcement agents must act within the law at all times” and “must avoid responding unreasonably to provocation”. It states, “Force should not normally be used to gain entry to premises”.
9. The Ministry of Justice issued guidance in 2014 entitled “Taking Control of Goods: National Standards” which states, “enforcement agents must not act in a threatening manner” and “must carry out their duties in a professional, calm and dignified manner”.

Mr B’s version of events

10. Mr B says that at around 11.30 am on 9 April 2018 his doorbell rang and he went downstairs to answer the communal door. On opening the door, he saw a man (the bailiff) wearing a black uniform with a video recorder on his chest who asked him who he was. Mr B was alarmed. He says the bailiff did not offer him any form of identification or state his name. He was wearing an identification badge which was hidden by the video camera. He says it was only later that the bailiff said he was from Company Y and acting on behalf of the Council. Mr B says he did not know who Company Y was.
11. Mr B asked the bailiff to stop filming, but he refused. Mr B then tried to shut the door, but the bailiff put his foot in the door to prevent it closing. Mr B explained that the bailiff had the wrong flat and asked him to remove his leg at which point the bailiff stepped onto Mr B’s property. He entered through the communal door and began pounding on the downstairs flat door so hard that he broke the glass and cut himself and started bleeding over the door and porch. Mr B’s wife then came downstairs and the bailiff said he was looking for Ms T. Mrs B explained that Ms T, the owner of the downstairs flat, no longer lived there. But the bailiff refused to leave the property.
12. Mr B says that by this time he was very angry and scared and again told the bailiff to leave but he refused. Builders working on the property next door came to see what was happening. Mr B says he and his wife were very upset and repeatedly told the bailiff they were the freeholders of the property and he was trespassing and must leave but he did not do so. Mr B threatened to call the police.
13. Mr B says he and his wife found the whole incident very intimidating and upsetting. They made a complaint to the Council, but it did not uphold the complaint. It stated that, if the debtor is not available, it is normal practice to make enquiries with other people who are present. The Council concluded that “given your disproportionate reaction to a debt that was not yours he made enquiries as to both yours and your wife’s identity in case you were associated with the debtor. Had you not reacted to his presence in the way that you did he would have simply posted a letter to the downstairs flat and left the property”. The Council concluded that, despite severe provocation, the enforcement agent responded in a calm manner and eventually withdrew from the situation.

The bailiff’s version of events

14. Company Y responded to Mr B’s complaint. It apologised that he was disturbed by an enforcement agent pressing the intercom connected to Mr and Mrs B’s home in error. It says that, although an enforcement agent should not place his foot over the threshold of a property, the footage shows the bailiff was crossing an external doorway. As this gave access to a communal area where there are two separate entrances to flats, it did not agree that the bailiff trespassed by doing so. Company Y says that, although an enforcement agent should not place his foot over the threshold to an individual residence, he is entitled to enter through the communal entrance to access the flat required. It says Mr and Mrs B did not disclose the fact that they were the sole freeholders of the property during the bailiff’s visit.
15. Company Y says all its enforcement agents are issued with body worn video cameras and it is company policy that these are switched on throughout enforcement action for the protection of both the agent and any members of the public he may interact with.
16. Company Y says the video footage confirms the bailiff clearly stated his name and the reason for his presence. It says he was entitled to continue recording if he considered it appropriate. The manager responsible for the bailiff had viewed the footage and concluded he was correct to continue recording as the situation may become heated. Company Y says the bailiff remained professional despite what it believed to be “extreme aggression and physical contact” from Mr B. It says there is no evidence to suggest the bailiff sustained an injury through damaging property as alleged by Mr B.

The witness’ version of events

17. I have interviewed Mr C, one of the builders who witnessed the incident. He was carrying out building work at the property next-door on the day of the incident. He said he was working on scaffolding when he heard a lot of shouting which was unusual as it was a quiet residential area. He asked the workmen lower down the scaffolding what was happening, and they told him there was a bailiff threatening the man next door.
18. Mr C moved lower down the scaffolding. He says he saw the bailiff acting aggressively. Mr B kept explaining that the person the bailiff was looking for did not live there anymore. The bailiff was trying to push his way into the door and Mr B kept explaining it was his flat and the bailiff could not enter. The bailiff was then banging aggressively on the door. Mr C intervened telling the bailiff he was being too aggressive. He said “He’s telling you he’s not the guy you’re looking for. Back off”. Mr C then said, “I’m going to come off the scaffolding and remove you myself”. He says that, even when the bailiff began walking off up the road, he was still shouting. Mr C says that, in his opinion, the bailiff’s behaviour was very aggressive and intimidating towards Mr B.

The enforcement officer’s video evidence

19. I have viewed the recording of the incident filmed by the bailiff’s body worn video camera. The quality of the recording is very poor, and it is difficult to hear what is being said.
20. The bailiff rang Mr B’s doorbell. When Mr B opened the door, he said “My name is [Mr X]. Mr B asked him to turn off the camera but he replied, “No, not gonna happen”. Mr B asked, “Who are you?”. The bailiff stated his name and that he is a professional agent working for Company Y.
21. Mr B tried to shut the door but the bailiff put his foot inside. Mr B asked him to remove it but he refused to do so. The bailiff explained he was looking for Ms T. Mr B said at the flat he was looking for was downstairs but the bailiff had rung the upstairs bell. He again attempted to shut the door but the bailiff stepped into the porch and began banging on the door of the downstairs flat. Mr B shouted at the bailiff to get out. Mr C was shouting in the background.
22. Mrs B entered the porch saying, “You are trespassing. We are the freeholders of this property”. She explained Ms T didn’t live there and kept saying, “You’re trespassing”. The bailiff repeatedly banged on the door to the downstairs flat. Mr B put his hand over the video camera to prevent the bailiff filming. The bailiff pushed Mr B’s arm away a couple of times quite forcefully. Eventually the bailiff left the property but remained outside for some time. He eventually drove away and, after a short time, pulled over, took out a wipe and wiped what appears to be blood from the knuckles of his right hand.

Analysis

23. Mr B says the bailiff’s video has been edited and some of it is missing. He says there is no clock running visibly which has allowed Company Y to edit it. Company Y denies tampering with the video footage. Contrary to what Mr B says, the video does have a clock running throughout. It starts at 12:06:58 and ends at 12:19:23. I have seen no evidence to suggest the video has been edited.
24. It is clear from the video that, contrary to Mr B’s recollection, the bailiff did state his name and the fact that he was a professional agent working for Company Y at the outset.
25. Mr B says the bailiff acted in an aggressive and intimidating manner. It is difficult to see exactly what happened from the body worn video footage. The first thing Mr B said on opening the door was “Can you turn that off please?” referring to the body worn camera. The bailiff replied “No, not gonna happen”. Company Y’s policy is that the camera should be turned off at the request of a data subject unless they feel the situation is heightened or likely to escalate. At the time of the request there was nothing to suggest that this was the case as Mr B had only just opened the door. If the bailiff had turned the camera off, it is likely the situation would not have escalated as it did as Mr B objected to the invasion of his privacy. In addition, the bailiff exacerbated the situation by stating “No, not gonna happen” rather than explaining in a reasonable manner why he was going to continue filming. The video also shows the bailiff responded to Mr B’s question as to which bell he pressed in a sarcastic manner.
26. Later, when they were in the porch, Mr B put his hand over the video camera and the bailiff pushed his arm a couple of times quite forcefully causing Mrs B to step back. I accept Mr B was acting quite aggressively himself by this point, but bailiffs must act in a professional and calm manner even if provoked.
27. Mr C’s evidence supports Mr B’s assertion that the bailiff was acting in an aggressive and intimidating manner.
28. It is clear from the video that Mr B told the bailiff to leave the property at the outset. He tried to shut the door but the bailiff put his foot in the door preventing Mr B from closing it. Mr B asked the bailiff to remove his foot but he did not do so and entered the communal porch. Mr B continued to ask him to leave and Mrs B repeatedly pointed out he was trespassing.
29. Bailiffs cannot enter a property by force except in certain circumstances which do not apply here. Entering by force includes pushing past someone in order to enter or putting their foot in the door to stop the occupier closing it. This applies equally to a communal entrance. Bailiffs can enter a communal entrance provided it is not by force. This means someone must let them in. Once inside, they must leave if any resident requests them to do so. If they refuse they are trespassing.
30. I find the bailiff was at fault in forcibly entering the communal porch and failing to leave when requested to do so. Mr B told the bailiff to leave the property at the outset. He therefore had no licence to be on the premises and as such, was a trespasser. Any entry to the building made after this was unlawful. The situation was compounded by the bailiff preventing Mr B, the householder, closing the door. There is extensive case law stating that a bailiff putting their foot in the door is forcible entry. In any event, an occupier is entitled to regulate who enters his or her property and a bailiff has no right to prevent the door being shut if that is the occupier’s choice.
31. It is clear from the video that the bailiff repeatedly banged on the door of the downstairs flat. It is not possible to see whether he broke the glass but the video footage later shows him wiping what appears to be blood from his hand. This, together with the fact that Mr B has provided photographs of his neighbour’s door and the patio with blood splatters and the broken pane of glass tends to support Mr B’s assertion that the bailiff banged so hard on the glass of his neighbour’s door that he broke it and cut himself. On a balance of probabilities, I find this is what happened. The fact that the glass was broken does not cause Mr and Mrs B a significant personal injustice as it was not the door to their property.
32. Having considered all the evidence I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the enforcement officer did act in an aggressive and intimidating manner and forcibly entered the property.
33. I find Mr and Mrs B suffered a significant injustice because of the bailiff’s behaviour. They were clearly very distressed by his visit and the fact that he was filming them. They were particularly upset by him entering their property without their consent, acting in an aggressive manner and refusing to leave when requested.

Agreed action

34. The Council has agreed that, within one month of this decision, it will:
• send a written apology to Mr and Mrs B for the bailiff’s behaviour;
• pay Mr and Mrs B £250 in recognition of the distress and anxiety they suffered; and
• issue a reminder to enforcement agents acting on its behalf that they should not force entry into a property (including pushing past people and putting their foot in the door).
35. When a council commissions another organisation to provide services on its behalf it remains responsible for those services and for the actions of the organisation providing them. So, although I found fault with the actions of the bailiff, I made recommendations to the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

36. I uphold Mr and Mrs B’s complaint.
37. I have completed my investigation on the basis that the Council has agreed to implement the recommended remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman