Dealing with Bailiffs

What to do if bailiffs leave documents at your old address

Where an individual has moved residence and a bailiff has left documentation at their former address, caution must be exercised before taking any step that may expose their current location. It is not uncommon for enforcement agents to leave a red-lettered document containing a contact number in the hope that the debtor, or someone associated with them, will respond. The true purpose of such a tactic is often not to resolve the underlying debt but to identify the debtor’s new residential address. Contacting the bailiff or responding to the letter may trigger undue pressure, including demands for your updated address or prompts to complete statutory forms such as TE9 or PE2, which are routed through the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC). These forms are often suggested under the guise of resolving procedural irregularities or appealing the enforcement, yet their completion may inadvertently disclose your current address, thereby furnishing the means for fresh enforcement action.

Risks of providing your updated address

Upon receipt of updated address details, the TEC is empowered to issue a new warrant of control pursuant to the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2022, which would reflect the debtor’s present address. This administrative act has the legal effect of reactivating the enforcement power, thereby placing the debtor at risk of enforcement without the protective buffer of a statutory notice. Indeed, paragraph 7.1 of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 mandates that a Notice of Enforcement must be issued and served on the debtor not less than seven clear days before the taking of control of goods, save for certain exceptions which are narrowly construed. Where enforcement is initiated without such notice following reissue of a warrant solely due to a disclosed address, there may be grounds for injunctive or declaratory relief, and potentially damages for unlawful enforcement.

Defective warrants and your legal position

Moreover, there exists a sound legal argument that a warrant directed to a previous address is inherently defective. The requirement for accurate and up-to-date information on a warrant stems from the principle that enforcement must be effected in accordance with proper legal authority. A defective warrant cannot lawfully ground the seizure of goods, and to the extent that enforcement agents rely on such a warrant, they act outside the bounds of lawful authority. Notwithstanding official advice to the contrary, there is no duty on a debtor to rectify a defective enforcement instrument by supplying the enforcement system with corrected information that would expose them to further risk.

Limitation on traffic debt enforcement

It is also worth observing that traffic debts, particularly those registered following penalty charge notices, may become unenforceable after a period of twelve months from the date of the warrant if enforcement is not carried out. Thus, silence and inaction, in some instances, may serve as a form of passive defence. However, the debtor must remain vigilant to ensure that no enforcement action has been validly commenced within that time.

ANPR threats and improper enforcement

Bailiffs often claim authority to locate and track vehicles using automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) technology. While such tactics may cause understandable anxiety, the use of ANPR in this context does not bypass the statutory requirement for notice nor render lawful an enforcement based on a defective warrant. Furthermore, any enforcement agent who seeks to take control of goods at an address that is neither the debtor’s current residence nor their place of business must first obtain express authority to do so. This requirement is set out clearly in paragraph 15 of Schedule 12. Paragraph 14(6) similarly confines the bailiff’s power to places where the debtor lives or carries on a trade or business, ensuring that enforcement agents do not intrude on unrelated third parties.

Legal protection for third-party occupants

Where bailiffs persist in attending the debtor’s former address, causing harassment to new occupants, the individuals affected may avail themselves of remedies under section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. They may seek an injunction from the county court to restrain the bailiff from continued attendance, and in more serious cases may be entitled to damages. The court has the power to act swiftly where repeated visits cause distress or breach the peace, even if those visits are rooted in an error of record or assumption on the part of the enforcement company.

Conclusion and recommended course of action

In conclusion, where a bailiff appears at a former address and the debtor becomes aware through a third party, the safest course is ordinarily to take no immediate action. Any premature engagement may expose the debtor to renewed enforcement through administrative mechanisms which do not adequately safeguard their procedural rights. Where enforcement is attempted without a valid Notice of Enforcement or on the basis of a warrant that references the wrong address, the debtor retains the right to challenge the process. This may include applications to stay enforcement, judicial review in suitable cases, or damages for wrongful interference with goods or breach of statutory duty. Careful navigation of these issues is essential, and legal advice should be sought promptly if there is any doubt as to the legitimacy of enforcement activity or the best course of response.