The bailiff operates under the reasonable assumption that the goods belong to the debtor unless presented with contrary evidence. This assumption, however, only limits the bailiff's liability under Paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Importantly, the debtor always has a remedy against the creditor as outlined in the Rule 6 notice.
Moreover, the creditor can recoup their losses from the bailiff through insurance.
(I can't imagine what a judge would make of a claim which was predicated on the claimant ignoring a NoE)
Regarding your concerns, I recognise you may not have a legal background. It’s important to note that a judge cannot make assumptions unless substantiated by fact.
Consequently, “ignoring a Notice of Enforcement” does not constitute a valid defence against a breach of Paragraph 10 of Schedule 12. Such a stance could lead to an appeal, which may complicate matters for a judge who begins to stray from the claim’s scope and relevant legislation.
