Bailiff company directors are personally liable for failed enforcement.

Post Reply
User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13499
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: SW1
Contact:

#1 Bailiff company directors are personally liable for failed enforcement.

Post by Schedule 12 » 28 Jun 2017 16:07

Earlier today at the High Court, a bailiff company solicitor tried to get their bailiff company client off the hook for a claim brought under paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 because the company is not a “related party” under Schedule 12.

The solicitor argued that paragraph 66(6) of Schedule 12 only applies to “persons” having the enforcement power conferred to them as well as the creditor and enforcement agents.

It states:

  • (6)A related party is either of the following (if different from the enforcement agent)—

    (a)the person on whom the enforcement power is conferred,

    (b)the creditor.

Failed.

The court agreed the creditor conferred the power to the directors (or ‘officers’) of the bailiff company who then conferred the enforcement power to an enforcement agent, making the director a “related party” under paragraph 66(6).

The case involved an HCEO and their regulations do not require HCEO’s - whom we already know are personally liable for their agents - to have indemnity insurance to protect themselves from liability from failed or non-compliant enforcement.

It means any directors of a bailiff company having the enforcement power conferred to it, are now personally liable, and litigation should be addressed to them.
I am a paralegal for solicitors bringing action against non-compliant enforcement.

Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Phone consultation with me

Enforcement compliance Checklist

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#2 Re: Bailiff company directors are personally liable for failed enforcement.

Post by Pote Snitkin » 28 Jun 2017 17:17

How many guesses do we get about which solicitor this was?
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/h ... 50540e5a3d - False alarm, it wasn't him. Maybe next time.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13499
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: SW1
Contact:

#3 Re: Bailiff company directors are personally liable for failed enforcement.

Post by Schedule 12 » 28 Jun 2017 18:33

It wasn't PF.
I am a paralegal for solicitors bringing action against non-compliant enforcement.

Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Phone consultation with me

Enforcement compliance Checklist

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#4 Re: Bailiff company directors are personally liable for failed enforcement.

Post by Pote Snitkin » 28 Jun 2017 21:19

It seems that certain quarters are already rubbishing this ruling.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/h ... 50540e5a3d - False alarm, it wasn't him. Maybe next time.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13499
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: SW1
Contact:

#5 Re: Bailiff company directors are personally liable for failed enforcement.

Post by Schedule 12 » 28 Jun 2017 21:25

Let them be victims of their own stupidity.
I am a paralegal for solicitors bringing action against non-compliant enforcement.

Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Phone consultation with me

Enforcement compliance Checklist

Post Reply