2d • General discussion
Council Tax and DCAs
From a friend.
Some interesting developments regarding Council Tax and DCA's:
Burke v Bristow & Sutor (2025)
Issues
Whether a corporate enforcement company can itself be an “enforcement agent” for the purposes of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
Whether the duties in Schedule 12 paragraph 26 (to show identity and authority) apply to a company rather than to an individual.
Whether corporate self-description or branding can confer or substitute for statutory authority.
Decision
The court held that only an individual can be an enforcement agent under the statutory scheme. A company cannot be an enforcement agent and cannot be subject to (or rely upon) the duties and powers reserved to an enforcement agent under Schedule 12.
Ratio Decidendi
Statutory construction:
The TCEA 2007 defines “enforcement agent” as an individual authorised under s 63(2). The Act provides no mechanism by which a corporate body can become an enforcement agent.
Scope of Schedule 12 duties:
Paragraph 26 applies only to enforcement agents, i.e. individuals. A company is not a body to whom paragraph 26 applies.
Form over branding:
How a company describes itself in correspondence cannot alter its legal status. Corporate branding or wording does not create statutory authority.
These points formed the necessary reasoning for the outcome and are therefore ratio, not obiter.
Principle of Law (Applied Through Equity)
Equitable Maxim Engaged
Equity will not permit a person to take advantage of their own wrong.
Equitable Application of the Ratio
Where Parliament confers coercive powers on a specific class of person (an individual), equity prevents a different person (a company) from appropriating those powers by form, presentation, or convenience.
A party cannot claim the benefit of a statutory power while disavowing the statutory status and conditions that attach to that power.
If a company acts as if it holds enforcement powers reserved to individuals, equity treats that conduct as ultra vires and ineffective, and will deny relief or advantage flowing from it.
Resulting Legal Principle
Statutory enforcement powers must be exercised by the precise legal actor identified by Parliament.
Where a company purports to exercise, present, or profit from powers conferred only on an individual, equity intervenes to prevent unjust advantage, misrepresentation, and unlawful enrichment.
Practical Consequence
Corporate enforcement entities cannot rely on Schedule 12 powers.
Any attempt to do so is unlawful, ineffective, and incapable of generating lawful fees or consequences.
Creditors who permit or rely upon such conduct are answerable in equity as related parties for the resulting harm.
Direct Effects of Burke v Bristow & Sutor (2025)
A. Effects Specific to Bristow & Sutor
Issue Estoppel / Estoppel by Judgment
In Burke, Bristow & Sutor expressly pleaded that it was not an enforcement agent.
The court accepted and relied upon that plea.
Bristow & Sutor is therefore estopped from:
asserting that it is an enforcement agent;
asserting that Schedule 12 powers apply to it;
relying on paragraph 26 rights or duties as if it were an enforcement agent.
A party cannot approbate and reprobate: equity prevents Bristow & Sutor from denying what it has already successfully asserted.
Loss of Statutory Shelter
Having denied enforcement-agent status, Bristow & Sutor cannot shelter behind:
Schedule 12 protections,
the Taking Control of Goods Regulations,
or statutory fee entitlements.
Any continued corporate enforcement activity is therefore naked of statutory authority.
Knowledge and Recklessness
From the date of judgment onward, Bristow & Sutor has actual knowledge that:
it is not an enforcement agent,
it has no Schedule 12 powers.
Any continued representation, fee demand, or enforcement activity is therefore:
knowingly or recklessly purporting to act as an enforcement agent (s 63(6) TCEA 2007),
aggravating for damages and equitable relief.
B. Effects on All Enforcement Agencies (General Application)
Authoritative Statutory Construction
Burke confirms, as a matter of statutory construction, that:
“enforcement agent” means individual only;
corporate bodies are excluded by definition.
This construction applies universally, not just to Bristow & Sutor.
No Corporate Substitution
No enforcement agency may:
substitute itself for the individual enforcement agent;
issue enforcement correspondence as principal;
demand payment in its own name as if exercising statutory power.
Uniform Consequences
Any enforcement agency that:
issues Notices of Enforcement without naming an individual;
demands payment to a corporate account as principal;
presents itself as holding enforcement powers;
is acting:
ultra vires,
in misrepresentation,
without entitlement to statutory fees,
and subject to civil, equitable, and (where continued after notice) criminal consequences.
Equitable Principle Applied
Maxims Engaged
Equity will not permit a person to take advantage of their own wrong.
Equity looks to substance, not form.
Equitable Effect
A company cannot:
deny enforcement-agent status to escape liability, yet
assert enforcement-agent powers to obtain payment or fees.
Equity treats such conduct as:
an abuse of statutory power,
unjust enrichment,
and conduct that must be restrained and unwound.
Resulting Consolidated Principle of Law
Where Parliament confers coercive enforcement powers on individuals only, no corporate body may exercise, present, or profit from those powers.
A company that does so acts without jurisdiction, cannot recover fees, and will be restrained in equity from continuing such conduct.
Where a creditor permits or relies upon that conduct, the creditor is answerable as a related party for the resulting loss and harm
5
2 comments
Council Tax and DCAs
Leaderboard (30-day)
1
+258
2
+224
3
+220
4
+150
5
+111
Powered by