Legal Enforcement Stream at CCR-interactive

1. © High Court Enforcement Group
“Judgment Enforcement
Time for Change?”
Alan J Smith
Authorised High Court Enforcement Officer
Director of Corporate Governance, High Court Enforcement Group

2. © High Court Enforcement Group
JUDGMENT NUMBERS INCREASE
According to figures released by Registry Trust
369,989 consumer county court judgments (CCJs) in the first half
of 2015
An increase of 23,000 (7%) compared with the judgments
recorded in the same period in 2014
The figures brought the average value of a consumer CCJ in
England & Wales down to £2,164, a 6% reduction compared with
2014
The total value of all debt judgments against consumers in the first
half of the year was £934m to which CCJs contributed £801m
*Data from Registry trust

3. © High Court Enforcement Group
JUDGMENT NUMBERS DECREASE
According to figures released by Registry Trust
51,872 business county court judgments (CCJs) in the first half of
2015
A decrease of 7% compared with the judgments recorded in the
same period in 2014
The average value of a CCJ against businesses was £3,283, 6% less
than the same period last year
The total value of business CCJs was £170m, 12% less than in the
first half of 2014
*Data from Registry trust

4. © High Court Enforcement Group
Current Position
High Court Enforcement
•Any judgment over £600 – non regulated
•Employment Tribunal/ACAS Awards – Any value
•Only possession against trespassers, unless otherwise
with Courts permission
County Court
•All judgments up to £5000 - If the debt is £5,000 or more
it must be enforced in the High Court by HCEOs
•All consumer regulated judgments
•All possession orders

5. © High Court Enforcement Group
WHY THE RESTRICTION?
The restriction is due to a judgment made in the case of
Forward Trust Plc v Whymark (1990)
The enactment of The High Court and County Courts
Jurisdiction Order 1991 which prevents High Court
Enforcement Officers (HCEO’s) from enforcing CCA
regulated judgments
Amendment to the Jurisdiction order was brought about
following the case regarding interest on interest of a
Regulated judgment.

6. © High Court Enforcement Group
(1A) A judgment or order of a county court for the payment of a
sum of money in proceedings arising out of an agreement regulated
by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 shall be enforced only in a county
court
JURISDICTION ORDER
The High Court and County Courts
Jurisdiction Order 1991

7. © High Court Enforcement Group
JURISDICTION ORDER
Article 8 of the High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1991 imposes
limitations on the kinds of claim that may be transferred to the High Court for
Enforcement:
Subject to paragraph (1A) a judgment or order of a county court for the
payment of a sum of money which it is sought to enforce wholly or partially by
execution against goods—
(a) shall be enforced only in the High Court where the sum which it is sought
to enforce is £5,000 or more;
(b) shall be enforced only in a county court where the sum which it is sought
to enforce is less than £600;
(c) in any other case may be enforced in either the High Court or a county
court.

8. © High Court Enforcement Group
Parliament
There does not appear to have been much debate about
this provision when it was laid before Parliament. On 16
December 1994, Lord MacKay is recorded in Hansard as
noting that:
“The effect of the second amendment is that judgments
given in proceedings arising out of the Consumer Credit
Act 1974 may only be enforced in a county court, whatever
enforcement method is chosen. It is inappropriate that
such judgments should be enforceable in the High Court
because this creates problems of "interest on interest".

9. © High Court Enforcement Group
INTEREST
It is not easy to see why “problems of interest upon
interest”, if they arise, could not be dealt with in a
similar way to the provision in s.35A(4) of the Senior
Courts Act 1981
Provides that interest will not be awarded under that
section for a period during which, for whatever reason,
interest on the debt already runs

10. © High Court Enforcement Group
CONSULTATION
Under the consultation paper Transforming Bailiff Action
the MOJ sought in a green question the opinion of
whether the Order should be amended
As part of their proposal to encourage more flexibility in
bailiff collections, they sought early views on possible
changes in the future to offer creditors more choice in the
jurisdiction of enforcement from the county court
The Question
Do you consider that the jurisdiction order should be
amended?

11. © High Court Enforcement Group
MOJ RESPONSE
The majority of respondents were in favour. While a clear
majority of the enforcement sector, public creditors and debtor
responses were in favour, responses from other sectors were
mixed
Those in favour welcomed a move to a single system which would
be easier to understand and would provide creditors with greater
choice
Those opposed had a number of concerns. The High Court system
was viewed as less effective, difficult to challenge and
disproportionally expensive for the debtor
Some respondents were concerned that this move would
eliminate protections outlined in the Consumer Credit Act 1974
Other respondents were willing to consider the change but only
on the condition that the level of HCEO fees were revised
downwards.

12. © High Court Enforcement Group
Category of respondent Yes % No % No response %
Advice Sector 27% 20% 53%
Private creditor 19% 19% 62%
Public creditor 26% 7% 67%
Debtor 17% 0% 83%
Enforcement sector 73% 11% 16%
Judiciary 17% 0% 83%
Members of Parliament 0% 0% 100%
Members of the Public 13% 16% 71%
Ombudsman organisations 0% 25% 75%
Representative Bodies 33% 20% 47%
Total 32% 12% 56%
MOJMOJ
RESPONSERESPONSE
44% response rate
72.7% in favour of change

13. © High Court Enforcement Group
MOJ RESPONSE
MOJ Response
Concern was expressed that the HCEO fees were disproportionally
expensive to the debtor
HCEO Answer
The HCEO when working with the MOJ on the new fee scale made
it clear that if we were given an opportunity for the Jurisdiction
Order to be amended then the new fee scale could be looked at
and amended.
HCEO agreed to not have a % fee for judgments under £1000.
Indeed if you look at the fee scale for a debt under £1000 where a
defendant pays before attendance to remove then an HCEO is
cheaper to the defendant than that under the bailiff fee structure.
The fee scale is volume adjusted, the more writs then the fee scale
would be reduced at Enforcement Stage 1, 2 and Sale Stage

14. © High Court Enforcement Group
HCEO VIEW
Less than half of respondents provided answers, the majority
agreed that the order should be amended to give the creditor
greater choice
Some were opposed and viewed that High Court Enforcement was
less effective, we do not believe this came from the Court users,
some also believe a change would take away the protection of the
debtor
The jurisdiction order does not provide any protection, this is
covered in the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the only protection is
from effective enforcement by High Court Enforcement Officers
who want to enforce the judgments for their clients)

15. © High Court Enforcement Group
ORDERS FOR POSSESSION
Current procedure is for residential possession to be
enforced through the County Court unless the matter
is against trespassers
Creditors facing delays for possession in the County
Court both corporate and litigants in person
Amendment of N293a to take away reference to
trespassers would then allow creditor choice

16. © High Court Enforcement Group
WHAT CAN HCEOs OFFER?

17. © High Court Enforcement Group
WHAT CAN YOU EXPECT FROM A HCEO?
• Delivering a first rate enforcement service
• First time compliance and early payment
• Convenient Payment Options
• Firm but fair approach
• Proven capacity to deliver a Nationwide Service
• Experienced, Professional and Highly Trained Staff
• The Latest Advances in Technology
• Customer Care
• Working with clients to agreed service levels (SLA)
• Produces information in real time about the progress of
writs

18. © High Court Enforcement Group
PROTECTION OF CLIENT REPUTATION
•Treating Customers Fairly (TCF) Policy
•Quality Management – ISO9001/27001
•CRB and Credit Checks
•Complaints Procedures
•A provider with Diligence, Integrity and Honesty

19. © High Court Enforcement Group
AUDIT TRAIL OF HCEO’S ACTIONS
• Transparency in all their actions, this can be through a
full online system
• Full transparency on the fees they charge the debtor
and when will the fees be applied
• Charges fees under the Taking Control of Goods (Fees)
Regulations 2014

20. © High Court Enforcement Group
Taking Control of Goods Regulations
First Year
• Prescribed Forms - duplication
• Notice of re-entry – lack of ability to serve by
post
• Attending third party addresses – no ability to
attend without a further court order
• Third Party Claims – CPR silent on time limit
for action in the Court
• Review of Fees – required to review how the
new regulations are working

21. © High Court Enforcement Group
FUTURE
• MOJ are listening to HCEOA about changes
• MOJ may do further consultation
• HCEOA are lobbying other industry organisations
• HCEOA have undertaken an online survey – Watch this
space results to be published
• How long – who knows

22. © High Court Enforcement Group
MOJ RESPONSE
The MOJ have said they will wait to see the impact of
the new fee regime before any final decision is made on
whether to amend the Jurisdiction Order.
Why if the majority of respondents
want change?
What do you think and want?

23. © High Court Enforcement Group
QUESTIONS
Alan J Smith
Email: alan.smith@hcegroup.co.uk
Mobile: 07500 701357