Call Us TODAY on 020 3588 4240

Let’s Look at Enforcement in Total | And Improve It Across the Board

As a High Court Enforcement team who like to “push the envelope” in terms of enforcement activity, we watch the questions asked of politicians involved in reforming enforcement activity with great interest. So, it was good to see a written response to a question in the UK Parliament this month about the progress being made by the Justice Select Committee and its recommendations for the private enforcement agency sector.


The questions asked by MP Liz Saville-Roberts, revolve around the barriers to making a complaint about enforcement and enforcement agent activity, and the progress generally on the findings of the Justice Select Committee in relation to aggressive bailiffs. All the questions we felt were valid (see ). Barriers to asking complaints has been an issue in enforcement services for many years, including asking questions of HMCTS – being county court bailiffs. Just because a bailiff works for HMCTS rather than the private sector makes him or her no less answerable to the public if a complaint is raised. That is not to say that there is any basis to the complaint. But the mechanics of raising a complaint and getting an answer should – as many of us know – be online, and within a sensible “customer service” timeline.


Putting hurdles in the way of complainants makes any service delivery fraught and unnecessarily so. If there is no problem with how the enforcement process has operated, why make it difficult if people want to complain?


In our experience, complainants today come through various channels including Facebook, and LINKEDIN and we have to be ready to answer those complaints as if they were from customers. Our CEO, Claire Sandbrook, has always said that as an AHCEO her customer comes in triplicate, being the creditor, the debtor and the court. If you look at complaints in this way, then you just have to deliver a system of complaints handling that deals with all three sets of interest.


Interestingly in his response, Edward Argar, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Justice, confirms that his department will liaise with the Trade Unions (whose members include county court bailiffs), on the recommendations made by the Justice Select Committee. If the Under-Secretary and his team are smart, they will look at the use of body worn cameras by county court bailiffs – both for the protection of these bailiffs and also for the protection of the public. There is no point having a double standard here when public sector bailiffs are doing the same work as their counterparts in the private sector. This will achieve consistency of approach for the public which is needed in every aspect of enforcement service delivery.


Ultimately asking the questions, and answering these points, will lead to improvements in this controversial but essential part of the justice system. Every bailiff and every bailiff agency should operate to the same consistent standard which delivers a fair and balanced outcome.

Content Writer​


The following disclaimer applies to Shergroup Limited and its platform, Please read this notice carefully before accessing or using any information provided on our platform.

  1. No Legal Advice | The information presented on, including but not limited to articles, blog posts, FAQs, and other resources, is provided for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to be, and should not be considered, legal advice. The information provided does not create a solicitor/client relationship between Shergroup Limited and the user.
  2. Not a Substitute for Legal Advice | The information on should not be relied upon as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified professional. The application of laws and regulations can vary based on specific circumstances, and legal advice tailored to your particular situation is crucial. Therefore, we may refer you to a member of our partner firm -Shergroup Legal – on legal matters or encourage you to take your own legal advice from your preferred advisor.
  3. No Guarantee of Accuracy | While we strive to provide accurate and up-to-date information, Shergroup Limited does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of any information on The legal landscape is constantly evolving, and laws may vary across jurisdictions. Therefore, any reliance you place on the information provided is at your own risk.
  4. No Liability | Shergroup Limited, including its officers, employees, agents, and affiliates, shall not be held liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, or punitive damages arising out of your access to or use of or any information contained therein. This includes, but is not limited to, any errors or omissions in the content, or any actions taken or not taken based on the information provided.
  5. Third-Party Links | may contain links to third-party websites or resources. These links are provided solely for convenience and do not imply endorsement or responsibility for the content, accuracy, or legality of such websites or resources. Shergroup Limited shall not be liable for any damages or losses incurred as a result of accessing or using any third-party websites or resources.
  6. Changes to Disclaimer | Shergroup Limited reserves the right to modify or amend this disclaimer notice at any time without prior notice. Any changes will be effective immediately upon posting on It is your responsibility to review this notice periodically for updates.

By accessing or using, you acknowledge that you have read, understood, and agreed to this disclaimer notice. If you do not agree with any part of this notice, you should refrain from accessing or using

Last updated | 19 July 2023

Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this disclaimer notice, please contact us at [email protected]