Dealing with Bailiffs

Enforcement Action After 12 Months: Legal Limits and Remedies

It is a well-established principle of enforcement law in England and Wales that the authority of enforcement agents, commonly referred to as bailiffs, is subject to stringent temporal and procedural limits. These constraints are not merely administrative guidelines, but statutory protections intended to ensure fairness and legal certainty in the recovery of civil debts. One of the most significant of these protections is the 12-month enforcement limit imposed under regulation 9(1) of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013. That regulation provides, in clear and unambiguous terms, that an enforcement agent may not take control of goods of the debtor after the expiry of a period of 12 months beginning with the date of the Notice of Enforcement. The limitation is absolute unless one of the prescribed exceptions under paragraphs (2) or (3) of the regulation applies, which generally relate to extended time being granted by the court or a suspension followed by revival of enforcement.

Legal effect of expiry of enforcement power

The legal consequence of this time restriction is that, upon expiry of the 12-month period from the notice date, the enforcement power itself lapses. This is further confirmed by paragraph 6(3)(c) of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, which provides that the property in all goods ceases to be bound when the enforcement power ceases to be exercisable for any other reason. Thus, where the period prescribed in regulation 9 has passed without any lawful enforcement step being taken, the statutory authority to remove goods is extinguished, and the goods revert to being unbound by the enforcement process.

Remedies for unlawful enforcement

If enforcement is attempted after this expiry, it constitutes a breach of Schedule 12. The law expressly contemplates this situation in paragraph 66 of Schedule 12, which confers upon the debtor the right to bring proceedings where an enforcement agent breaches the Schedule or acts under a defective instrument. While such a breach does not amount to trespass per se, it nevertheless opens the door to a civil claim for damages or injunctive relief. A claim for wrongful interference with goods may also lie under section 3 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, particularly where a vehicle is unlawfully clamped or removed after the lapse of the enforcement period. In such circumstances, the debtor may also rely on section 4 of the same Act to seek the return of the vehicle by way of an injunction or order for delivery up.

Entitlement to costs and expenses

In relation to costs, a party wrongfully subject to enforcement action is entitled to seek recovery of legal costs incurred in resisting such action. These applications fall to be considered under the general costs principles in Part 44.3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and where a litigant in person prepares their own evidence or submissions, CPR 46.5 permits recovery of reasonable costs and expenses for the time spent. This underscores the importance of a prompt and well-evidenced response to unlawful enforcement action.

Reviving enforcement after expiry

It is not uncommon for enforcement agents to attempt to revive enforcement action more than a year after the original Notice of Enforcement. However, unless a new Notice of Enforcement has been issued with a fresh 12-month period beginning from that date, and provided that such issuance is permitted by the governing instrument or by the court, such attempts are legally invalid. In practice, such fresh notices are rarely issued, and attempts to proceed under the original authority after the 12-month window are plainly unlawful.

Traffic debts and the expiry of warrants

Further caution must be exercised where the enforcement action arises from a traffic-related debt, such as those originating from a Penalty Charge Notice. In such cases, the enforcement mechanism is a warrant, not a writ, and is governed by Part 75 of the Civil Procedure Rules. CPR 75.7(10) provides that a warrant issued for the enforcement of a traffic debt may not be renewed more than 12 months after the date it was originally issued. This strict temporal limitation means that once the warrant has expired, the enforcement power is dead and cannot be revived. The underlying debt may persist for up to six years under section 9 of the Limitation Act 1980, but the mechanism for enforcing it is lost after the expiration of the warrant.

Available options and protective steps

The debtor is not without remedy in these circumstances. As a first step, they may issue a formal complaint to the enforcement agent and the creditor, citing the expiry of the Notice of Enforcement and the consequent lapse of the enforcement power. If enforcement steps have already been taken, such as clamping or removal, an application may be made to the County Court for an injunction or order for the return of the goods. In some cases, where the goods belong to a third party and are wrongfully taken, a statutory declaration may be submitted, asserting third-party ownership and removing the property from the scope of the enforcement. Such declarations serve as both an evidential and procedural bar to further enforcement at that address, provided they are duly sworn and served on the appropriate parties.

Obtaining key dates and ensuring compliance

In all cases, the starting point for the debtor is to obtain disclosure of the date of the Notice of Enforcement and, where applicable, the date of issue of the writ or warrant. This information should be obtained from both the creditor and the enforcement agent, though it is regrettably true that some agents are less than forthcoming or may provide misleading information. Documentation and correspondence should therefore be preserved, and legal advice should be sought promptly.