In August 2025, the Enforcement Conduct Board, the body that oversees the bailiff industry in England and Wales, confirmed something thousands of people had been paying for without knowing it.
Marston Holdings, the largest enforcement firm in the country, had been overcharging people who owed more than one road traffic penalty. Not by a few pounds. In many cases by hundreds of pounds per person.
The regulator called the breaches unacceptable. Marston acknowledged the problem, which it says it identified in spring 2025, and agreed a supervised action plan. It is now reviewing seven years of past cases and sending affected people letters with refund cheques plus 8% interest, under a scheme expected to run for around three years.
The fees were not invented. They were real, lawful fee amounts, applied in an unlawful pattern. That is exactly why most people never spotted it.
What actually happened
Bailiff fees in England and Wales are not set by the bailiff. They are fixed by the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. For most debts, including council parking penalties that have gone to a warrant, the fees attach to defined stages: a compliance stage fee when your case first lands on the firm's desk, an enforcement stage fee of £235 if an agent visits, and a sale stage fee if goods are ever removed and sold.
Here is the rule that matters. If the same firm is chasing you for more than one debt at the same time, and those debts can reasonably be dealt with together, it is not allowed to stack a separate £235 visit fee onto every single debt. One visit, one enforcement stage fee.
Marston's systems failed to link cases the way the law requires. People with, say, three unpaid penalty charge notices were charged three separate enforcement stage fees when the cases should have been handled together on one visit.
The rule they broke, in plain English
The legal foundation is Regulation 11 of the 2014 Fees Regulations. Where an enforcement agent is instructed on more than one debt against the same person, and those debts can reasonably be enforced at the same time, the agent must minimise the fees and disbursements charged.
The regulator's own standards spell out what that means in practice: firms must have a system that links multiple debts owed by the same person, so that after the compliance fee, only one set of fees is charged where the work can reasonably be done at the same time.
The compliance fee is the exception. That can be charged on each debt, because each case genuinely involves separate paperwork. The enforcement stage fee is the one that must not be stacked.
What bailiffs are allowed to charge
| Stage | Before 1 May 2026 | From 1 May 2026 | The linking rule |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compliance stage (case lands on the bailiff's desk, notice sent) | £75 | £79 | Can lawfully be charged on each debt |
| Enforcement stage (a bailiff visits) | £235 | £247 | One fee only where cases can reasonably be dealt with together |
| Sale or disposal stage (goods removed and sold) | £110 | £116 | Only if that stage is actually reached |
Fees for non-High Court enforcement under the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014, as uprated by the Taking Control of Goods (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026 for instructions from 1 May 2026. A percentage fee also applies to debts above £1,500 (£1,900 from 1 May 2026).
A worked example
Say you had three penalty charge notices from the same council, all passed to the same bailiff firm in the same month, and the firm made one visit to your home.
- What the law allows: three compliance fees (£75 each at the time) plus one enforcement stage fee of £235. Total fees: £460.
- What overcharged people were billed: three compliance fees plus three enforcement stage fees. Total fees: £930.
Three parking debts. One visit to your home.
That is £470 charged for work that was never done three times. Multiply it across thousands of people and you can see why the regulator stepped in.
Is it just Marston?
After the Marston findings, the Enforcement Conduct Board reviewed how other firms apply the fee rules. Its findings, published in 2026, did not find evidence of widespread or systemic overcharging at the other firms it visited. But it did find inconsistencies in how firms decide when cases should be linked, with some people paying more in fees, or paying earlier, than they should. The regulator has said new standards are needed to remove the ambiguity and that it will consult on them during 2026.
The honest position is this. Marston is the confirmed case, with an admission and a refund scheme. At other firms, the rules are the same but the practice varies. That is exactly why the question is worth asking about your own account, whichever firm collected from you.
The courts back people too
The Marston matter is regulatory action, not a court judgment. But recent case law shows the enforcement rules have teeth. In Burton v Ministry of Justice [2024] EWCA Civ 681, a bailiff acting on a court fine clamped Mr Burton's vehicle even though it was on hire purchase, which the rules do not allow. The Court of Appeal confirmed that the creditor who instructed the bailiff can be ordered to pay damages for the bailiff's breach of the statutory procedure, and Mr Burton was awarded £905 plus interest.
The people who instruct bailiffs cannot simply point the finger at the agent on the doorstep. The liability travels upwards.
Think your bailiff fees look wrong?
The Bailiff Fee Review and Refund Request demands an itemised fee statement, asks the linking questions the regulator says firms must answer, and requests a refund with 8% interest where fees were stacked.
How to check if you are owed money
You may be affected if all of these apply:
- You owed more than one parking penalty, traffic penalty or similar debt.
- The same bailiff firm was collecting them at around the same time.
- Your payments or statements show more than one enforcement stage fee of £235.
Dig out any letters, receipts or bank statements from the period. If you paid Marston, check whether you are already covered by its refund scheme before doing anything else: the firm says affected people have been written to directly, so read any post from Marston carefully before assuming it is junk.
If the numbers look wrong, whichever firm charged them, the fees can be formally challenged. Disputed enforcement fees can ultimately be assessed by a court under the 2014 Regulations, and Regulation 11 is on your side. But how the challenge is framed matters: which fees you dispute, which questions you make the firm answer on the record, and in what order, is the difference between a refund and a brush-off. A letter that names Regulation 11 and the regulator's findings is treated very differently from a general complaint.
The rules got stronger in May 2026
If bailiffs contact you now, two changes work in your favour. From 1 May 2026, bailiffs must give you 14 clear days' notice before visiting, up from 7, and 28 days where a debt adviser requests it on your behalf. More time to act, and more time to get the fees checked before they escalate. The fee amounts also rose for new instructions, so newer paperwork will show £79 and £247 rather than £75 and £235.
The letter for this
Bailiff Fee Review and Refund Request
Written for this specific ground, with the law cited and the evidence demands built in. Complete the placeholders and send it.
Included free with the letter
- Bailiff Fees and What They Can Actually Charge
Frequently asked questions
How do I know if Marston overcharged me?
Marston says it has written to affected people directly, enclosing refund cheques with 8% interest, and it runs a dedicated refund scheme with a call centre behind it. The company is reviewing seven years of past cases and the scheme is expected to run for around three years. If you paid Marston on more than one road traffic debt at around the same time, check any post from them carefully before assuming it is marketing, and dig out your old statements. If your paperwork shows more than one enforcement stage fee, the fees deserve scrutiny.
What exactly is the enforcement stage fee?
Bailiff fees in England and Wales are fixed by the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. The enforcement stage fee is the large fixed fee that becomes chargeable when an enforcement agent attends your address. It was £235 for cases instructed before 1 May 2026 and is £247 for cases instructed on or after that date. It is the fee at the centre of the overcharging issue, because where one firm holds several of your debts that can reasonably be dealt with together, the law requires fees to be minimised rather than stacked case by case.
Can they still charge the smaller compliance fee on every debt?
Yes. The compliance stage fee (£75 before 1 May 2026, £79 after) attaches to each case, because each case genuinely involves separate paperwork and a separate notice. The regulator's standards reflect this: firms must link multiple debts owed by the same person so that, after the compliance fee, only one set of fees is charged where the enforcement activity can reasonably be carried out at the same time. So several compliance fees on your statement is normal. Several enforcement stage fees from the same firm in the same period is the pattern that needs checking.
Does this only apply to parking and traffic debts?
The confirmed overcharging and refund scheme concerned road traffic debts, such as unpaid penalty charge notices enforced under warrant. But Regulation 11 itself is not limited to traffic debts. It applies wherever an enforcement agent holds more than one enforcement power against the same person that can reasonably be exercised at the same time. The same fee scale and the same linking principle apply to other debt types enforced under the 2014 Regulations, including council tax.
Is this a court case I can cite?
No. The Marston matter is a regulatory intervention by the Enforcement Conduct Board with an agreed refund scheme, not a reported court judgment, and it is important not to describe it as case law. There is, however, recent case law confirming that the enforcement rules have teeth: in Burton v Ministry of Justice [2024] EWCA Civ 681 the Court of Appeal confirmed that the creditor who instructed the bailiff can be ordered to pay damages for the bailiff's breach of the statutory procedure. The two together, the regulation and the case law, are what a properly drafted fee challenge is built on.
What changed on 1 May 2026?
The Taking Control of Goods (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026 made two changes that matter. First, the fee scale rose by around 5% for new instructions: compliance £75 to £79, enforcement £235 to £247, sale £110 to £116, and the debt threshold above which a percentage fee applies rose from £1,500 to £1,900. Second, the minimum notice a bailiff must give before visiting rose from 7 clear days to 14, or 28 days where a debt adviser requests it on your behalf. Older cases keep the old figures, which is why refund checks still work off the £235 fee.
Make them show their working.
The Bailiff Fee Review and Refund Request demands an itemised fee statement for every account, puts the linking questions on the record, and requests a refund with 8% interest where fees were stacked. Drafted for Marston and every other enforcement firm in England and Wales.
This article is general information, not legal advice. It concerns enforcement in England and Wales. Fee figures and findings are stated as at 14 July 2026.