Enforcement Data | CCJ’s Up

Call the Bailiffs Time to Pay Up Season 1

🔴 Call the Bailiffs Time to Pay Up S1E1 Enforcement Agents Execute High Court Writs

🔴 Call the Bailiffs Time to Pay Up S1E2 Enforcement Agents Execute High Court Writs

🔴 Call the Bailiffs Time to Pay Up S1E3 Enforcement Agents Execute High Court Writs

🔴 Call the Bailiffs Time to Pay Up S1E4 Enforcement Agents Execute High Court Writs

🔴 Call the Bailiffs Time to Pay Up S1E5 Enforcement Agents Execute High Court Writs

🔴 Call the Bailiffs Time to Pay Up S1E6 Enforcement Agents Execute High Court Writs

Here at Shergroup, we love any data connected to the business of enforcing a ccj.  In fact, our CEO, Claire Sandbrook, has quite a bee in her bonnet about the lack of quality data in the enforcement industry and latches on to anything that resembles quality insight.

So, she was pleased to read a report from Registry Trust published in May this year which reported on a 12% increase in the number of county court judgments against all businesses in England and Wales in the first quarter of 2019.  

Enforcing a County Court Judgment

After the County Court Judgment (CCJ) has been registered against a debtor it is then possible to ‘enforce’ that Judgment directly. There are many debt enforcement collection methods that can be used depending on the circumstances of the individual case.

CCJs Transfer Up to High Court Enforcement

By transferring up their County Court Judgments (CCJs) to authorise High Court Enforcement, has many benefits over the regular County Court program: It’s a quite quicker process to enforce and collect, usually more cost-effective and a much better chance to collect the full amount owed.

 

Here are some key facts about the number of CCJs involving businesses

• The total value of the 35,779 business CCJs was a staggering £107.2million, a rise of 6% compared to the same period of 2018

• According to the same report, year-on-year numbers and values have risen for the past three years and in the first quarter of 2019 are 63 and 38 per cent higher than 2016’s record Q1 lows of 21,860 and £77.7million

• The average value of an “adverse business CCJ” in Q1 2019 was £2,997, 5% lower than Q1 2018 – the median value at £933 was 8% lower

• The number of CCJ registry against incorporated businesses rose by 12% to 27,064, in Q1 2019 compared to the same quarter of 2018 – the total value increased by 16% to £82.3million

• The average value of a CCJ enforcement against companies increased by 4% compared to Q1 2018, to £3,042 – however, the median value fell 6% to £902

• For the same period, the total number of CCJs against generally smaller unincorporated businesses at 8,715 was up 11% from 2018’s record Q1 low of 7,847, bucking a nine-year downward trend

• The total value of CCJs against unincorporated businesses dropped by 19% to £24.9million, compared to the same quarter of last year with an average CCJ value falling by 27% to £2,857

• In the High Court only 16 judgments were issued against businesses in the first quarter of 2019, four fewer than in the same quarter of last year. The total value of High Court judgments was £7.1million, a rise of 35% on 2018’s record Q1 low of £5.3million – this is due to the fact that the threshold to issue proceedings in the ccj to high court is more complex than in the County Court (see the plain English explanation of this here https://bit.ly/2Xu8YLB)

So, what do all these statistics tell us?  According to Mick McAteer, deputy chairman of Registry Trust, the value of this data is”. ccjs register is an important indicator of the state of the economy. The number and value of judgments have risen for the third year in a row. But, it is worth noting that these levels are still well below the peaks seen just after the financial crisis in 2009”.

Good to know, but not so good if you are a judgment creditor who has an unpaid CCJ and doesn’t know what to do with it in terms of getting it turned into cash.  If you one of the thousands of people who either as a business or in person have issued a judgment but have not seen the money, then Shergroup can provide you with a number of options to move you forward to payment which in turn will put a smile on your face.  These options include the transfer of CCJ to the High Court for enforcement (which cuts out the complexity mentioned above), tracing a debtor business, and taking other forms of enforcement action if needed to compel payment.  We offer a free no-obligation review of your CCJ and a full money-back guarantee if you are not satisfied with our service. We make sure of CCJ satisfied.

Call us today on 020 3588 4240 to speak to one of our friendly and expert Business Solution Advisors about your CCJ.

Frequently Asked Questions – No-Fault Evictions & Possession Orders

Q1: What are no-fault evictions, and are they being abolished in the UK?

A: According to the Telegraph newspaper, no-fault evictions are on their way out in the UK. No-fault evictions, typically issued under Section 21 of the Housing Act, allow landlords to evict tenants without providing a specific reason for the eviction. The government’s move to abolish no-fault evictions is aimed at providing greater security for tenants. However, this raises concerns about how landlords will recover possession when tenants fail to pay rent, as they will need to rely more heavily on fault-based evictions (Section 8), which require proving specific grounds such as rent arrears. This change will significantly impact the landlord-tenant relationship and the eviction process in the private rental market.

Q2: What is the most common reason for eviction according to Shergroup’s experience?

A: According to Shergroup’s experience dealing with illegal evictions (usually in London), the basis for a high court writ eviction is usually non-payment of rent. When this happens, the landlord relies on current legislation to enable a claim to be issued for possession, leading to a possession order being made. At the same time, the Telegraph article suggests that landlords are getting eviction orders too soon or on the wrong basis. Shergroup’s experience shows that most landlords they encounter would have preferred not to take the drastic step of eviction. All a landlord usually wants is the rent paid on time, especially since private landlords may be financing their property from funding which needs to be paid, using the rent to discharge their own obligations.

Q3: How long does the county court eviction process typically take?

A: Once a possession order is made, it can take up to months to obtain a date for an eviction from the local county court. This lengthy delay creates significant financial hardship for landlords who are owed rent and may themselves be in debt as a result of the rent arrears. The slow county court bailiff system attempts to handle thousands of eviction orders each year, which contributes to these delays. This is why landlords are learning that they can shorten the time to get back possession if they can persuade a District Judge in the county court to allow the possession order to be transferred to the High Court for enforcement, where the process is typically much faster.

Q4: Can landlords transfer possession orders to the High Court for faster enforcement?

A: Yes, landlords can ask a District Judge in the county court to allow the possession order to be transferred to the High Court for enforcement. In asking for such an order, the landlord will have to be ready to provide reasons, including financial insight on the cost of delaying eviction. The High Court enforcement system is generally faster and more efficient than the county court bailiff system. However, this transfer option is probably not what the Government wants to see because it creates issues with re-housing evicted tenants. The government, through its local authority framework, is under pressure to put the brakes on having to find homes for people who are made homeless by the High Court eviction process.

Q5: Why do landlords need to evict tenants who don’t pay rent?

A: All a landlord usually wants is the rent paid on time. Private landlords may well be financing their property from funding that needs to be paid, and they use the rent to discharge their own obligations. If that chain of funds is broken by a tenant refusing or being unable to pay, it creates a problem that the landlord must deal with. The Telegraph article paints a picture of landlords getting eviction orders too quickly, but this cannot be right—landlords have to obtain a possession order to even contemplate an eviction happening, and most landlords Shergroup encounters would have preferred not to take this drastic step. The issue is often that legislation is lacking, causing landlords to apply for possession orders rather too quickly for the Government’s liking.

Q6: What is the Civil Procedure Rules Committee consultation on possession orders?

A: The entire issue of aligning possession orders is finally in front of the Civil Procedure Rules Committee (CPRC), and a consultation paper has been issued. Lord Justice Coulson’s foreword to the consultation paper recognizes that there is a balance to be struck between landlords who may be owed several months’ unpaid rent and may also be in debt as a result of rent arrears, and tenants or other occupiers who ought to know if and when they are to be evicted to enable them to make other provision or make their own representations to the court. The foreword states that “All parties should be treated fairly and with respect.” This consultation represents an opportunity for stakeholders to share their experiences and influence future eviction procedures.

Q7: What does Shergroup think about the current two-tier eviction system?

A: Shergroup believes it’s ridiculous that the county court bailiff system attempts to handle thousands of eviction orders each year when the High Court system of enforcement could be utilized to take some, or all, of the load. CEO Claire Sandbrook has argued for years for “joined up thinking” on the entire topic of possession orders leading to Writs of Possession. Shergroup believes the current consultation is long overdue in addressing the confusion caused by a two-tier eviction system. Whatever the outcome of the claim for possession, an order will still need to be enforced, and a more unified, efficient system would benefit both landlords and tenants by providing clarity and faster resolution.

Q8: What are the rights and duties of landlords and tenants in eviction situations?

A: Both parties should follow the Landlord-Tenant Law, which sets out their respective rights and duties. Landlords have the right to receive rent on time and to take legal action for possession if rent is not paid. However, they must follow proper legal procedures, including obtaining a possession order through the courts, before attempting eviction. Tenants have the right to know if and when they are to be evicted to enable them to make other provision or make their own representations to the court. They also have protections against illegal eviction. Lord Justice Coulson emphasized that “All parties should be treated fairly and with respect,” recognizing that there may be landlords owed several months’ unpaid rent who may be in debt themselves, and tenants who need time to find alternative accommodation.

Q9: What is an illegal eviction and how common are they?

A: Shergroup deals with a small amount of illegal evictions every month, usually in London. An illegal eviction occurs when a landlord attempts to evict a tenant without following proper legal procedures, such as obtaining a possession order through the courts and using authorized bailiffs or High Court Enforcement Officers. Illegal eviction methods include changing locks without court authority, physically removing tenants or their belongings without legal authorization, harassing tenants to force them to leave, or cutting off utilities to make the property uninhabitable. These actions are criminal offenses under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, and tenants who experience illegal eviction can seek legal remedies including damages and the right to be reinstated to the property.

Q10: Why is the government concerned about evictions in the private rental market?

A: The Telegraph article paints a picture of a Government pushing the blame of eviction onto the private rental market when, in fact, it is legislation which is lacking. The government, through its local authority framework, is under pressure to put the brakes on having to find homes for people who are made homeless by the eviction process. When tenants are evicted, especially through the faster High Court enforcement system, local authorities have legal duties to provide housing assistance to those who are homeless or threatened with homelessness. The cost and logistical challenge of re-housing evicted tenants places significant pressure on local authority resources. This is one reason why the government is pursuing the abolition of no-fault evictions and looking at reforming the eviction process overall.

Q11: What should landlords include when requesting transfer to High Court enforcement?

A: When asking for a possession order to be transferred to the High Court for enforcement, landlords must be ready to provide reasons to the District Judge, including financial insight on the cost of delaying eviction. This might include evidence of mounting rent arrears, mortgage or loan payments the landlord must make on the property, financial hardship caused by the tenant’s non-payment, the length of time the tenant has been in arrears, unsuccessful attempts to negotiate payment arrangements, and the impact of delays on the landlord’s financial situation. Demonstrating the genuine financial need for faster enforcement helps judges understand why transfer to the High Court is appropriate, as it will result in faster enforcement by High Court Enforcement Officers rather than waiting months for county court bailiffs.

Q12: How does the eviction moratorium affect landlords?

A: Landlords must obtain a possession order before they can even contemplate an eviction happening, and during any eviction moratorium periods (such as those implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic), enforcement of possession orders may be suspended or delayed. This creates significant financial hardship for landlords who are owed rent and may themselves be in debt as a result of rent arrears. Eviction moratoriums, while protecting tenants during crisis periods, can break the chain of funds where landlords use rent to discharge their own obligations on property financing. The tension between protecting vulnerable tenants and ensuring landlords can maintain their financial obligations creates challenging policy decisions that the government must balance.

Q13: What is Claire Sandbrook’s position on “joined up thinking” for possession orders?

A: Over the years, Shergroup CEO Claire Sandbrook has argued for “joined up thinking” on the entire topic of possession orders leading to Writs of Possession. She believes the current two-tier system—with both county court and High Court enforcement operating separately—creates unnecessary confusion and delays. Her position is that a more integrated, efficient system would better serve all parties by providing clarity about processes, reducing delays in enforcement, ensuring consistent standards across jurisdictions, making better use of High Court enforcement capacity, and treating both landlords and tenants fairly with clear timelines and procedures. The fact that this issue is finally being addressed through the Civil Procedure Rules Committee consultation represents progress toward the “joined up thinking” Claire has long advocated.

Q14: What happens after a possession order is granted?

A: Once a possession order is made, the landlord must still wait to obtain a date for enforcement through either county court bailiffs or, if transferred, High Court Enforcement Officers. With county court bailiffs, this can take months due to the volume of cases they handle. During this time, the tenant may remain in the property (potentially accumulating more rent arrears), though they should be making arrangements to vacate. If the tenant doesn’t leave voluntarily by the date specified in the possession order, the landlord must then apply for a warrant of possession (county court) or writ of possession (High Court) to have bailiffs physically remove the tenant. Only authorized court bailiffs or High Court Enforcement Officers can legally carry out the physical eviction—landlords cannot take this action themselves without committing illegal eviction.

Q15: Why do county court delays create problems for the eviction system?

A: The county court bailiff system attempts to handle thousands of eviction orders each year, creating significant delays that can extend to months. These delays create multiple problems: landlords continue to lose rental income during the waiting period, potentially falling into debt themselves; rent arrears continue to accumulate, making the financial situation worse; tenants may remain in limbo, not knowing exactly when eviction will occur; the uncertainty makes it difficult for all parties to plan; and limited bailiff resources are stretched thin, affecting service quality. Shergroup argues that the High Court system of enforcement could be utilized to take some or all of the load, as High Court Enforcement Officers typically provide faster, more efficient service with clearer timelines and better communication.

Q16: What is the difference between Section 8 and Section 21 evictions?

A: While not explicitly detailed in the content, the discussion of “no-fault evictions” refers to Section 21 notices, which allow landlords to evict without proving fault. With no-fault evictions being phased out, landlords will need to rely more heavily on Section 8 notices, which require proving specific grounds for possession such as rent arrears (typically two months or more), antisocial behavior, damage to property, or breach of tenancy terms. Section 8 requires landlords to provide evidence to the court, whereas Section 21 did not. This change means that in cases of non-payment of rent—which Shergroup notes is usually the basis for eviction—landlords will need to document the arrears carefully and go through the Section 8 process, which may take longer and require more evidence than the previous no-fault route.

Q17: How does the eviction crisis affect local authorities?

A: The government through its local authority framework is under pressure to put the brakes on having to find homes for people who are made homeless by the eviction process. Local authorities have legal duties under homelessness legislation to provide assistance to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness. When large numbers of tenants are evicted—particularly through the faster High Court enforcement system—this creates significant pressure on local authority housing departments. They must assess each case, determine if the person is in priority need, find temporary accommodation (often expensive hotel or bed and breakfast accommodation), and eventually secure permanent housing. The cost and logistical challenge of re-housing evicted tenants places enormous strain on already-stretched local authority budgets and housing stock, which is one factor driving government policy on eviction reform.

Q18: What role does Shergroup play in the eviction process?

A: Shergroup, operating as High Court Enforcement Officers, is involved in enforcing Writs of Possession when possession orders are transferred from county court to the High Court. They handle evictions professionally and legally, ensuring that both landlords’ rights to possession and tenants’ rights to fair treatment are respected. Shergroup deals with illegal evictions (usually in London) and has extensive experience with the eviction process, typically finding that non-payment of rent is the primary cause. The company advocates for reform of the current two-tier eviction system and is responding to the Civil Procedure Rules Committee consultation to share their professional experience and recommendations for improving the system to better serve both landlords and tenants.

Q19: Can anyone respond to the Civil Procedure Rules Committee consultation?

A: Yes, Shergroup encourages anyone who wants to share their experience of the court eviction system and the impact it has had on their life from their particular vantage point to respond to the consultation paper. This includes landlords who have experienced the frustration and financial hardship of delayed evictions, tenants who have been through the eviction process and can speak to its impact on their lives, legal professionals who work with eviction cases, local authority housing officers dealing with homelessness, enforcement agents and bailiffs who carry out evictions, housing charities and advocacy groups, and any other stakeholders affected by the current system. Public consultations are opportunities for the legal system to hear from those most affected by the rules, and diverse input helps create better, more balanced policies.

Q20: What improvements does Shergroup want to see in the eviction system?

A: Shergroup believes the current consultation is long overdue in addressing the confusion caused by a two-tier eviction system. They want to see the High Court system of enforcement utilized to take some, or all, of the load currently handled by overwhelmed county court bailiffs. Key improvements they advocate for include faster enforcement timelines to reduce landlord losses and provide certainty for tenants, better resource allocation using High Court Enforcement Officers’ capacity more effectively, clearer procedures so all parties understand the process and timelines, consistent standards across county court and High Court enforcement, “joined up thinking” that considers the entire possession and enforcement process holistically, and fair treatment for both landlords (who may be in debt due to rent arrears) and tenants (who need time to make alternative arrangements). The goal is a more efficient system that respects the rights and needs of all parties involved.