Ambrose v Nottingham City Council [2004]

Sitting: District Judge Morris Cooper at Nottingham Magistrates' Court, October 2004

Mr. and Mrs. Ambrose were subject to a liability order for unpaid council tax. In September 2004, enforcement was carried out by a bailiff from Rossendales Ltd who visited their home to levy distress. The case examined the methods used during that levy and whether they complied with enforcement law and good practice.

Rossendales operated a two-tier system. A “first call bailiff” would make the initial visit, assess the scene, perform a levy, and leave documents including an inventory and walking-possession agreement. The company's internal policy required inclusion of at least seven items in the inventory and a blanket claim over other goods on the premises.

If payments failed, a second-tier “van bailiff” would return to remove the goods. Where possible, Rossendales preferred to agree walking-possession terms to avoid removals.

Mrs. Ambrose agreed to pay £30 per month under a walking-possession agreement but challenged the levy. She argued the goods listed were insufficient to cover the debt and additional charges. She subsequently filed a complaint under Regulation 46 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992.

The following issues were raised:

• Exempt goods and goods belonging to third parties had been included in the inventory.
• The bailiff refused to inspect the full premises despite being invited to do so, citing company policy.
• The notice of distress was so vague that neither the debtor nor subsequent bailiffs could determine what items had been levied.

District Judge Cooper ruled the levy irregular and ordered the goods released to Mrs. Ambrose.