Unlawful Vehicle Clamping by Bailiffs Following PCN Enforcement

Statutory Framework for PCN Enforcement

Where a local authority seeks to recover a civil traffic debt through enforcement, the governing framework is established by the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2022, together with the Civil Procedure Rules, in particular Parts 75 and 84. Once a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) has been issued and remains unpaid, the authority may issue a Notice to Owner (NTO) to the registered keeper of the vehicle. Regulation 3(2) of the 2022 Regulations stipulates that service of the NTO must be effected at the address provided by the registered keeper to the DVLA on the vehicle’s registration document (the V5C). However, where the registered keeper has changed address but not updated their V5C, enforcement continues to rely on the address recorded with the DVLA unless otherwise corrected by the individual or brought to the authority’s attention.

Risks Arising from Incorrect or Outdated Address

It frequently arises that by the time enforcement is contemplated, the person against whom the debt is pursued is no longer resident at the address held on the V5C. In such cases, any enforcement action predicated on that address risks being invalid. More significantly, where the enforcement agent has positively identified the correct address of the debtor by other means, such as tracing or ANPR, then enforcement must strictly follow procedural safeguards designed to protect the individual’s rights. These safeguards include compliance with Civil Procedure Rule 75.7, which governs the issuing and execution of warrants of control for traffic debts.

Requirement to Amend the Warrant Before Enforcement

Rule 75.7(7) expressly provides that a warrant may not be enforced at an address other than that stated on the warrant unless it is reissued specifying the debtor’s current address. This is not a procedural technicality but a fundamental safeguard. It ensures that enforcement is limited to lawful means and that the debtor is given a proper opportunity to respond to enforcement before action is taken. Any enforcement which circumvents this rule is not merely irregular but is prima facie unlawful.

Unlawful Clamping Based on Outdated Warrant

In the matter described, the council issued a PCN and subsequently obtained a warrant of control without updating the warrant to reflect your current residential address. Instead of applying to the court for a fresh warrant, the enforcement agent appears to have either traced you or located your vehicle by means of ANPR technology and proceeded to clamp it. This conduct amounts to a clear breach of Rule 75.7(7). The agent acted beyond the terms of the warrant and without lawful authority to enforce at your current location.

Failure to Serve Notice and Breach of the 2013 Regulations

The authority to clamp or remove a vehicle as part of enforcement of a traffic debt derives from Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. However, the exercise of such powers is expressly conditional on the existence of a valid warrant and strict compliance with procedural safeguards. The absence of prior notice in such a case also gives rise to a breach of Regulation 6 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, which ordinarily requires that the debtor be given at least seven clear days’ notice before enforcement action is taken, save in exceptional circumstances.

Unlawful Interference with Goods and Potential Civil Liability

In addition to these defects, the enforcement in question may amount to a trespass to goods and a wrongful interference within the meaning of sections 3 and 4 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977. These provisions allow a claimant to seek damages and the return of goods wrongfully taken or detained. The fact that the vehicle was clamped and not removed does not diminish the unlawfulness of the interference, particularly where it results in loss of use, financial harm or reputational damage.

Remedies Under CPR 84.13

Civil Procedure Rule 84.13 provides a specific remedy in these circumstances. It entitles an affected party to apply to the court for relief where a writ or warrant has been improperly executed or enforced. The court has jurisdiction to order the return of goods, repayment of any money taken, compensation for losses suffered and payment of legal costs incurred in securing redress.

Grounds for a Court Application

You are therefore entitled to seek an order from the court under CPR 84.13 requiring the immediate release of your vehicle if still detained, repayment of any sums taken under the defective enforcement, and damages arising from loss of use, distress or consequential business losses, supported by evidence. The application should be supported by a witness statement detailing the chronology, the address held by DVLA at the material time, any communications you received (or did not receive), and the method by which the vehicle was traced or located.

Putting the Council on Notice

It is also proper to put the council on notice of the intended application, inviting them to consent to the release of the vehicle and repayment of any sums to avoid further liability for legal costs. Should they fail to do so, the matter should be placed before the court without delay.