Trevor Bone v Simon Williamson

An application disputing fees recoverable under the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 should be brought against the enforcement agent who recovered or claimed the fees, rather than the High Court Enforcement Officer who authorised enforcement. The two are distinct entities. The enforcement agent’s authority to act under a writ does not make the agent the HCEO’s agent in relation to fees personally charged by the agent. A statutory provision imposing potential liability for breaches of the enforcement procedure does not convert an inaccurate fee bill into such a breach. Service of an enforcement notice by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting it is sufficient unless the contrary is proved.

This was an appeal from an order of Master Sullivan dated 10 February 2021. The order required Trevor Bone, a judgment debtor, to pay Simon Williamson’s costs of an application challenging enforcement fees and seeking related relief.

The writ of control was directed to Mr Williamson as HCEO. An enforcement agent employed by Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd attended Mr Bone’s home and claimed fees. Mr Bone issued an application under regulation 16 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014, naming Mr Williamson as defendant and later adding the enforcement agent and his employer.

The appeal concerned whether the HCEO was an appropriate defendant to the fee dispute and whether notice of enforcement had been validly served.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The HCEO and the enforcement agent are distinct entities. The enforcement power vested in the HCEO, but, unless dual-qualified, the HCEO had to authorise an enforcement agent to take control of and sell goods.

2. The Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 repeatedly identify the enforcement agent, rather than the enforcement officer, as the person entitled to recover enforcement-related fees. The definition of enforcement agent refers to an individual authorised under section 63(2) of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, and does not include an HCEO merely by virtue of that office.

3. Regulation 16 provides a self-contained mechanism for disputes concerning amounts recoverable under the Regulations. Read with CPR 84.16, the proper respondent to an application assessing those fees is the enforcement agent, not the HCEO.

4. The fact that the enforcement agent acts under the HCEO’s authority does not make the agent the HCEO’s agent for the purpose of recovering fees. The fees were charged for work personally undertaken by the enforcement agent or his employer, and there was no evidence that the HCEO was entitled to receive any part of them.

5. Schedule 12 paragraph 66 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 concerns liability for breaches of Schedule 12. An inaccurate bill of fees was not itself a breach of Schedule 12 and did not make the HCEO liable for damages on that basis.

6. An enforcement agent may not take control of goods unless notice has been given. Under regulation 8 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 and section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978, posting a properly addressed and prepaid notice gives rise to deemed service unless the contrary is proved. The evidence that the notice had been generated and posted was sufficient. Mr Bone’s denial of receipt did not establish non-service, particularly given his temporary residence elsewhere.

The parties were invited to draw up the appropriate order.

• High Court (King's Bench Division): appeal from Master Sullivan’s order of 10 February 2021. The appeal was dismissed.