Dealing with Bailiffs

Notice of enforcement and the requirement for proper service

Where a bailiff seeks to enforce a debt by taking control of goods, the authority to do so arises under a warrant of control issued pursuant to the relevant enforcement provisions. Paragraph 7.1 of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 imposes a strict procedural obligation upon the enforcement agent: the debtor must be given a Notice of Enforcement before any step is taken to take control of goods. The notice must comply with the form, content and time requirements prescribed by the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013. The absence of this notice, or its delivery to an incorrect or out-of-date address, renders the subsequent enforcement irregular or unlawful. When bailiffs attend a property unannounced and without having served the required notice, the most probable inference is that the warrant bears an outdated address. That error affects the validity of the enforcement instrument itself. It becomes, in legal terms, a defective instrument.

Defective warrants and the right to compensation

The legal consequences of acting upon a defective warrant are serious. Paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 empowers a person to bring a claim for loss or damage resulting from unlawful enforcement. That remedy operates in conjunction with sections 3 and 4 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977. Under section 3, a person who is not the debtor but who suffers wrongful interference with goods in which they have a possessory or proprietary interest may seek redress in tort. Section 4 of the same Act further empowers the court to grant relief by way of injunction, including in cases where goods such as vehicles have been wrongly taken or detained. These remedies are directly engaged where the enforcement agent has failed to comply with the statutory prerequisites under Schedule 12.

Third-party ownership and paragraph 60 claims

Where the person in possession of the goods is not the named debtor on the warrant, they may be entitled to bring a third-party claim. Paragraph 60 of Schedule 12 provides the procedural gateway for such a claim. In the context of motor vehicles, this is a frequent scenario. A person may lawfully purchase a used vehicle, yet the enforcement agent proceeds against it because the previous keeper is the debtor named on the warrant. Where this occurs, the current keeper or owner must assert their third-party interest. If the vehicle has already been clamped or removed, and more than seven days have passed, then relief by way of injunction should be considered to preserve the proprietary right and prevent wrongful sale or disposal. That claim would properly fall under section 4 of the 1977 Act, which provides for injunctive relief in cases of wrongful interference.

Concealment of defective warrants and possible fraud

If the enforcement agent refuses to show the warrant, or obstructs efforts to inspect its terms, that may amount to deliberate concealment of a defective instrument. A failure to disclose the warrant in such circumstances may not merely suggest procedural impropriety; it may be evidence of dishonesty. If the agent is aware that he has no lawful authority to act, yet proceeds to take goods or secure pecuniary gain, he may be acting contrary to sections 2 to 4 of the Fraud Act 2006. Section 2 criminalises dishonestly making a false representation intending to make a gain for oneself or cause a loss to another. Acting upon a warrant known to be invalid, or concealing its defects while demanding payment, may satisfy both the actus reus and mens rea of the offence.

Failure to serve the notice to owner

In addition to defects in the enforcement process, there may be earlier failings by the local authority issuing the original penalty charge notice. Under regulation 19 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007, a Notice to Owner must be served on the person appearing to be the owner of the vehicle. This document provides the opportunity to nominate the driver or make representations. If a person never received the Notice to Owner, whether due to a change of address or other administrative failing, they are entitled to appeal or file a statutory declaration accordingly. A failure to receive this document may vitiate the subsequent penalty charge and all enforcement founded upon it.

Address changes and enforcement vulnerability

This is particularly important where an individual has moved address following receipt of a penalty charge notice. If the Notice to Owner or subsequent enforcement documentation was sent to a former address, the individual may have had no opportunity to respond. In such a case, they may apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to set aside the order and suspend enforcement, citing the absence of proper service. Similarly, if no Notice of Enforcement was received, the debtor may claim relief under paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 on the basis that enforcement has taken place without the necessary statutory notice.

Automatic number plate recognition and previous ownership

Some cases arise from automatic number plate recognition enforcement, where the enforcement process begins remotely. If a person purchases a used vehicle but the registered keeper information has not been updated in time, the warrant may still be issued in the name of the previous keeper. In such a scenario, enforcement against the current owner is manifestly unlawful. The correct course is to initiate a third-party claim under paragraph 60 of Schedule 12, accompanied if necessary by an application for injunctive relief under section 4 of the 1977 Act.

Warrants do not specify goods

It is a common misconception that the warrant of control operates against the vehicle as an object. In law, this is incorrect. The warrant must name the debtor, and enforcement may only be directed against goods belonging to that debtor. Vehicles are not subject to enforcement in rem. A vehicle cannot be seized merely because it is present or convenient to do so. Ownership and possessory rights are central to the legality of enforcement action. Accordingly, where a warrant names an individual but enforcement is directed against a vehicle owned or possessed by another, that act is ultra vires and susceptible to immediate challenge.

Remedies available to affected parties

The remedies available to those affected by unlawful enforcement are robust. They include a claim for damages under the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, a claim for return of goods or compensation under paragraph 66 of Schedule 12, and injunctive relief to prevent or undo wrongful detention or sale. These rights must be asserted promptly and with evidential clarity, ideally accompanied by proof of ownership, a copy of the vehicle purchase agreement, and any correspondence indicating the absence of proper notice. If dishonesty is suspected, the matter may also be reported to the relevant enforcement regulator or police authority under the Fraud Act.

Conclusion

Each of these statutory mechanisms has been enacted to uphold the integrity of the enforcement process, prevent abuses of power, and ensure that debt recovery operates within the bounds of legality and fairness. Where the safeguards are ignored, the law provides the means to redress the wrong.