Wrong address on bailiff writ? Stop enforcement now

Wrong Address on the Writ or Enforcement Document

Legal significance of an incorrect enforcement address

Where the address stated on a writ of control, warrant, or other enforcement document is incorrect, that defect may be legally significant and, in many circumstances, fatally undermines the validity of the enforcement process. The courts have long recognised that the legitimacy of enforcement action is strictly governed by the procedure set out under Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, and that the procedural safeguards within that Schedule are not merely technical but essential to the integrity and lawfulness of enforcement itself.

Service of the notice of enforcement

The requirement for proper notice is codified in paragraph 7(1) of Schedule 12 to the 2007 Act, which expressly provides that an enforcement agent may not take control of goods unless the debtor has been given notice. That notice must be a valid Notice of Enforcement and must be served in accordance with the Act and any applicable regulations. Where the address on the writ is incorrect, and particularly where that address is not the address where the debtor usually lives or carries on business, it gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that the Notice of Enforcement was not properly served. This is supported by section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978, which states that where legislation authorises a document to be served by post, service is deemed effected unless the contrary is proved. The inclusion of an incorrect address is prima facie evidence to the contrary, and the burden shifts to the enforcement agent to prove valid service.

Consequences of defective service and improper entry

This failure of service is not merely academic. Paragraph 9 of Schedule 12 to the 2007 Act restricts the locations where goods may lawfully be taken into control, namely, on a highway or at the premises specified in the writ. Paragraph 14(6) further narrows this, authorising entry only where the enforcement agent reasonably believes the debtor resides or carries on business. Thus, a writ bearing an incorrect enforcement address not only undermines the legality of any purported notice but also voids the agent’s authority to enter or act at the premises in question. Such a writ is, on proper construction, a defective instrument within the meaning of paragraph 66(1)(b) of Schedule 12.

Right to bring proceedings and recover losses

Paragraph 66 of the same Schedule provides that where an enforcement agent acts under a defective writ or breaches a provision of the Schedule, the debtor may bring proceedings. The remedy available to the debtor includes an order for the return of goods or the payment of damages. Although the defect does not render the enforcement agent a trespasser per se, it does found a claim in respect of unlawful enforcement and any resulting loss. Furthermore, where the enforcement agent has taken control of goods without first issuing a valid Notice of Enforcement, any enforcement fees sought under the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 are not lawfully recoverable. Regulation 3 of the 2014 Regulations requires compliance with Schedule 12 as a condition precedent to the recovery of fees. Regulation 17 further requires that the fees claimed must relate to steps taken in accordance with that Schedule. Thus, where no proper notice was given, all subsequent fees are rendered unlawful and recoverable by way of restitution or through an application for detailed assessment under Civil Procedure Rule 84.16.

Remedies where the original judgment is in dispute

In circumstances where the underlying judgment is itself in dispute, the debtor retains the right to apply to stay execution and to set aside the judgment under the court’s general powers. The most appropriate mechanism is typically an application under CPR Part 23 accompanied by evidence supporting the grounds to set aside under CPR 13.3 or, in the case of default judgments, CPR 13.2. However, even where the judgment stands, the enforcement action may still be invalid by reason of procedural impropriety, in particular the failure to comply with the statutory safeguards for enforcement. In those cases, the proper remedy is to apply for an order staying the writ or warrant and a declaration that the enforcement process is unlawful.

Refusal to produce the writ or warrant

A particularly egregious situation arises where the bailiff refuses to produce the writ or warrant upon demand. The failure to disclose such a document, particularly where the address is known to be incorrect, supports the inference that the enforcement agent is aware of its defectiveness. The courts may draw adverse inferences in such circumstances and are likely to treat enforcement as unlawful for want of lawful authority. In addition to a potential claim under paragraph 66, the debtor may bring an action under sections 3 and 4 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977. These provisions permit the court to make orders for the return of goods or, where that is not possible, to award damages equivalent to the replacement value.

Enforcement already carried out at an incorrect address

Where enforcement has already taken place at an address not lawfully accessible under the original writ, or not corresponding to the debtor’s usual residence or business premises, the debtor should urgently apply to the court for relief. Depending on the circumstances, that may include an interim injunction to restrain further enforcement, a detailed assessment of fees claimed, and restitution of sums already paid. The applicable forum will be determined by the instrument under which enforcement was conducted, as set out in paragraph 66(4) of Schedule 12.

Requirement for separate warrant for other premises

Finally, where an enforcement agent seeks to take control of goods at a property not lawfully accessible under the original writ, he must first apply for a warrant authorising entry to specified premises under paragraph 15 of Schedule 12. The issuing court must be satisfied that an enforcement power has become exercisable, that there are goods on the premises that may be taken into control if the warrant is issued, and that the application is reasonable. Where no such warrant exists or is produced upon request, any entry and subsequent enforcement is unlawful. The affected party may then invoke the remedies available under paragraph 66 and under common law principles governing trespass to goods and conversion.

Conclusion and available remedies

In summary, a defect in the enforcement address undermines the legality of the enforcement process, renders any notice or entry unlawful, and exposes the enforcement agent to legal action. The debtor should consider applying to stay execution, set aside the judgment if appropriate, and seek relief including damages, restitution, or return of goods. These principles are rooted in statutory authority and recognised procedural safeguards, which the courts have consistently held must be strictly observed.