View source for Bailiffs: Paying During Removal of Possessions

===WILSON v SOUTH KESTEVEN DISTRICT COUNCIL (2000)  ===

(EWCA Civ 218:  July 13th 2000) 

COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM H.H. JULIAN HALL

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: Thursday 13 July 2000

This is another very important Court of Appeal Case, decided by Lord Justice Simon Brown in July 2000, which has been referred to many times in court.

The Wilson case confirms that bailiffs '''do not''' have to accept payment '''during''' removal of goods. This is because they are unable to establish precisely the amount of fees due until the actual removal had been completed.

Lord Justice Simon Brown confirmed that under Regulation 14 of the Non Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Local Lists) the debtor is only able to stop the actual distraint proceedings on two points: the first being '''before''' any goods are seized and the second being '''after''' the goods have been removed, but before they  are actually sold. 

Although this case confirms that the bailiff is not under any obligation to accept payment once he has '''started''' the process of removing the goods, common sense would nearly always dictate that matters would not get this far. For full details of this case, please see the link '''[http://alpha.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/218.html&query=bailiff&method=boolean here]'''