Third-party Claims. The 'required payments' into court.

Third-party claimants, previously called "interpleader claimants" must make required payments equal to the value of the goods into court after making a third party claim.^[1][2]

The third-party claimant can apply to the court for a direction that the required payment is a proportion of the value of the claimed goods and give notice to the creditor and the bailiff.^[3]

The court can stay or dismiss the third party claim if the required payments are not made.^[4]

Commentary

Bailiff companies towing a £20,000 car while recovering an unpaid £60 parking ticket abuse this rule by urging the court that third-party claimants must make the required payments into court to the full value of the car.

If the value of the car is disproportionate to the value of the debt being recovered, add a clause in your statement and apply for the required payment to be a proportion of the value of the goods.

If a solicitor for the enforcement company urges the court that the required payments must be the value of the car, then apply to the court to strike out the enforcement company's statement on the grounds it is an abuse of the court's process^[5] and ask for your costs on the indemnity basis.^[6][7][8]

Demanding a third-party claimant to make a disproportionately high payment into court frustrates the progress of the claim because the third-party claimant might not have access to the cash equal to the value of the car.

Always apply to vary the required payments to nil because it otherwise has no function in progressing the third-party claim. It also exposes the enforcement agent and the creditor to extended damages by continuing to deprive the claimant of his goods.^[9][10]

^{[1] Paragraph 60(4) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007
[2] Regulation 49 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013
[3] Civil Procedure Rule 85.5(6)
[4] Civil Procedure Rule 85.5(8)(e)
[5] Civil Procedure Rule 3.4
[6] Civil Procedure Rule 44.3(1)(b)
[7] Civil Procedure Rule 46.5
[8] Practice Direction 46.5 Rule 3.1
[9] Section 3 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977
[10] Paragraph 62 of Alenezy v Shergroup Ltd [2022] EWHC 777 (QB) (01 April 2022)}