Dealing with Bailiffs

Stopping a Traffic Contravention Debt Enforcement After Bailiffs

The right to apply for revocation of the penalty

Where a traffic contravention has resulted in the issue of a penalty charge and the matter has escalated to enforcement by way of a warrant of control, the law provides a route for the respondent to seek remedy, even after the involvement of enforcement agents. Paragraph 5.2 of Practice Direction 75 to the Civil Procedure Rules grants the respondent the right to apply to the court for revocation of the contravention penalty. This mechanism enables a person against whom a warrant has been issued to challenge the underlying debt, particularly where they were unaware of the original proceedings due to a change of address or the absence of requisite statutory notices.

Choosing the correct procedure and forms

In such circumstances, it is necessary to distinguish between moving and non-moving traffic contraventions. Moving traffic contraventions include offences such as bus lane contraventions and prohibited turns. Where the underlying contravention is a moving offence, the respondent may apply by completing and swearing two forms: the PE3 (Statutory Declaration – unpaid penalty charge) and the PE2 (Application to file a statutory declaration out of time). Both forms must be completed truthfully and witnessed before a solicitor or commissioner for oaths, whose remuneration is prescribed by the Commissioners for Oaths (Fees) Order 1993. The maximum fee is £5.

Non-moving contraventions and other charges

For non-moving traffic contraventions – such as parking infringements or non-payment of Dart or Merseyflow crossing charges – the appropriate procedure is to complete and swear forms TE9 (Witness Statement – unpaid penalty charge) and TE7 (Application to file a statement out of time). The distinction is critical as it dictates the correct form and legal pathway. The forms are available from the HM Courts and Tribunals Service website, and must be completed in accordance with the directions contained in Part 75 and its associated Practice Direction.

Verifying the contravention and your address

Before proceeding, it is essential that the respondent ascertains the precise nature of the traffic contravention and the details of the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). This can be obtained by contacting the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at 0300 123 1059. The call handler will ask for the PCN number – typically comprised of two letters and eight numerals – followed by a postcode verification to establish identity. Where the TEC accepts a previous address as verification, this strongly indicates that the warrant of control was issued to an outdated address. This has serious legal consequences. Under paragraph 12 of the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards issued by the Ministry of Justice, creditors must not instruct enforcement on the basis of a knowingly incorrect address. To do so is an abuse of the enforcement process.

Legal duties to reissue the warrant

Moreover, Civil Procedure Rule 75.7(7) obliges the enforcement authority, once it is aware of a change of address, to seek reissue of the warrant to the new address. Failure to do so renders the enforcement process fundamentally flawed. The law does not countenance the use of enforcement powers on the basis of defective or outdated information. Where the warrant is issued to the wrong address and enforcement follows, the debtor may bring a claim for damages under paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. This is supported by the statutory right to relief under section 3 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, which provides for compensation where goods are taken without lawful justification.

How to complete the statutory forms

When completing the statutory forms, it is imperative that the applicant enters "UNKNOWN" for the location, date of contravention, and vehicle registration if they genuinely had no knowledge of the matter prior to enforcement. Any positive assertion of those details may be interpreted as evidence of prior notice and can lead to the application being summarily dismissed. The reason for filing out of time must be set out with clarity and precision, for example: "I was unaware of the traffic contravention debt until I was contacted by an enforcement agent at my current address on [insert date]. The Traffic Enforcement Centre has since confirmed that the warrant of control was issued to my previous address at [insert previous address and postcode]." Supporting documentary evidence of residence at the current address must be attached, such as a council tax demand, bank statement, or utility bill dated around the time of enforcement.

Suspension of enforcement upon filing

Once the forms and evidence are completed, they should be scanned and submitted by email to tec@justice.gov.uk. Upon receipt by the TEC, the enforcement power is automatically suspended in accordance with paragraph 6(3)(c) of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and Paragraph 8.1 of Practice Direction 75. This means that bailiffs must cease enforcement activity pending judicial determination of the application. The court will not generally determine the matter for at least 14 days after receipt, as stated in paragraph 5.4 of Practice Direction 75.

Outcome of a successful or rejected application

If the court accepts the statutory declaration or witness statement, the enforcement ceases permanently under Rule 75.8(b), and the enforcement authority is required to withdraw the warrant from the bailiff forthwith under Rule 75.8(c). However, if the court rejects the application, and enforcement has occurred at the wrong address, the remedy lies not in filing an N244 application – which does not allow for recovery of costs – but in pursuing damages against the council and its agents. The instrument used to justify enforcement is defective, and any resulting interference with goods is actionable.

Seeking voluntary return of seized goods

In the event that a vehicle has been clamped or seized under a warrant issued to the wrong address, it is proper to give the enforcement agent a reasonable opportunity to return the vehicle voluntarily while the TEC determines the application. This accords with the spirit and letter of the Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, particularly paragraph 3, which encourages parties to avoid unnecessary litigation and cooperate with the resolution of disputes. Should the enforcement authority or its agents fail to comply and continue with enforcement steps on the basis of a defective warrant, then a claim in damages may be made, including for loss of use of the vehicle. Such loss is recoverable pursuant to section 3 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, provided that causation and quantum can be established on the evidence.

Retrospective Re-issue of warrants

The courts have consistently held that enforcement action taken under a defective warrant cannot be retrospectively validated by later procedural steps. If money is taken or a vehicle is removed while the warrant is defective, for example because it was issued to an old address without being reissued under Civil Procedure Rule 75.7(7), any attempt to reissue the warrant afterwards cannot retrospectively legalise the original enforcement. A reissued warrant cannot be backdated or relied upon to continue enforcement from where it left off. Instead, the authority must begin the process again, which includes properly serving a new Notice of Enforcement and complying with the statutory timeframes. This ensures that the enforcement process remains fair and lawful and that debtors are not deprived of their statutory protections by administrative shortcuts or retrospective justification.

The legal position of the respondent (the debtor)

The law in this area is strict and exacting, but it offers robust remedies to those who act promptly and comply with the prescribed procedure. The courts have consistently held that the integrity of the enforcement process must be preserved. The use of outdated addresses, absence of statutory notices, and reliance on defective warrants are not mere technicalities. They are breaches which go to the heart of the enforcement regime. The respondent, properly advised and supported by clear evidence, stands on firm legal ground when seeking redress.