In our analysis* of over 400 High Court enforcement cases, we’ve identified a single, critical factor that creates a stark efficiency gap between the Business & Property Courts and County Courts. This factor isn’t about resources, staffing, or technology – it’s about an additional procedural requirement that adds significant delay to the enforcement process with no clear benefit to the justice system.
The Critical Difference
The difference between how the Business & Property Court manage administration, and the administration of a county court possession order matter are set out in the Table below |
| Process Element | Business & Property Court Route | County Court Route |
| Initial Filing | Direct High Court filing | County Court filing |
| Permission Requirements | No additional permission needed | Section 42(2) permission required |
| Processing Time | Same-day processing typical | Average 106 days from Shergroup’s study |
| Additional Applications | Writ of Possession paperwork only | Form N244 application needed |
| Judicial Involvement | Single judicial touch | Eventual single judicial touch but case sits in long box work system |
| Administrative Steps | Single process flow | Multiple administrative stages |
| Cost to Government | Limited cost to process Writ which is already prepared and then HCEO service | Cost down to Central Government as part of Ministry of Justice and HMCTS |
| Document Requirements | Standard documentation | Additional permission documentation |
| Process Predictability | Consistent timeline | Variable timeline |
| Enforcement Timeline | Immediate upon order | Delayed pending permission |
| Resource Impact | Minimal court resources | Significant court resource usage |
| System Efficiency | Streamlined process | Multiple process steps |
Understanding Section 42(2)
The requirement for permission under Section 42(2) of the County Courts Act 1984 creates |
- A long-winded court application without a guaranteed outcome as it is based on judicial discretion which is opaque across the judiciary
- A burden on judicial time in the county court system
- Increased administrative processing
- Extended waiting periods confirmed in Shergroup’s data
- Higher costs for claimants confirmed from the many anecdotes shared with Shergroup by claimants
The Impact in Numbers
Our data analysis reveals |
- Average 106-day delay in County Courts
- Yet …. Same-day processing in Business & Property Courts
- Zero cost to government for High Court enforcement
- Significant court time spent on unnecessary permissions
- Substantial financial impact on claimants
A Simple Solution
The efficiency gap could be eliminated through |
- A simple tick-box option at claim stage seeking permission to enforce in the High Court without having to justify the claimant’s choice of enforcement method
- No additional cost to government
- Reduced administrative burden
- Faster access to justic
Benefits of Modernization This Aspect of the Enforcement Rules
For the Justice System
- Reduced administrative burden
- Better resource allocation
- No additional costs
- Improved efficiency
- Higher user satisfaction
For Claimants
- Faster enforcement
- Cost-effective process
- Clear timelines
- Professional service
- Choice of enforcement route
For Courts
- Reduced paperwork
- Fewer applications
- Better resource use
- Streamlined processes
- Improved efficiency
The Cost Advantage
High Court Enforcement Officers provide |
- No-cost alternative to county court bailiffs
- Professional service delivery
- Efficient enforcement
- Clear accountability through body cameras being worn during evictions
- Proven track record of safety and balanced enforcement involving the general public
Current Reality vs Potential Future
Current System
- Mandatory step to seek discretionary permission required
- Leading to extended processing times
- Creating additional court applications which are severely delayed
- Increased costs for the claimant, and indeed HMCTS in trying to service these applications for permission to transfer to the High Court
- Delay in the delivery of justice to a claimant who already has a possession order
Proposed Improvement
- Simple tick-box choice for claimants to choose county court bailiff or High Court Enforcement Officer – what are government afraid of in putting this choice out there?
- Immediate processing by High Court Enforcement Officers to serve Notices of Eviction and set a date for the enforcement of the Court’s Order – is this not access to justice for a claimant who has already proved he/she/it is entitled to possession back of the property?
- No additional time-consuming applications
- Cost-effective for claimants and HMCTS
- Access to justice delivered to claimants who may well be suffering financial hardship as a result of the defendant’s not leaving the property
The Evidence for Change
Our analysis shows |
1. Time Savings
- Elimination of unacceptable 106-day average delay
- Immediate processing potential
- Faster enforcement completion
- Reduced court time
- Better resource use
2. Cost Benefits
- No government expenditure
- Reduced administrative costs
- Better resource allocation
- Professional service delivery
- Efficient enforcement
3. System Improvements
- Streamlined processes
- Reduced paperwork
- Better resource use
- Improved efficiency
- Enhanced service delivery
A Call for Modernization
The current requirement for Section 42(2) permission |
- Creates unnecessary delays
- Adds no value to the process for the claimant but maintains the status quo for the defendant – which is actually at the heart of the failure by Government to push the button on reform on this issue
- And yet this inertia in making a change Increases costs for all parties
- Delays access to justice for claimants
- Wastes court resources which impacts on all aspects of court business – not just possession claims
The Way Forward
Implementation would require |
1. Simple Form Changes
- Add enforcement choice option for claimants on the claim form or in PCOL
- Provide clear guidance notes for claimants and defendants
- Start the rehousing process for defendants who need it early on
- Provide a simple process explanation
- Offer the system online with a simple User-friendly design
- Design straightforward implementation plans with all stakeholders understanding the positive impact on cost and delivery of justice
2. System Updates
- Minor procedural changes to PCOL and case management
- Simple form modifications at claim stage and again at final possession order stage
- Basic training updates for court staff
- Clear guidance for all stakeholders on websites and in court offices and with HCEOs
- Create an easy transition
Take Action
The evidence for change is clear. Contact Shergroup to learn how we currently navigate these system differences and help any interested party or group to understand and support the modernization of enforcement processes.
You can reach us |
By Phone | 020 3588 4240
Website | www.shergroup.com and you can chat to us from here
Email | hub@shergroup.com
Facebook | Check out Shergroup on this channel and message us
Twitter | Check out ShergroupChat on this channel and message us
LINKEDIN | Check out Shergroup’s LINKEDIN – and please FOLLOW us!
Instagram | Check out ShergroupChatter and
YouTube | Check out Shergroup YouTube Channel – and Subscribe to Our Channel!
Google My Business | https://maps.app.goo.gl/J1pUNBKfFv2SVnjQ6
