Call Us TODAY on 020 3588 4240

The Enforcement Debate | Loaded Questions on MoJ Survey

Worth Sharing?

Download Our Free E-book

Get Access to the Best Content on High Court Enforcement

Our national panel of Certified High Court Enforcement Officers will help you collect your money quickly and easily.

Our CEO, Claire Sandbrook, comments on the Ministry of Justice’s recent Review of its 2014 reforms on enforcement in today’s blog:


High Court Enforcement is a Government success! The Government through an extensive consultative process created the term “High Court Enforcement Officer” “court enforcement officer” in its 2004 Regulations. Sheriffs in the English civil law was consigned to history. Although I have noted that the lovely old term still crops up even by judges who need something done by an HCEO!


Here at Shergroup we are veterans at responding to Government consultations, and it is right that the Government should review the impact of further reforms introduced in 2014 to enable Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The 2007 guiding statute was introduced rather quickly by petitions for parliament when the TV show “Whistleblower” hit the TV screens and showed high court bailiffs, bailiffs clambering through first floor windows via a ladder to gain entry. It was not a great moment in enforcement history. But it did show the behavior of some bailiffs. Faced with this evidence (which I think was verifiable by the TV crew filming it there and then) the Government had to take steps to curb poor behavior. It took nearly 7 years to work out the detail in the form of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 and the accompanying Regulation on fees. The legislation also mopped up the situation on distress for rent for commercial rent arrears recovery, commercial landlords by introducing the CRAR procedure.


So, this year the Government has pushed on with its review of its reforms to CCJ enforcement by introducing an online consultation document. On the face it of this seems simple enough. However, in answering the questions I found them to loaded towards the alleged poor behavior of bailiffs, which I do not support, and you can see my response on the attached graphic to this blog post. We need to stop the knee-jerk reaction to anecdotal stories about bailiffs and get to the facts, and the data.


When I sat on the Lord Chancellor’s Advisory Group for Enforcement Service Delivery, back in 2000, we had one expert on the panel who was a leading professor at the London School of Economics. Lord Desai’s biggest issue in all that we discussed about enforcement services was the lack of data. It was just a missing chunk out of a very complex debate. Twenty years on the consultation document asks for statistics from respondents. The Ministry of Justice has not led the way on this issue, even after having been told data was necessary to make informed decisions. HCEO’s and HMCTS compile statistics for quarterly activity, but where is the data on vulnerability, assaults on bailiffs, and complaint handling? The fact is the Government doesn’t any of these areas covered, or if it does, it doesn’t have that data from the private bailiff industry. Instead it asks the enforcement industry to submit its own figures in this online review document.

In my humble view I don’t think that’s good enough. The Ministry of Justice should have got a handle on this a long time ago. It could have created a framework for statistics, which were verifiable and as accurate as they can be. This would have enabled statistics from the debtor side of enforcement service delivery to be put in context. All sorts of statistics are going to be returned to Government as a result of this review and it will mean data is compared like apples to oranges.

Data on performance should create a level playing field from all sides of the debt enforcement debate, to fine tune a model for delivery which is as risk free as possible, given the inherent difficulties in the job of enforcing an order or judgment.


Ultimately when a report comes out on the progress of the enforcement industry it should contain statistics on:

  • Volumes of instruction – and categorized outcomes

  • Vulnerability issues – categorized – and support enforcement agent to signpost follow up services

  • Cash Collected from all this enforcement activity

  • Reasons why enforcement doesn’t result in payment – categorized

  • Diversity – the enforcement industry needs to be diverse in its population of agents and support teams

  • Assaults on enforcement agents

  • Delay in enforcement services – for example, which county court is taking 16 weeks to enforce a Writ of Possession?

  • Complaints – categorized and outcomes

  • Numbers of certificates issued by enforcement agents – and decisions to remove licenses

If we could see data at this sort of level being created in a Government framework we may be able to understand where to strengthen Regulations or Standards to improve the entire enforcement industry. On many aspects we are moving in the right direction, but we need more input from Government and the budget should be found to support this.

You Might Also Like

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]