Civil Justice Council report on enforcement

The Civil Justice Council issued a call for evidence issued in late 2024 on making the enforcement of judgments more effective and efficient while retaining the essential protections for vulnerable defendants. In April 2025, published their report into their findings and their recommendations.

Some core issues that were brought up included court delays, lack of up-to-date data for creditors, lack of details on defendants’ financial circumstances and lack of engagement from defendants.

In this article we provide an overview of their recommendations, with a primary focus on the enforcement aspects. It is a comprehensive report and one which we support as a business.

Findings

These are the key conclusions drawn in the report

• The current two-tiered approach to enforcement (County and High court) does not work and adds unnecessary complexities
• The process for finding financial information on the defendant is not working effectively
• The county court bailiff function is underfunded and under-resourced, with enforcement taking too long via this route. The report acknowledged that economic realities make it unlikely that further funding will be available
• Because of challenges around having the correct address for the defendant, the enforcement process can be the first time some defendants learn about the judgment. This is part of a broader concern amongst creditors around lack of engagement by defendants
• Creditors are keen for High Court Enforcement Officers (HCEOs) to be permitted to enforce judgments below £600, as they find HCEOs more efficient

Civil Justice Council recommendations

• Create a single unified court for the enforcement of judgments, where all debts are recorded
• Bring into force Part 4 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (TCEA), covering financial information on the defendant from banks, credit agencies and the Department of Work and Pensions, and create a portal to access this via the single unified court
• Simplify wording used throughout the process, including court forms, to make it more accessible and less intimidating for defendants to engage
• Capture the claimant’s and defendant’s email address on court forms and include digital communication, so the defendant is aware early in the process and also to make enforcement more effective, where required
• The “last known address” question on paperwork should be amended to “address registered for council tax or business purposes”
• The Enforcement Conduct Board (ECB) should be given statutory powers and take on the role of certification of enforcement agents
• To convert the Warrant of Control Centres into debt support centres that actively support early intervention and resolution, which should then reduce the burden on the court
• Encourage judges to ask relevant questions about the defendant’s financial position at the end of a contested hearing
• Amend the relevant response forms (N9A, N9B and N9C) to allow the defendant to add information about reasons for the debt and current circumstances as a way of allowing them to highlight potential vulnerabilities at this earlier stage. The aim is that this would encourage engagement and provide information for the creditor on how to proceed

Impact for High Court enforcement

The call for evidence participants seeking to enforce judgments generally prefer to use a writ of control as they see HCEOs as being more efficient and incentivised to recover. This included the Bar Council, who consider the attendance of HCEOs as most effective.

Should the restrictions on High Court enforcement be removed – which was strongly supported by many of those who took part in the call for evidence – the report comments that defendants would require the same protections as are currently provided in the County Court.

Alan J Smith, chair of the High Court Enforcement Officers Association (HCEOA), was part of the working group for this project and has commented that the HCEOA backs the report and is calling on the Ministry of Justice and HMCTS to act on the key recommendations and have a clear timeline for implementation.

The HCEOA supports the principle of a single unified court for the enforcement of judgments and see the introduction of Part 4 of the TCEA as critical. In a press release of 15th April 2025, he comments that

“The profession stands ready to support delivery and help government and taxpayers realise the benefits of a reformed enforcement sector landscape. We believe this would be achievable with minimal legislative change and no increase in cost to the debtor.”

Judgments below £600

The HCEOA’s main point, which we fully support, is the removal of restrictions for HCEOs to permit them to enforce debts below £600. As the report shows, there is widespread support amongst creditors, which is echoed in surveys previously run by the HCEOA.

The HCEOA says that it would be simple to introduce and can be delivered using a fee scale that follows that of the non-High Court fee scale in the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014, so there would be no change to the cost for the defendant.

In response to the report’s comments about protections in the County Court for defendants, the HCEOA believes that these protections are already in place, covered by the National Standards and the ECB’s new wider standards and complaints procedure, which give oversight.