Dispute judgment and stop bailiff enforcement legally

Disputing a Judgment Debt and Stopping Enforcement

Where a person becomes aware of a judgment debt only after the issue of a writ of control, particularly where the original claim was not served to a current or correct address, it is both proper and necessary to seek a stay of enforcement and an order setting aside or varying the judgment. Such relief is available pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 83.7(1), which permits the court to stay execution under a writ of control where there is good reason to do so. The fundamental premise in such applications is that the judgment debtor was deprived of the opportunity to defend the claim due to no fault of their own, a circumstance which the court treats seriously in the interests of justice.

In accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 27.11, a party who was not present at the hearing and did not receive notice of it may apply to set aside or vary the judgment, provided they can demonstrate both a good reason for their non-attendance and a defence with a real prospect of success. The courts will generally be satisfied that the debtor was not afforded proper notice of proceedings where there is evidence of a change of address, misaddressed claim form, or absence from the property that rendered service ineffective. The applicant must support the application with credible evidence showing that they were unaware of the claim and that they have a viable defence worth hearing.

The application, once made, will typically result in the High Court staying the writ of control and transferring the matter to the County Court, in accordance with paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The effect of such a stay is immediate. It halts all enforcement activity and, crucially, revokes the bailiff's statutory authority to charge enforcement fees under Regulation 3 and Regulation 17(1) of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. Consequently, all fees incurred post-suspension are rendered null, and if money has already been taken under the writ, the debtor is entitled to demand its immediate return.

In circumstances where the enforcement agent or creditor refuses to refund such monies voluntarily, the appropriate remedy is to apply to the High Court for a detailed assessment of those costs pursuant to Regulation 16 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014, read together with Civil Procedure Rule 84.16. The debtor may also seek an order for costs. Where the debtor is represented, costs may be claimed on the indemnity basis under Civil Procedure Rule 44.3. Where the debtor acts in person, they may recover fixed costs at the litigant-in-person rate, currently £19 per hour, plus disbursements and expenses reasonably incurred, in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 46.5 and paragraph 3.1 of Practice Direction 46.

It is therefore critical that, upon discovery of an adverse judgment, the debtor acts without delay. If the judgment is over 21 days old, the application must address and explain any delay, and the court will consider whether that delay is excusable. The explanation must be credible, consistent, and supported by documentary evidence wherever possible.

Before preparing such an application, it is prudent to obtain a copy of the writ of control and the underlying judgment. These documents provide essential information, including the judgment claim number, the identity of the judgment creditor, and the enforcement address, all of which should be carefully examined for any error or defect that may support the application to set aside. If service was defective, that alone may justify the order being made.

Finally, it is imperative that the application contains a cogent defence to the original claim. It is not sufficient to assert a mere disagreement with the judgment sum. The defence must raise substantive and arguable issues of fact or law which, if proven at trial, would justify the judgment being set aside. Whether one is assisted by a solicitor, a competent paralegal, or proceeds in person, the statement in support must articulate these matters clearly and persuasively.

Where the court is satisfied that the judgment debtor did not receive fair notice of the claim and has a defence worth hearing, it will set aside the judgment, stay enforcement, and cancel the fees. The debtor will be restored to their original position, and the claim will be re-listed in the County Court for determination on its merits. In such instances, the court's overriding objective, as codified in Civil Procedure Rule 1.1, is best served by ensuring the matter is determined fairly, with both parties afforded a full and proper opportunity to be heard.