Andrews v Bolton Borough Council [2011]

HHJ Holman, Bolton County Court, June 2011

This case was concerned with the enforcement of warrants of execution issued by the Traffic Enforcement Centre (the 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 enforced by bailiffs using 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 amount 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 by Mr Andrews before a Circuit Judge.

Judgment

The claimant's contentions were as follows:

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• The authorisation for the warrant was issued under County Court Rules Order 48 Rule 5, which has been revoked, and so the warrant was not lawful.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

The judge dismissed the claims relating to fees and the reference to revoked CCR Order 48, ruling that any procedural errors would be covered by CPR 3.10 and that the objection lacked merit. Permission to appeal on those two grounds was refused.

The other two grounds were allowed to proceed for full scrutiny: the validity of the warrant and whether the bailiff should have given a copy to the claimant.

Was There a Valid Warrant?

The TEC sends authorisations in batches. In this case, the warrant dated 16 February 2010 appeared to have been generated by Marston Group Ltd. The judge concluded that the defendant (the council) had received valid authorisation and had simply forwarded electronic data to Marston. CPR 75.4 permits such computerised processing. The court held that this process did not invalidate the warrant, even under a purposive interpretation of the 1993 Order.

Should the Bailiff Have Given a Copy of the Warrant?

The claimant cited various sources indicating the bailiff should have produced or left a copy of the warrant:

• The warrant itself stated a copy would be left with the notice of seizure.
• TEC’s 2007 codes of practice stated that the warrant must be shown on demand.
• The Department of Transport guidance echoed this requirement.
• The court in JBW Group Ltd v Westminster City Council noted that only the warrant holder could execute it and must show it.

The judge acknowledged these points as good practice but held that there was no statutory requirement to provide a copy of the warrant. Accordingly, failure to do so did not render the seizure invalid, nor did it give rise to any civil remedy.

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

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