Dealing with Bailiffs

Mandatory recording and retention of enforcement agent body-worn camera footage

A statutory requirement should be introduced mandating enforcement agents to continuously record audiovisual footage during all attendances under Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, from the moment they exit their vehicle until enforcement concludes. This would promote transparency, deter misconduct, and ensure evidential clarity. A minimum retention period of twelve months aligns with the Limitation Act 1980 and supports early disclosure under CPR 31.16 and data access rights under the Data Protection Act 2018. Longer retention should apply where complaints, litigation or vulnerability are identified. Drawing from sections 49 and 53 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, enforcement firms should be legally compelled to disclose footage in an intelligible format and face sanctions for its deliberate concealment or deletion. Courts should be empowered to draw adverse inferences or stay proceedings where footage is missing. This reform reflects public expectations of lawful, accountable conduct and would help restore trust in civil enforcement. Parliament is urged to amend the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 and Schedule 12 accordingly.

Proof of service: evidencing delivery of the notice of enforcement

The delivery of a Notice of Enforcement under paragraph 7 of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and Regulation 7 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 lacks a verifiable evidential framework, often relying on vague, unverified internal records that fall short of the standards required in civil litigation. This deficiency creates real prejudice, as debtors frequently receive unsigned screen printouts lacking postal proof, tracking data, or any certified method of service. As service of notice is a legal prerequisite for lawful enforcement, and following the reasoning of the Court of Appeal in Forcelux Ltd v Binnie [2009] EWCA Civ 854, failure to establish valid notice risks rendering enforcement action void. It is proposed that Form N215, prescribed by the Civil Procedure Rules, be adopted as the mandatory certificate of service, thereby ensuring transparency, evidential consistency, and procedural fairness. This would better align enforcement practice with the Human Rights Act 1998 and Equality Act 2010, and reinforce public confidence in the rule of law.

Agent identification: Strengthening accountability and debtor protection

The absence of a statutory requirement for enforcement agents to disclose their full legal names on documents issued under Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 and 2014 undermines the principle of legal certainty, weakens accountability, and obstructs debtor access to justice. In practice, agents often sign notices using aliases or partial names, rendering verification against the Ministry of Justice’s public register under section 64 of the 2007 Act impossible. This creates evidential disadvantage where misconduct is alleged and erodes the enforceability of debtor protections. Full legal identification is essential to confirm the agent’s authority to exercise coercive powers. It is proposed that the regulations be amended to require agents to include their full legal name and certification number on all prescribed enforcement documents, including those under paragraphs 6 to 8 of Schedule 12. A failure to do so should amount to procedural non-compliance, subject to CPR 84.13, and be treated as potentially invalidating the enforcement unless the court finds no prejudice has occurred.

Preventing misreporting of controlled goods auction proceeds

The absence of a statutory requirement for enforcement agents to provide a detailed, verifiable post-sale account under Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and Regulation 39 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 exposes debtors to significant financial and procedural injustice. Numerous cases have emerged in which debtors, upon contacting the new registered keepers of their vehicles or obtaining auction invoices directly, have discovered that the sale price realised was materially higher than the figure reported by the enforcement company. This underreporting, often accompanied by vague or incomplete statements lacking itemisation, registration details, or a breakdown of deductions, raises serious concerns regarding transparency and accountability. The practice risks breaching Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights and the Equality Act 2010, including sections 20, 29 and 149. It is proposed that Regulation 39 be amended to require a full and timely statement of account disclosing each item sold, its sale price, date and method of sale, all deductions and the allocation of proceeds. Debtors should also be notified of their right to request documentary evidence and to apply under CPR 84.13 or CPR 31.17 with the DVLA where appropriate. This reform would provide necessary judicial oversight, deter misconduct, and reinforce public trust in the integrity of civil enforcement.

Removing the £1,350 cap on exempt goods

Regulation 4(1)(a) of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 imposes an aggregate value cap of £1,350 on exempt goods, undermining the protective purpose of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, which is to safeguard items essential to a debtor’s livelihood or domestic needs. This cap, particularly when paired with Regulation 35(2), which permits enforcement agents to assign valuations without oversight, allows goods clearly intended by Parliament to be exempt to be treated as seizable based on arbitrary financial thresholds rather than their functional necessity. This approach disproportionately affects debtors who rely on tools, technology or equipment for work, education, or disability-related needs, and is inconsistent with the Equality Act 2010, including sections 20, 29 and 149, as interpreted in Bracking v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2013] EWCA Civ 1345 (06 November 2013). It is submitted that the £1,350 cap be removed to ensure exemptions are based on necessity alone, thereby reinforcing fairness, legal certainty, and the statutory purpose of protecting vulnerable individuals from disproportionate enforcement.

Extending time for third-party claims on controlled and exempt goods

CPR 85.4(1) and 85.8(1) imposes a strict seven-day limit for third-party claims over controlled or exempt goods, require amendment to extend that period to thirty days, ensuring access to justice is meaningful and not defeated by procedural default. The current window fails to account for the practical challenges faced by claimants unfamiliar with legal processes or lacking timely legal representation, often resulting in the loss of legitimate claims due to delay rather than merit. Enforcement solicitors have exploited this by seeking costs or conversion orders once the period lapses, despite prior inconsistent conduct. Vulnerable individuals face particular disadvantage, and the framework fails to meet obligations under sections 20, 29 and 149 of the Equality Act 2010. Extending the deadline would align with procedural fairness, reduce litigation over relief from sanctions, and permit proper scrutiny of ownership claims. It is further proposed that agents issue written notification of the thirty-day limit and face sanction where they mislead or obstruct third parties. Reform is necessary to preserve confidence and fairness in civil enforcement.

Mandatory Presentation of Enforcement Certificates

Paragraph 26 of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 should be amended to impose a statutory duty on enforcement agents to carry and, upon request, produce their valid enforcement certificate issued under section 63 of the same Act, as the sole official identification during enforcement activity. Currently, there is no statutory obligation to present this certificate at the point of contact, which has led to widespread use of unofficial warrant cards and police-style badges that risk misleading the public, particularly vulnerable individuals or those with limited understanding of the enforcement process. The use of such materials may engage section 90 of the Police Act 1996, which criminalises impersonation of a constable. Mandating production of the court-issued certificate, which includes judicial authentication and agent details, would eliminate ambiguity and enhance trust. Non-compliance should render enforcement procedurally defective under CPR 84.13. Additionally, the Ministry of Justice should publish a sample certificate to assist public recognition. This reform would ensure legality, deter misrepresentation, and reinforce the integrity of civil enforcement without imposing undue burden on agents.

Prohibiting Harmful Adhesives for Vehicle Immobilisation Notices

Regulation 31 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 be amended to prohibit the use of non-removable adhesives when affixing immobilisation notices to vehicles under paragraph 13(1) of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, as such practices obstruct visibility, create safety risks, and frequently cause damage requiring professional removal. The placement of such notices on windscreens or driver-side windows often renders the vehicle unsafe to drive and results in residue or scratching, with typical removal costs averaging £75. This conduct may breach paragraph 35 of Schedule 12, which imposes a duty of reasonable care on enforcement agents, and may entitle the affected party to seek redress under CPR 84.13 or raise complaints with the proposed Independent Examiner of Enforcement Conduct. There is no regulatory necessity for such damaging methods, and some firms already use alternatives that avoid harm. An amended Regulation 31 should require that notices be removable without tools or chemicals and must not compromise the vehicle’s integrity or safe operation. This reform would align with the Equality Act 2010, including the duties under sections 20, 29 and 149, ensuring proportionate enforcement, especially for vulnerable individuals.

Clarifying the Relationship Between CPR 85 and TIGA 1977

The interaction between CPR 85 and sections 3 and 4 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 (TIGA 1977) has produced significant legal uncertainty requiring statutory clarification, as the strict seven-day time limit for third-party claims to controlled or exempt goods under CPR 85.4 and 85.8 does not align with the broader proprietary rights protected by the 1977 Act, which contains no such limitation. Recent enforcement practice has seen arguments advanced that failure to comply with the CPR extinguishes the statutory tort, resulting in the wrongful sale of goods belonging to non-debtors, an outcome unsupported by express language in either the TCEA 2007 or the CPRs. This undermines settled legal principle that procedural rules cannot nullify substantive statutory rights without clear legislative authority. Parliament is urged to amend primary legislation to confirm that failure to meet the CPR 85 time limit does not preclude a claim under TIGA 1977, and to introduce a mechanism for courts to extend the time for CPR 85 claims where justified. Enforcement agents should also be under a duty to notify third parties of their rights under both regimes in clear terms.

Extending paragraph 66 of schedule 12 to protect third-party claimants

Paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 presently confines remedies to the debtor, omitting third-party claimants whose goods may be unlawfully taken or sold during enforcement. This creates a significant gap in legal protection, particularly where third-party ownership has been asserted under CPR 85 but not yet adjudicated. Although third parties may have recourse through the common law tort of conversion, such remedies do not reflect the statutory duties imposed by Schedule 12 nor provide a coherent regulatory response. Amending paragraph 66 to include third-party claimants would afford them a direct cause of action for breaches of statutory duty, particularly under paragraphs 10 and 60, and would align with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR protecting property rights. This change would also support the aims of the Equality Act 2010, including the public sector equality duty under section 149, and the requirement under section 20 to accommodate disabled individuals. The reform would close a long-standing loophole, improve accountability, and ensure that enforcement powers are exercised lawfully and fairly.

Documenting vehicle condition: strengthening evidence requirements under Schedule 12

Paragraph 34 of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 should be amended to require enforcement agents to create and retain comprehensive video and photographic documentation of any vehicle’s condition before taking control, in order to protect property rights, enhance accountability and reduce disputes. The absence of such a requirement has led to cases in which damage to vehicles following removal is denied by agents, who rely on the lack of contemporaneous evidence to deflect responsibility, placing the burden on debtors to prove a negative. This deficiency undermines the duty under paragraph 35 to take reasonable care of controlled goods and obstructs access to evidence under CPR 31.16, where requests are wrongly treated as subject access requests under section 45 of the Data Protection Act 2018. A mandatory evidential requirement would ensure that enforcement agents document exterior and interior condition, preserve such records for not less than twelve months or until six months after proceedings conclude, and make them available upon request. This reform would also support the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, given the disproportionate impact of evidential gaps on vulnerable debtors. The proposal is a necessary and proportionate step to uphold procedural fairness and reinforce lawful enforcement practice.

Signposting Independent Advice on Enforcement Documents

The statutory framework governing civil enforcement under Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and Regulation 6 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 should be amended to require that Notices of Enforcement include National Bailiff Advice as a listed advisory body. Unlike generalist debt charities or referral services currently cited, Dealing with Bailiffs offers free online enforcement-specific legal support without links to the enforcement industry or financial service providers. Its inclusion would ensure that debtors and third parties, particularly those affected by disability or vulnerability, receive guidance aligned with statutory rights under the TCEA 2007, the Equality Act 2010 and the CPRs, including access to remedies under paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 and CPR 84.13. This reform would support the regulatory intention behind Regulation 12 of the 2014 Fees Regulations by directing vulnerable debtors to competent advice, thereby reducing procedural injustice and costs arising from avoidable disputes. The Ministry of Justice is urged to revise the prescribed notice format to promote transparency, accuracy and equality of access to justice within civil enforcement.

Amending TCGFR 2014 to Encourage Use of Controlled Goods Agreements

Regulations 6(1)(b) and 6(1)(c) of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 should be amended to remove the structural disincentive against using Controlled Goods Agreements during High Court enforcement. Under the current scheme, an enforcement agent may recover both first and second enforcement stage fees where no agreement is made and goods are taken into control, but if a Controlled Goods Agreement is entered into and not breached, the second stage fee is prohibited. This dissuades agents from seeking consensual arrangements, despite the clear legislative intent under paragraphs 13 to 15 of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 to promote peaceful resolution. The regulations thereby misalign commercial incentives with procedural justice, encourage escalation, and increase fee disputes, undermining paragraph 33's proportionality requirement and paragraph 62’s provision for reasonable cost recovery. It is proposed that agents be entitled to a fair fee for compliant enforcement at first stage, with the second fee reserved for subsequent enforcement. Reform would encourage proper use of agreements, reduce litigation under CPR 84.16, and improve public trust in civil enforcement.

Ownership Verification Before ANPR-Based Vehicle Seizure

The growing use of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology by enforcement companies to identify vehicles linked to unpaid traffic contraventions has led to procedural breaches of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, particularly paragraphs 7, 10, 14, 15 and 60, alongside Regulation 6 of the TCGR 2013 and CPR 75.7(7). Drive-by ANPR enforcement often occurs without valid service of a Notice of Enforcement or verification of vehicle ownership, rendering any subsequent enforcement unlawful. Paragraph 10 requires actual ownership by the debtor and reasonable belief cannot arise solely from an ANPR hit. Failure to verify ownership risks unlawful interference, especially where vehicles belong to third parties. Remedies under CPR 84.13 include return of goods and compensation. The Court of Appeal in Burton v Ministry of Justice [2024] EWCA Civ 681 confirmed that instructing authorities are jointly liable for defective warrants. Long-standing recommendations from the Local Government Information Unit and Parliament require ownership checks. It is proposed that paragraph 14 be amended to prohibit vehicle control without valid notice, correct warrant address and confirmed ownership. A binding Code of Practice should incorporate mandatory pre-enforcement checks and allow referral of complaints to the Independent Examiner of Enforcement Conduct to prevent abuse and uphold the rule of law.

Capping vehicle storage charges to prevent enforcement profiteering

Enforcement companies frequently impose and retain vehicle storage charges of up to £48 per day following seizure under paragraphs 10 and 13 of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. These charges, often deducted from auction proceeds, have become a significant profit driver in the taking and sale of vehicles. This practice is rarely supported by evidence of actual expense and often contravenes Regulation 8(2) of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014, which permits recovery only where fees are both reasonably and actually incurred. Frequently, there is no proof that the certificated enforcement agent has paid such costs or that any contractual arrangement with a third-party storage provider exists. This creates a strong financial incentive to prolong storage and delay resolution, at the expense of the debtor, often leading to disproportionate harm where the vehicle is essential for work, care, or health. It is proposed that Regulation 8 be amended to impose a statutory cap of £5 per day, limited to a maximum of 30 days, with agents required to retain and disclose supporting documentation. Such reform would restore fairness, ensure compliance with statutory safeguards, and prevent unjust enrichment through excessive or unsubstantiated storage fees.

Correcting VAT Practices in Enforcement Fee Recovery

The 2021 amendment to the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014, introduced via the Fees (Amendment) Regulations 2021, has caused regulatory confusion and enabled enforcement agencies to recover VAT in a manner inconsistent with both paragraph 63 of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and VAT law. Paragraph 63 requires that enforcement be carried out by certificated individuals, yet incorporated enforcement agencies not holding such certification have sought to levy VAT in their own name, even where the certificated agent is not VAT registered. This practice lacks statutory authority, enables recovery of VAT where no input tax was incurred, and exposes debtors to inflated fees with no clear mechanism to challenge their lawfulness. It is proposed that Regulation 12 of the 2014 Regulations be amended to incorporate a statutory dispute resolution mechanism referencing Regulation 16 and CPR 84.16, empowering courts to determine whether VAT was properly chargeable. Repealing the 2021 amendment and replacing it with a clarified framework would protect debtors, restore coherence with the certification regime, and ensure VAT is lawfully recovered only where truly incurred and appropriately documented.

Statutory Register for High Court Enforcement Officers

The creation of a statutory, government-maintained public register of High Court Enforcement Officers is necessary to ensure transparency, accountability, and lawful redress in enforcement proceedings. Presently, a private entity, the High Court Enforcement Officers Association Limited, maintains an incomplete register that often conceals officers behind corporate structures. This obstructs the ability of third parties, particularly those without legal representation, to challenge wrongful enforcement or to raise claims under CPR Part 85 and Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The legal framework under Regulation 6 of the High Court Enforcement Officers Regulations 2006 confirms that only individuals, not companies, may act as officers. This was reaffirmed in Trevor Bone v Simon Williamson [2024] EWCA Civ 4, where the Court of Appeal held that personal liability rests with the named officer on the writ. A public register, similar to that for certificated enforcement agents, should list each officer’s name, certificate number, and legal contact details. It should be maintained by the Ministry of Justice and linked to the annual certification process, with failures to update information resulting in administrative suspension. This would support enforcement fairness, uphold CPR 84.16 and 85 procedures, and enable oversight by the Independent Examiner of Enforcement Conduct, particularly where third-party goods are wrongly seized.

Enhancing Transparency: CIVEA and HCEOA to Share Guidance with the ECB

It is proposed that the Enforcement Conduct Board (ECB) be placed under a statutory duty to receive and review all member-facing communications issued by the Civil Enforcement Association (CIVEA) and the High Court Enforcement Officers Association (HCEOA), including newsletters, circulars and instructional publications. At present, these industry bodies privately circulate materials that influence agent conduct but escape independent scrutiny, despite their regulatory impact. This lack of oversight has led to the dissemination of guidance that may contravene the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 and the associated Fees Regulations 2014, misstate debtor rights, or promote unlawful practice. Recent leaks of internal materials suggest systemic failures that must be addressed. While certificated enforcement agents are subject to judicial control and regulation under Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, industry-wide training and communication remain unmonitored. Requiring compulsory disclosure to the ECB would ensure that guidance aligns with legal and ethical standards, allow early detection of harmful practices, and enhance accountability. This reform, which may be effected through ministerial regulation, would support the ECB’s public oversight function and restore confidence in the integrity of civil enforcement.

Empowering the ECB to inspect enforcement training materials and practices

The absence of statutory oversight concerning the training of enforcement agents has resulted in significant legal and ethical failings within the civil enforcement sector. Under Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, and supporting instruments such as the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 and the associated Fees Regulations 2014, enforcement powers must be exercised in accordance with principles of proportionality and procedural compliance. Yet, there is growing evidence that company-led training schemes have promoted unlawful and abusive practices, including threats to third parties, fabrication of evidence, and misuse of controlled goods agreements, in breach of paragraphs 14 to 16 and 23 to 33 of Schedule 12 and Regulation 10 of the 2014 Regulations. Particularly egregious conduct, such as the use of counterfeit court documents or physical intimidation, has gone unchallenged due to inadequate training of police officers and the absence of regulatory inspection. It is therefore proposed that the Ministry of Justice confer upon the Enforcement Conduct Board a statutory duty to regulate, audit and approve all enforcement training materials and practices. This would be supplemented by a right of referral to the Independent Examiner, with remedies available under CPR 84.13 and additional regulatory sanctions.

Mandatory Service of Sealed Writ of Control with Enforcement Notices

The current enforcement framework under Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 contains no express requirement for a High Court Enforcement Officer or their agent to serve the debtor with a sealed copy of the Writ of Control, despite this being the legal instrument conferring authority to act. While paragraphs 6 and 7 of Schedule 12 and Regulation 6 of the 2013 Regulations require service of a Notice of Enforcement, they omit any obligation to include or exhibit the sealed writ. This deficiency undermines procedural fairness, prevents verification of the enforcement authority, and departs from the standard required in County Court enforcement, where section 126 of the County Courts Act 1984 mandates that a bailiff carry and produce the warrant. Reform is proposed by amending paragraph 26(1) of Schedule 12 and the Regulations to require the sealed writ, displaying claim number, creditor name and issue date, be served with the Notice of Enforcement or any documents left at premises. This modest change would enhance transparency, reduce litigation under CPR Part 84, and restore public confidence in the lawfulness of High Court enforcement.

Extending Injunctive Relief to Protect Vulnerable Debtors

The current framework under Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 lacks any express provision allowing courts to grant injunctive relief to protect vulnerable debtors, despite paragraph 66 providing a limited tortious remedy for wrongful control of goods. This omission is concerning where enforcement action risks breaching safeguards under the Equality Act 2010, including the duty under section 20 to make reasonable adjustments, the prohibition under section 29 against discrimination in service provision, and the public sector equality duty under section 149. Vulnerability is referenced in the Ministry of Justice's National Standards and implied by Regulation 10 of the 2013 Regulations, yet these safeguards remain largely unenforceable without costly retrospective litigation. A new sub-paragraph 66(3A) is proposed to empower the court to issue injunctions, order return of goods, and award damages where an agent knew or ought to have known of a debtor's vulnerability. This would support compliance with the Equality Act 2010, CPR Parts 8 and 23, the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and rights under the Human Rights Act 1998, including Article 6, Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol 1. Such a reform is modest, proportionate, and essential to upholding procedural fairness and social justice in civil enforcement.

Recording Royal Mail Tracking for Notices of Enforcement

The issuance of a Notice of Enforcement under paragraph 7 of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 is a legal prerequisite to lawful enforcement and must precede any taking control of goods, yet current legislation offers no verifiable method for proving service. While Regulation 6 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 prescribes the contents of the notice and Regulation 8 permits postal service, the absence of a statutory requirement for traceable delivery undermines procedural fairness and invites evidential disputes. In Kaki v National Private Air Transport Services Co Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 1725, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the burden of proving service rests on the enforcing party, underscoring the need for objective proof. It is proposed that all postal Notices of Enforcement be sent by a tracked Royal Mail service with the tracking number retained for at least twelve months, providing a transparent audit trail for courts and regulators. This reform would align with the National Standards (April 2014), reduce disputes, and ensure that statutory notice is not reduced to a matter of untested assertion, thus reinforcing the principle of audi alteram partem and ensuring procedural integrity.

Debtor’s Right to View Enforcement Authority and Identification

Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 authorises enforcement agents to take control of goods, yet no express duty exists requiring them to produce documentary evidence of identity or legal authority when requested by a debtor, either during or after an enforcement visit. While Regulation 5 of the Certification of Enforcement Agents Regulations 2014 requires agents to carry their certificate, and the 2014 National Standards advise disclosure, neither imposes a statutory obligation nor affords a remedy for refusal. This omission impedes procedural fairness under Article 6 of the ECHR and the right to contest interferences with property under Article 1 of Protocol 1. The proposed reform seeks to amend Schedule 12 by inserting a new provision requiring agents to supply proof of authority and identity within seven days of request, whether during enforcement or within twelve months thereafter. This modest amendment would enhance transparency, deter impersonation contrary to the Fraud Act 2006, and give statutory force to best practice, aligning the enforcement process with the public law principle that all coercive powers must be open to lawful scrutiny.

Amending Paragraph 68 to Define Offences by Reference to Lawful Excuse

A critical gap remains in Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, where paragraph 68 imposes criminal liability for obstructing an enforcement agent or interfering with controlled goods but fails to include the standard legal qualifier “without lawful excuse.” This omission contradicts foundational principles of criminal law, where liability should not attach to justified or innocent conduct, as reflected in section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 and numerous other statutes. Without this safeguard, good-faith actions by third parties asserting ownership or moving goods for legitimate reasons may be unfairly criminalised. The Court of Appeal in R v Wangige [2020] EWCA Crim 1319 emphasised the importance of statutory clarity and proportionality in criminal liability. Amending paragraph 68(2) to read “intentionally interferes with controlled goods without lawful excuse” would align the provision with existing criminal law, reinforce fairness, and prevent unjust prosecution. It would also uphold standards set out in the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards 2014 and preserve access to civil remedies under CPR Part 85 where goods ownership is disputed.

Reforming Traffic Debt Enforcement Notices to Include PCN and Authority Details

The current enforcement regime under Schedule 12 and the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 lacks a statutory requirement for enforcement agents to disclose the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) number and the name of the enforcing authority in documents issued during traffic debt recovery, creating a serious procedural deficiency that impairs transparency and legal accountability. Paragraph 7 of Schedule 12 and Regulation 6 of the 2013 Regulations require notice of enforcement, but do not compel inclusion of the specific PCN or authority, leaving debtors unable to verify the origin or legitimacy of enforcement. This omission infringes the debtor’s rights under Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated by the Human Rights Act 1998, and frustrates access to remedies under CPR Part 85 or the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977. It is proposed that a new regulation under Part 8 of the 2013 Regulations mandate inclusion of the PCN number and authority in all relevant documents. This reform would impose minimal burden, enhance fairness, prevent abuse, and restore legal certainty.

Requiring Full Printed Name of Enforcement Agents on All Issued Documents

The current enforcement framework under Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and the Certification of Enforcement Agents Regulations 2014 requires enforcement agents to be certified as fit and proper persons, yet it does not mandate that agents clearly print their full name on enforcement documents, thereby impeding transparency, accountability and access to justice. Regulation 3 of the 2014 Regulations governs certification, but without a statutory duty for agents to display their full name in block capitals as it appears on their certificate, debtors cannot verify the identity or legitimacy of the individual taking coercive action against them. This deficiency undermines procedural fairness protected under Article 6 and the right to an effective remedy under Article 13 of the ECHR, incorporated by the Human Rights Act 1998. Judicial authority in R (L) v Manchester City Council [2001] EWHC Admin 707 supports the necessity of procedural clarity. It is proposed that Regulation 16(3) of the 2013 Regulations be amended to require the full printed name on all enforcement documents, thus ensuring traceability, aiding court supervision under CPR Part 85, and enabling effective complaints under section 64 of the 2007 Act.

Clarifying Debt Advice Signposting on Enforcement Notices

The statutory regime under Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and the TCGR 2013 requires that a Notice of Enforcement be served before enforcement commences, and Regulation 6(2)(g) mandates that it contain advice on how to seek assistance with payment. However, these notices routinely list only financial counselling charities such as StepChange or Citizens Advice, which, while helpful on budgeting, are not competent to advise on procedural breaches or unlawful conduct by enforcement agents. This misdirection can result in delay, prejudice or irreversible loss where enforcement is improper, leaving the debtor without timely legal recourse under CPR Part 85, paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 or section 3 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977. In R v Secretary of State ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531, Lord Mustill confirmed the duty to provide sufficient information to challenge adverse administrative action. Article 6 ECHR, incorporated by section 1 and Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998, reinforces this right to a fair hearing. A statutory amendment is therefore proposed requiring Notices of Enforcement to include a disclaimer distinguishing between financial and enforcement-specific advice, and to direct affected parties to National Bailiff Advice (www.nationalbailiffadvice.uk), a free and independent legal resource. This minor regulatory reform, implementable by statutory instrument under section 62 of the 2007 Act, would clarify rights, reduce error and uphold public confidence in the enforcement process.

Defining Defective Enforcement Instruments under Paragraph 66

Paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 provides a remedy where goods are taken in breach of the Schedule, but it lacks any definition of what constitutes a defective enforcement instrument, leading to uncertainty and inconsistency in practice. A statutory amendment is proposed to define such instruments as those issued to an incorrect address unconnected to the debtor (contrary to paragraph 14(6)), those naming non-existent persons or entities, or those based on powers that have expired under CPR 70.5 and 83.2 or been discharged by law or court order. These defects undermine the lawfulness of enforcement, particularly where third-party goods are at risk or debtors cannot reasonably respond. The reform would align with Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR, incorporated by the Human Rights Act 1998, and the principle of fairness as affirmed in R v Secretary of State ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531. Codification would improve judicial economy, assist the Civil National Business Centre in assessing writs, and ensure greater legal clarity for enforcement agents and affected individuals.

Reforming Paragraph 66 to Include Non-Debtor Claimants

Where Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 provides at paragraph 66 a statutory remedy for breach of its provisions, the language restricts that remedy to "the debtor", thereby excluding innocent third parties who suffer loss due to wrongful enforcement. This limitation is both illogical and inconsistent with tort principles and Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR, incorporated by the Human Rights Act 1998. Where a third party’s goods are taken in breach of the Schedule, often at shared premises or under a defective warrant, they are currently forced to pursue more complex and less accessible remedies, such as conversion or claims under CPR Part 85. The proposal is to amend paragraph 66(1) by replacing “the debtor” with “any person”, so that all individuals harmed by enforcement breaches, including those not party to the debt, may seek damages or recovery of goods. The Court of Appeal in Kaki [2015] EWCA Civ 731 confirmed that remedies must follow direct harm from breach. This amendment would close a significant gap in access to justice, promote legal coherence, and protect third-party rights.

Mandatory disclosure of creditor and debt details on enforcement documents

The enforcement regime under Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 and the associated fee regulations fails to compel agents to disclose essential information such as the name of the creditor, claim or PCN numbers, or classification of liability, thereby obstructing the debtor’s and third parties’ ability to verify or challenge enforcement. In High Court enforcement, debtors are often not told the original County Court claim number, judgment date or amount, and in traffic contraventions, enforcement notices routinely omit the issuing authority or PCN reference, relying instead on internal codes that lack external meaning. This omission frustrates procedural rights under CPR 75.8, CPR 85.4 and the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977. Claims that such disclosures breach the DPA 2018 are legally unfounded, since disclosure is authorised under Schedule 2 and Article 6 of the UK GDPR. The omission breaches the common law duty of fairness and rights under Article 6 and Protocol 1 of the ECHR. Regulation 7 of the 2013 Regulations should therefore be amended to mandate full disclosure on all notices, with enforcement suspended until corrected documentation is served.

Repeal the Lodgement Requirement for Third-Party Claims

The requirement under CPR 85.5(6) to (8)(e) and paragraph 60(4)(a) of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 for third-party claimants to pay into court the value of seized goods as a precondition to asserting their ownership is legally unjustifiable and procedurally discriminatory. It creates a disproportionate financial barrier that deprives claimants of access to justice in breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998. The rule frequently results in the conversion of high-value goods to satisfy minor debts before the court can adjudicate entitlement. It is routinely exploited to suppress legitimate claims and is inconsistent with common law principles against exclusion based on poverty. It is proposed that these provisions be repealed and replaced with a discretionary mechanism allowing the court to require security for costs only where just and proportionate, under CPR 3.1(5). This reform would restore procedural fairness and ensure that ownership disputes are resolved by the court on their merits, rather than excluded for financial reasons.

Conclusion

The proposals outlined aim to restore fairness, legality and balance within the civil enforcement system by addressing structural injustices that threaten access to justice and the rule of law. If you have been affected by unlawful or disproportionate enforcement, you should seek specialist advice immediately and consider applying to the court for relief under Schedule 12 or CPR 85, setting out any breach of your rights and requesting appropriate remedies.

Jason Bennison