Andrews v Bolton Borough Council [2011]

HHJ Holman, Bolton County Court, June 2011

This case concerned the enforcement of warrants of execution issued by the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court for road traffic penalties due to local authorities under the Traffic Management Act 2004. These were processed under the Civil Procedure Rules and recovered by bailiffs exercising powers set out in the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts Order 1993.

Mr Andrews' car was seized by a bailiff on behalf of Bolton Borough Council in November 2010. The sum due was £438.72. Because it remained unpaid, the car was removed in March 2011. Mr Andrews then applied for an injunction for the return of the car on the grounds that the levy was illegal.

This application was dismissed by a district judge in April 2011, and that decision was appealed unsuccessfully before a circuit judge.

Judgment

The claimant's contentions were:

1. No valid warrant was issued (he described the document produced as a forgery).
2. The authorisation for the warrant was issued under County Court Rules Order 48 rule 5, which has been revoked, so the warrant was not lawful.
3. He was not provided with a copy of the warrant.
4. The fees charged were improperly calculated.

The court dealt briefly with two of the contentions. As to the fees, Rule 11 of the Distress for Rent Rules 1988 provides for detailed assessment by a district judge. The claimant had not applied for such an assessment.

As to the reference to CCR O.48 r.5 on the authorisation form from the TEC, it was accepted that the order had been revoked and replaced by CPR Part 75. The procedure remained substantially the same. The objection attacked a matter of form, not substance, and had no merit. CPR 3.10 would allow the court to validate procedural errors unless they caused prejudice.

The other two grounds merited scrutiny. Permission to appeal was granted, which alone defeated the defendant’s strike-out attempt.

Was there a valid warrant?

The TEC issued batch fax authorisations. The defendant produced one dated 12 February 2010, authorising 199 warrants. Electronic data was sent and used to generate warrants. The warrant shown in court (dated 16 February 2010) appeared to have been generated not by the council, but by Marston Group.

It was held that the council had the authority, had received the data, and had forwarded it to Marston as its agent. The CPR 75.4 provision permitting computer-based preparation was satisfied. There was no prejudice to the claimant, and CPR 3.10 applied. While CPR 3.10 did not apply to the 1993 Order, a purposive approach allowed the court to find the warrant valid.

Was a copy of the warrant required to be given?

Mr Andrews argued that not providing a copy of the warrant invalidated the seizure. He referred to:

• The warrant stating that a copy would be left with the notice of seizure and inventory.
• TEC Code of Practice 2007 requiring bailiffs to have the warrant in possession and produce it on demand.
• Department for Transport guidance (2008) stating the same.
• Case law suggesting the warrant must be shown.

However, the court found no statutory requirement to provide the warrant. Codes of practice had no legal force. While best practice was to show or leave a copy, the failure did not invalidate an otherwise lawful warrant. Nor did it create a cause of action. At most, it could form the basis for a complaint about bailiff conduct under the Distress for Rent Rules.

Accordingly, the district judge had been right to dismiss the injunction application, and the appeal was dismissed.

See Original Judgment.

Note: Enforcement agents must on request show the debtor their identity and authority to enter premises. See Schedule 12, Paragraph 26(1) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.