Summary: Mr B complains about the conduct of an enforcement agent acting on behalf of Transport for London. The Ombudsman finds the enforcement agent was at fault in preventing Mr B’s son closing the door and in misrepresenting his powers. The Ombudsman has recommended a remedy for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains on behalf of himself and his family about the conduct of an enforcement agent acting on behalf of Transport for London.

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. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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)
4. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of an organisation, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered all the information provided by Mr B, made enquiries of the Council and considered the documents provided. I have also considered the bailiff’s body worn video footage of the visit.
6. I have written to Mr B and TfL with my draft decision and given them an opportunity to comment.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

7. The main legislation concerning enforcement agents (bailiffs) is Chapter 1 of Part 3 of the Tribunal Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and Schedule 12 of the Act (‘the schedule’).
8. Under the schedule enforcement agents have power to enter and re-enter any premises if they reasonably believe the debtor usually lives there or carries on a business there. The agent may also search for and take control of goods on the premises belonging to the debtor.
9. Entry to the premises should be by the normal means of entry and should be peaceable.
10. 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”.
11. The Code also states, “enforcement agents must act within the law at all times” and “Force should not normally be used to gain entry to premises”.
12. 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”.
13. Schedule 13 of TfL’s enforcement agent policy states “the service provider’s personnel shall not enter a customer’s premises when visiting without the customer’s permission or use force to enter a customer’s premises. This shall include but not be limited to:
1. entering through window; and
2. entering through unlocked doors.

What happened

14. Mrs B had recently inherited her late mother’s house. Her son, Mr C, was living in the house temporarily acting as caretaker.
15. At 4.45 pm on 27 October 2018 an enforcement agent (‘the bailiff’) from Company X visited the property asking for Mr D who is Mr C’s cousin. Mr C says that, having received several visits from enforcement agents looking for Mr D, he provided his passport as proof of his identity and explained Mr D did not live at the property but had stayed with his late grandmother several years previously for a few months. Mr C explained he did not own the property but was acting as caretaker on behalf of his parents since the death of his late grandmother. Mr C telephoned Mr D on loudspeaker but Mr D did not answer the call.
16. Mr C says the bailiff told him there were debts of over £2400 against five penalty charge notices issued by TfL against vehicles owned by Mr D and that he had powers to remove items to this value. Mr C showed the bailiff a pile of letters addressed to Mr D which were unopened. He says that, whilst looking through the letters, the bailiff stepped inside the door. Mr C told the bailiff he was “happy for him to take a look around as long as he knew he wasn’t to take anything”. He says the bailiff repeated that it was within his powers to remove goods and that he would do so. Mr C says he knew this to be incorrect, so he asked the bailiff to step outside and allow him to change his clothes as he was only wearing a dressing gown. The bailiff refused to move. Mr C told the bailiff he believed he was not on the premises legally.
17. Mr C asked to see documentation which proved Mr D was connected to the address. The bailiff showed him an electronic copy of the warrant. Mr C says the warrant was not addressed to the property so he asked the bailiff to confirm the details and step outside the property. Mr C also asked the bailiff to telephone the police. He did so and the police confirmed they would attend. Mr C says he asked the bailiff to step outside to await their arrival but the bailiff held the door open and refused to move.
18. Mr C telephoned his father as the bailiff kept stating he would be removing items from the property if Mr C could not prove he owned them. Mr C was very concerned as his belongings were in the property including his work equipment. Mr B spoke to the bailiff on the telephone asking him to provide identification and step outside the property. The bailiff refused to do so and said his ID badge was sufficient identification.
19. At 5.50pm Mr B arrived and told the bailiff to “get out”. The bailiff stated that Mr B assaulted him. Mr C says the bailiff stepped back from the property and tripped on the doorstep bumping into Mr B.
20. Mr C went inside to change his clothes while Mr B spoke to the bailiff. The police arrived a few minutes later. Mr D then telephoned Mr C in response to his earlier call. Mr C passed the telephone to the bailiff and the police who spoke to Mr D. He confirmed he did not live at the address and said he had an agreement in place with TfL. Mr C says that, despite this, the bailiff told the police he had a warrant to enter the property and was still going to use it. Mr B challenged this. Mr C says that during this exchange, several neighbours who have been family friends for years came to enquire whether everything was all right. He says this was embarrassing.
21. The bailiff told the police he wanted to report an assault by Mr B. The police officer told Mr B he would have to attend an interview under caution. The bailiff finally left the property at 7.10 pm.
22. Mr C later attended the police station with Mr D who stated he had given his address to Company X but they had not visited him.
23. Mr B later complained to TfL about the conduct of the bailiff.

Analysis

24. Mr B says the bailiff failed to provide a warrant showing the address of the property, misrepresented his powers by stating he had authority to remove goods and acted aggressively by forcing his way into the corridor and blocking the entrance to the property. He also alleges the bailiff acted in a racist manner. Mr B says the bailiff’s behaviour caused distress, inconvenience and embarrassment to his wife, himself and his son and put himself and his son to time and trouble.
25. TfL says a warrant of execution empowers a certificated enforcement agent to attend and enter a debtor’s place of residence. If payment is not made, they are also permitted to seize goods they have grounds to believe belong to the debtor in order to secure payment. It says the bailiff held a warrant permitting him to attend the address.

Entry into the property

26. Mr C says he initially told the bailiff he could enter the property and look around but could not remove any items. This is supported by the video evidence. However, it is clear from the video that he later revoked this permission by asking the bailiff to leave the property. He repeatedly asked him to move his foot from the door and to step back but the bailiff refused to do so.
27. Mr C said, “Can you step outside now?” The bailiff replied “No. I’m coming inside. I don’t want to push you because that would be rude”. He then went on to say, “Right now I’m walking inside the house and I’m going to remove stuff”. Mr C replied “Where you’re standing now is illegal. Can you stand back outside of the property?” He also stated that the bailiff was trespassing.
28. Mr C later asked the bailiff to remove his foot as the police were now on their way and he wanted to change his clothes but the bailiff refused. Mr C said, “I have not given you permission to stand where you are standing” and the bailiff replied, “You don’t have to”.
29. When Mr B arrived at the property he told the bailiff “You are trespassing so I am asking you to vacate the premises”. The bailiff replied, “No”.
30. 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 a foot in the door to stop the occupier closing it.
31. I find the bailiff was at fault in refusing to remove his foot from the door when requested to do so, preventing Mr C closing it. Mr C accepts he initially told the bailiff he could enter the property and look around but when he asked the bailiff to leave the property he revoked his licence to be on the premises. From this point on the bailiff was a trespasser. 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.

Misrepresentation

32. Mr B says the bailiff misrepresented his powers by saying he could remove goods from the premises.
33. TfL accepts the bailiff could have more clearly explained the reason for his visit and the procedure for taking control of goods.
34. In addition, the bailiff told Mr C “We have powers of entry. I can force entry. I can push you out of the way”. This is also a misrepresentation of his powers. A bailiff may only use reasonable force (with the approval of a court) to enter premises if the debt he is collecting is a Magistrates court or High Court debt, neither of which is the case here.

Warrant

35. Mr B says the bailiff failed to produce a warrant showing the address of his wife’s property.
36. The bailiff showed Mr C an electronic copy of the warrant which showed another address for Mr D. TfL has explained that Company X was acting on its behalf to recover outstanding penalty charges incurred by Mr D. The warrant showed the address to which the penalty charge notices were issued. Following unsuccessful attempts to contact Mr D at that address, Company X made enquiries which caused them to believe Mr D was living at Mrs B’s property.
37. In these circumstances, the enforcement company must apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court for the warrant address to be changed before it can be executed. The warrant can then be reissued and pursued in the normal way.
38. Company X made an application to the TEC. On 9 October 2018, the court authorised TfL to enforce the warrant at Mrs B’s address.
39. In accordance with the regulations, once the TEC has recorded the change of address and re-sealed the warrant, a notice of enforcement must be sent to the new address before enforcement action can continue. The warrant will, however, still show the original address.
40. Company X sent a notice of enforcement to Mr D at Mrs B’s address on 10 October 2018 but received no response. It was then able to execute the warrant at this address so the bailiff visited the property.
41. I am satisfied TfL followed the correct procedure. There are no grounds to criticise the fact that the warrant did not include Mrs B’s address.

Racist actions

42. Mr B says the bailiff acted in a racist manner because he stated that the property was “a big house for one person”. In my view, this is not a racist comment. My understanding is that the bailiff was suggesting that, due to the size of the property, it was likely there was more than one person living there implying that Mr D was living in the property despite Mr C’s assertions to the contrary.

Data breach

43. Mr B says the bailiff was at fault in disclosing confidential information about Mr D’s debts to Mr C.
44. This did not cause an injustice to Mr C or Mr B so I do not intend to pursue this issue further.

Injustice

45. I find Mr C and Mr B suffered a significant injustice because of the bailiff’s behaviour. They were caused distress and anxiety and were put to considerable time and trouble in disputing the matter with the bailiff. The bailiff’s refusal to move his foot from the door meant Mr C had to stand on the doorstep for two hours until his father arrived allowing him to go into the house and get changed. Mr B was put to time and trouble in having to travel to the property to help his son resolve the matter.
46. I have seen no evidence to suggest the bailiff’s conduct caused Mr B and Mr C embarrassment as the video evidence does not support Mr C’s argument that neighbours came to enquire whether everything was all right. In any event, the bailiff was entitled to attend the property.
47. I do not consider Mrs B suffered any injustice as a result of the bailiff’s actions as she was not present.

Agreed action

48. Within one month of this decision, TfL will:
• send a written apology to Mr B and Mr C for the bailiff’s behaviour;
• pay Mr C £150 in recognition of the distress and anxiety he suffered and the time and trouble he was put to;
• pay Mr B £100 in recognition of the time and trouble he was put to; 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).
49. When an organisation 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 TfL.

Back to top

Final decision

50. I find the bailiff acting on behalf of TfL was at fault in failing to remove his foot from the door when requested to do so and misrepresented his powers causing injustice to Mr B and Mr C.
51. I have completed my investigation on the basis that TfL agrees to implement the recommended remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman