Dealing with Bailiffs

Enforcement action after moving address: your legal rights

Where a person has recently moved address and has become the subject of enforcement action under a warrant issued to their previous residence, the legal position is both clear and strongly in their favour. The enforcement of a warrant which does not correctly identify the debtor’s current address is unlawful and attracts significant procedural and substantive consequences. This is not merely an administrative oversight but a defect which vitiates the warrant and renders any subsequent enforcement action invalid.

Statutory framework for notice and defective warrants

The foundation for this position lies in Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Paragraph 7.1 imposes an express obligation upon an enforcement agent to give notice to the debtor before taking control of goods. The purpose of this notice requirement is to afford the debtor an opportunity to remedy the position, either by payment or negotiation, before any physical enforcement occurs. Where that notice is sent to a previous address, it fails in its statutory purpose and is incapable of giving rise to lawful enforcement. Paragraph 66 of the same Schedule is explicit in its provision that any goods or money taken under such a defective instrument may be reclaimed by the debtor. Moreover, subparagraph 66(6)(b) states that the creditor, usually the local authority or transport body in parking matters, bears liability for any loss caused by reliance on a defective warrant.

Civil procedure obligations on the authority

It is important to distinguish between a warrant that is procedurally regular but lawfully executed, and one which is fundamentally defective in its inception. A warrant issued to a former address, where the debtor has notified the appropriate authorities of their change of residence or where the council had means of discovering the current address but failed to act, falls into the latter category. The obligation under Civil Procedure Rule 75.7(7) is placed squarely on the authority to apply for a new warrant where the respondent's address has changed. The failure to do so results in an abuse of process and undermines the integrity of the enforcement regime.

Use of DVLA data and unlawful debtor tracing

The practice by certain enforcement companies of obtaining mobile telephone numbers from the DVLA via details submitted on the V5C vehicle registration document and using these to send vague or ambiguous messages in the hope of prompting a response from the debtor is, at best, a practice of questionable legality. It falls within the broader context of unauthorised debtor tracing, a practice specifically condemned in the Government’s Taking Control of Goods: National Standards 2014. Paragraph 12 of those Standards provides that creditors must not knowingly issue a warrant to an outdated address as a means of tracing the debtor at no cost. Such conduct is antithetical to the principle of fairness which underpins the civil enforcement regime and, in effect, turns the statutory process into a tool for harassment.

Failure to serve proper notice and fees consequences

Further procedural breaches arise where the enforcement agent fails to issue the statutory Notice of Enforcement to the correct address. Regulation 3 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 makes it clear that unless such notice has been properly served, the fees associated with the compliance and enforcement stages cannot lawfully be recovered. Any enforcement activity pursued in such circumstances is not merely irregular but is wholly unlawful. The practical effect of this is that the enforcement agent cannot recover their fees, and any purported taking control of goods is liable to be set aside.

The dangers of filing PE2 and TE7 forms unnecessarily

Some debtors, misled by generic online advice, are encouraged to submit a Form PE2 or TE7 in order to seek out-of-time relief. While well-intentioned, such steps are unnecessary and in many instances strategically unwise. An application under those forms invites the court to regularise the process and may ultimately lead to a new, valid warrant being issued against the correct address. A more effective remedy lies in relying on the statutory and procedural defects to render the existing enforcement void. One may, as a preliminary step, issue a notice to the authority under what is commonly referred to as a Rule 6 letter, inviting them to cease enforcement, cancel the defective warrant, and reset the penalty charge notice to its pre-enforcement stage. This allows the debtor either to discharge the original sum or to raise a substantive challenge without the burden of inflated enforcement fees.

Preserving your address confidentiality

In circumstances where a person has moved but does not wish to disclose their new address, the law offers a further shield. Enforcement agents who trace a debtor to a new location and attempt enforcement without lawful authority act outside the scope of the warrant and in breach of both statutory and ethical guidelines. Any such conduct should be met with an urgent application for an injunction to restrain further enforcement, and a claim in damages may lie where goods are wrongfully interfered with.

Conclusion and recommended course of action

In conclusion, the enforcement of a Warrant of Control at a former address is defective and unlawful. Debtors are well-advised to avoid engaging with the enforcement agent where the warrant is defective. They should instead assert their rights under Paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 to reclaim any money or goods (vehicle) wrongfully taken, invoke the authority’s duty under CPR 75.7(7) to issue a correct warrant if it chooses to proceed, and where necessary, seek injunctive relief to protect their interests. A measured and legally informed response will serve both to resist unlawful enforcement and to hold the authority to its procedural and statutory obligations.