Dealing with Bailiffs

When the Council Says "Contact the Bailiffs"

Introduction and statutory limits on enforcement

When a local authority informs you that you must "contact the bailiffs" after you have attempted to pay a debt arising from a traffic contravention, it is not merely unhelpful, but a misleading deflection of their continuing legal responsibilities. The enforcement powers conferred by a Warrant of Control do not operate in a vacuum. They are tightly circumscribed by statute, and any creditor or enforcement agent who attempts to operate beyond those boundaries acts unlawfully.

Enforcement ends once the debt is paid

It is well established under paragraph 6(3)(a) of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 that enforcement ceases to be exercisable when the amount outstanding has been paid. This is not a discretionary matter. The statute imposes a legal cessation of the enforcement power. What constitutes the amount outstanding is not ambiguous. Paragraph 50(3) of the same Schedule defines the term as the amount specified in the warrant as remaining unpaid, inclusive of any enforcement fees that are properly due and have been lawfully incurred under the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. In most cases involving traffic contraventions, it is the original penalty charge and any court-ordered costs.

The role and importance of a paragraph 59 notice

Where the debtor pays the amount outstanding directly to the creditor, in this context, the council, the enforcement agent’s authority to act falls away. However, paragraph 59 of Schedule 12 imposes an important procedural requirement. The agent is not liable in respect of an enforcement step taken after the debt is paid if the debtor failed to notify the agent of the payment. This provision is a protective clause for enforcement agents, not a licence for them to continue enforcement with impunity. It imposes on the debtor a duty to communicate the fact of payment to the bailiff. That notification must be clear and evidenced. The most effective means is to send an email directly to the enforcement company, stating unequivocally that the full amount outstanding has been paid directly to the creditor, attaching proof of payment, and confirming the time and date of the transaction. It is prudent to copy yourself into that email and take a screenshot or printout showing the sent time and the copied recipient. This becomes your paragraph 59 notice and forms a crucial evidential record should the agent continue to act in breach of their statutory limits.

The council's deflection and continued responsibility

In many cases, councils adopt a disingenuous posture by insisting that you deal with the bailiffs after payment. This response fails to acknowledge their role as creditor, and their continuing responsibility to update enforcement records and to instruct the withdrawal of enforcement action where appropriate. It is not open to the council to outsource accountability simply because enforcement has been delegated. The creditor remains responsible under the Warrant. Should the enforcement agent take any enforcement step, for example clamping or removing a vehicle, after being notified that the amount outstanding has been paid, and after receiving clear notice of that payment, then the agent acts unlawfully and is liable in damages.

Limits on entry and typical enforcement methods

It must also be remembered that enforcement agents acting under a Warrant of Control issued in respect of a traffic contravention debt may not force entry into residential premises. This is a matter of settled law. The enforcement will generally be directed at goods located outside, most commonly vehicles. Therefore, where the registered keeper of the vehicle is the debtor, and the vehicle is not subject to third-party interests such as hire purchase or exempt by reason of essential use, it becomes the primary target of enforcement. Where a debtor has taken steps to remove or secure the vehicle and has given the paragraph 59 notice, then the enforcement agent must either withdraw or seek further instruction, but cannot proceed lawfully to seize without committing a tort.

Managing risk during the enforcement window

Debtors in such situations should ensure they maintain control of their vehicles and store them off-road where feasible until the enforcement window expires. That window is generally 90 days from the date of the Notice of Enforcement, subject to an upper limit of 12 months, unless extended by court order pursuant to paragraph 9(3) of Schedule 12. After that time, enforcement rights under the warrant lapse and may not be revived without judicial sanction.

Conclusion and remedies for unlawful enforcement

In conclusion, a debtor who pays the outstanding amount directly to the creditor and notifies the enforcement agent accordingly, is entitled under the law to a cessation of enforcement. Any conduct by an agent or local authority that ignores or circumvents this legal position is liable to challenge, and remedies may include a claim for trespass to goods, damages for unlawful distress, and potentially judicial review where systemic abuse is involved. The law is not silent. It is detailed and enforceable, provided it is properly invoked and evidenced by the debtor.