The bailiff made an excessive levy.


Bailiffs may not take control of goods of a combined value that is more than the amount outstanding and the enforcement fees and charges.[1]

The amount outstanding is the sum owed by the debtor plus the amounts recoverable from the proceeds of the sale (costs).[2]

Bailiffs may take control of goods of higher value, only when there are not enough goods of a lower value within a reasonable distance on a highway.[3]

It is the practice of bailiffs to clamp cars outside without communicating with the debtor beforehand, to put maximum pressure.

Bailiffs should take all reasonable steps to satisfy themselves that the value of the goods taken into control to cover the sum outstanding is proportional to the value of the debt and fees owed.[4]

Case law provides practical examples of an excessive levy, but no longer required for bringing a claim for an excessive levy.

Taking goods valued £46,300 for a £7400 debt.[5]

Taking goods worth £35 for a £1 debt.[6]

Taking goods worth 175% of the debt.[7]

Taking goods worth £603 and sold for £73 resulted in damages of £350.[8]

Taking an article worth more than 300% of the debt.[9]

Taking goods valued £6 and valued by the debtor £100 was awarded £30 damages.[10]

An excess of 3.5% of the debt is not excessive.[11]


[1] Paragraph 12(1) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007
[2] Paragraph 50(3) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007
[3] Paragraph 12(2) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007
[4] Paragraph 66 of the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards 2014, 6 April 2014
[5] Steel Linings Limited, Mark Harvey v Bibby & Co [1993] EWCA WL 964281
[6] Josephs v London County Stores & Evans [1911] 78 EH 170
[7] Merry v Lovell [1888] The Times November 16 3g QBD
[8] Webb v Pennell [1907] The Times December 5 10a.
[9] Sullivan v Bishop [1826] 2 C&P 359 11
[10] Lowry v Read [1889] The Times March 9 5b & 33 EG 139
[11] Fitzgerald v Longfield [1850] 7 Ir Jur 21