Dealing with Bailiffs

Unlawful tampering of warrants in traffic debt enforcement

There is an increasingly troubling practice emerging in the enforcement of traffic debts, whereby warrants of control are being unlawfully altered by enforcement agents after discovering that the debtor no longer resides at the address originally specified. This development strikes at the heart of procedural fairness and lawful process. One particular enforcement firm, Bristow & Sutor, has been identified as amending the address on the warrant to reflect the respondent's new residence without obtaining a fresh warrant from the issuing authority. This course of action is not only irregular but constitutes a clear breach of the procedural safeguards established under the Civil Procedure Rules.

Requirement for a fresh warrant

Specifically, Civil Procedure Rule 75.7(7) mandates that, where the respondent has changed address, a new warrant must be issued identifying the respondent’s current address. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that enforcement action is lawfully targeted and that the individual affected is afforded the opportunity to respond appropriately to the proceedings. Circumventing this requirement by modifying the original warrant without judicial authority amounts to tampering and renders the enforcement process unlawful. Not only is such conduct procedurally improper, it also undermines the legal legitimacy of any subsequent enforcement activity undertaken on the strength of that altered warrant.

Refusal to show the warrant

In many instances, agents have reportedly refused to show the debtor a copy of the warrant altogether, or have shown a partial or obscured version on a mobile device that prevents proper inspection. Such behaviour is contrary to paragraph 26(1)(b) of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, which requires an enforcement agent to show the warrant, being the instrument conferring their enforcement power, upon demand. The deliberate use of blurred or unreadable screens to frustrate this obligation is, in substance, a calculated attempt to evade a statutory duty and suppress scrutiny.

How to check for a tampered warrant

If you have moved recently and suspect that enforcement action has been taken improperly, the first step is to contact the Traffic Enforcement Centre by telephone on 0300 123 1059. You should provide the PCN number relating to the original penalty charge. It is essential to record the call, and for this purpose, a call recording application should be used. Once recorded, the audio should be transcribed using a reliable online transcription service such as TurboScribe. The resulting transcript may later serve as crucial evidence in support of any application or claim that you pursue.

Security check and warrant date

During the call, the operator will ask you to confirm your postcode as part of a standard security check. You must provide the postcode of your former address. If you pass the security check using that old address, it is a strong indicator that the warrant has not been lawfully reissued and that the enforcement agent has acted improperly. You should then ask for the date on which the warrant was issued. If that date precedes the date you moved, then the warrant relied upon was issued for an address at which you no longer resided, and its continued use renders it defective as a matter of law.

Gathering evidence and seeking injunctive relief

To support your position, you must collate documentary evidence of your change of address. This may include a signed tenancy agreement, confirmation of council tax registration, or utility bills showing the date you commenced residence at the new premises. If enforcement agents have seized a vehicle or taken money from you on the strength of a defective warrant, you may apply to the County Court for injunctive relief under section 3 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977. That provision authorises the court to grant an injunction for the return of goods or compensation for their wrongful retention or removal.

Claims for damage and loss

Furthermore, paragraph 35 of Schedule 12 to the 2007 Act imposes liability on enforcement agents for any loss or damage caused to goods while in their possession. If your vehicle has been taken and subsequently damaged, or if you have been deprived of its use for any period of time, you may be entitled to recover damages for the loss suffered. These may include not only the cost of repairs or loss of value but also consequential losses, such as car hire or disruption to employment or daily life.

Recovery of legal costs

Finally, any legal costs reasonably incurred in securing the return of your vehicle, compensation, or an injunction may be recoverable from the local authority or traffic enforcement body that instructed the enforcement agents. Such costs include application fees, solicitor’s charges, and the costs of obtaining evidence and preparing your claim. The right to recover costs in this context arises from the well-established principle that a party who is compelled to take legal action due to the unlawful conduct of another is entitled to be made whole.

Conclusion

The integrity of the warrant process is fundamental to the rule of law. Any deviation from the prescribed legal procedures, particularly where it results in prejudice to individuals, must be challenged robustly and remedied through appropriate legal channels.