This paper sets out for consultation detailed proposals for the implementation of changes to the way that High Court Writs of Fieri Facias (fi-fa) and Possession are enforced. The consultation is aimed at court users, sheriffs and other private enforcement agents in England and Wales. This consultation is being conducted in line with the Code of Practice on Written Consultation issued by the Cabinet Office. Its implications are limited to, and will probably be of interest to, only a small number of individuals whom we would normally consult via their representatives. However to ensure that all those likely to be affected or with an interest have an opportunity to comment, the Code of Practice is being adhered to. The Code criteria set out at the end of this document have been followed.
The proposals are for a more direct system of writ enforcement that will maintain and build upon existing professional standards in a market that is truly competitive, and can in due course be opened to new entrants who are able to demonstrate that they meet the required professional standard. However for the time being the market will continue to be made up solely of those currently involved in this work. Consequently the proposals will not lead to additional costs or savings for businesses, charities or the voluntary sector at the present time, and for that reason only a partial Regulatory Impact Assessment has been prepared.
Copies of the consultation paper are being sent to:
Please send your response by 10th October 2003 to:
Mr Chris Bell
Department for Constitutional Affairs
Civil Justice Division
3rd Floor
Selborne House
54-60 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6QW
Tel: 0207 210 8560
Fax: 0207 210 8559
Email: Chris Bell
Representative groups are asked to give a summary of the people and organisations they represent when they respond.
The Department may wish to publish responses to this consultation document in due course. Please ensure your response is marked clearly if you wish your response or name to be kept confidential. Confidential responses will be included in any statistical summary of numbers of comments received and views expressed.
Further copies of this consultation paper, as well as copies of the recently issued White Paper Effective Enforcement, can be obtained from David Ilic at the above address or by phoning 0207 210 8654.
The Enforcement Review Green Paper Towards Effective Enforcement, published in July 2001, set out the Government's vision of a new class of enforcement agents who are officers of the court, and an end to the existing statutory jurisdictional or regional monopolies for enforcement that currently restrict customer choice and the development of modern business practices.
This Consultation Paper sets out proposals for a more direct system of writ enforcement that will maintain and build upon the existing professional standards in a market that is truly competitive, and can in due course be open to new entrants who are able to demonstrate that they meet the required professional standard. This is an important step towards a regulatory framework which it is envisaged will encompass not just civil court warrant enforcement agents but other private sector enforcement agents collecting money for central and local government, as outlined in the Enforcement Review White Paper Effective Enforcement, published in March 2003.
At present, the system for Enforcement of High Court judgments is carried out in the name of the High Sheriff of each county although they do not perform the task personally and have no direct involvement in the process, beyond a responsibility under the Sheriffs Act of 1887, to appoint an Under Sheriff for each bailiwick.
The Office of High Sheriff is one of the oldest continuous Crown appointments and has existed for more than 1,000 years. The High Sheriff for each county is appointed annually by the Crown and receives no remuneration for their duties, which are mainly formal, traditional and symbolic, and include a responsibility for attending High Court Judges who may visit the county during the year. High Sheriffs have moved with the times and nowadays they are more representative of the communities they serve and are very active in the areas of fund raising and good causes, especially those related to the promotion of law and order, tackling social exclusion and recognising public service. The High Sheriff is, however, also charged with the execution of most of the judgments and orders of the High Court and is enjoined by Statute to appoint an Under Sheriff and sufficient Officers to carry out his duties. These responsibilities seem onerous for an unpaid Office Holder to bear.
It is the Under Sheriff and their Sheriff's Officers who are actually involved in the Enforcement of High Court judgments, they also enforce county court judgments over £5,000 (except for judgment debts regulated under the Consumer Credit Act), and in some circumstances judgments over £600. These appointments although technically annual have often continued for many years and in some cases may have been passed down through the same family or the same company for generations. The system of annual appointments and regional monopolies has been criticised as lacking in openness and transparency. It may also have led to overstaffing, and acted as a disincentive for Under Sheriffs and Sheriff's Officers who might otherwise have wished to invest in more modern business practices and provide information on their performance to creditors.
Fees and poundage for this enforcement work are payable in accordance with the Scale of Fees. It is possible that the current fee structure has in the past funded activities or personnel that are not directly involved with enforcement. Creditors who choose, or are required, to use the Sheriffs for enforcement have to use the Sheriff responsible for the area (bailiwick) covering the address at which the debtor's goods are to be levied. Although in most cases it is the Sheriff's Officer (or his employed bailiff) who carries out its enforcement, the writ cannot be delivered to the Sheriff's Officer - it must be delivered to the Sheriff, Under Sheriff or their London Agent for execution.
This Consultation Paper brings forward detailed proposals for the modernisation of these roles, responsibilities and procedures so that the High Sheriffs, who are rightly proud of their history can be allowed to build upon the traditions of their Office and through the unique character of the Shrievalty continue to make a worthwhile contribution to the community. Most importantly however, these proposals introduce competition, an open and transparent system and address the need for customer choice and increased professionalism, in the process of High Court Enforcement. They will allow those who are currently actively engaged in this work to continue to be so, and others who may wish to become involved to join the market in due course.
It will be necessary for all those involved in High Court Enforcement to achieve an acceptable professional standard, demonstrated by passing the relevant two stage examination and through membership of the High Court Enforcement Officer's Association (HCEOA) and strict adherence to its rules regarding business practice. These arrangements will ensure continued national coverage for all High Court Writs of Fieri Facias and Possession. They build upon the industry's own suggestions for internal reform and do not require any amendment of the Sheriffs Act or other primary legislation. They have the advantage of opening the market and setting a clear framework of professional standards sooner than the timetable previously envisaged by the Sheriffs themselves, and ahead of wider changes across the enforcement industry as a whole as outlined in the White Paper Effective Enforcement. It is the Government's intention to introduce legislation to implement these proposed changes as soon as Parliamentary time allows.
The new provisions have no effect on appointments made under the Sheriffs Act. Our proposals relate solely to the enforcement of High Court writs. There are no proposals to change the system by which High Sheriffs appoint Under Sheriffs or Officers. There will, however, be a separation of the responsibility and fees for High Court enforcement from any other activity. Representatives of Under Sheriffs and Sheriffs Officers have expressed their desire to continue to support their local High Sheriffs in their remaining duties.
The Green Paper 'Towards Effective Enforcement'
The existing arrangements for High Court Enforcement were explained in the Green Paper Towards Effective Enforcement which was published in July 2001. The period for responses ended on 12 October 2001. A post consultation report was published on 8 May 2002.
The Green Paper mentioned the establishment of an Advisory Group to provide input from the private, public and voluntary sectors and inform the policy making process. The First Report to the Lord Chancellor from this Advisory Group on Enforcement Service Delivery covered the current arrangements and information on the Sheriffs' performance in some detail. Their Third Report put forward recommendations for changes in High Court enforcement.
A White Paper Effective Enforcement was issued on 26 March 2003. This contained a package of legislative proposals including legislation to establish improved methods of recovery for civil court debt and commercial rent and a single regulatory regime for warrant enforcement agents.
Reports from the Advisory Group on Enforcement Service Delivery
In their First Report, published in December 2001, the Advisory Group:
Acknowledged the continuing need for a mix of public and private sector provision in civil court warrant enforcement for at least the next five years because both sectors are in the process of change and modernisation.
Welcomed the ongoing dialogue between LCD (as it then was) and representatives from the Sheriffs and broadly endorsed and welcomed suggestions to revise the existing Sheriffs' structure, as a transitional arrangement, or in advance of any future legislative change, recognising that such change would take time.
Welcomed the Sheriffs' agreement to make information on their performance on enforcement of writs of fi-fa publicly available.
Recommended that in due course, the work that is currently undertaken by Sheriffs must be open to others, subject to them attaining the necessary standards, qualifications and performance.
In their Third Report High Court Enforcement: The Compelling Need For Change, the Advisory Group acknowledged:
Urgent changes are required to establish a High Court enforcement system that is open, transparent, effective and appropriate to users needs, and which should be introduced as soon as a legislative opportunity permits.
That the authorisation of those who will be obliged to undertake enforcement of High Court writs should be a matter for the Lord Chancellor and one over which he should have a clear authority, although it may be suitable for delegation. We think it may be suitable for a senior member of the judiciary to have oversight of the arrangements and authority over those approved.
In accordance with proposals in the Green Paper and the White Paper, as well as the recommendations listed above, measures in the Courts Bill, currently making its way through Parliament, will introduce a regime to supersede the existing appointment arrangements prescribed by the Sheriffs Act 1887. These reforms are being introduced now, in anticipation that they will act as a forerunner of the wider changes to the regulatory regime for civil enforcement as a whole proposed in the White Paper.
Courts Bill
Clause 97 and Schedule 6 of the Courts Bill provide the High Court with a new regime under which orders of the court for the payment of debts by the seizure and sale of the debtor's goods, and court orders for the possession of land will be enforced. These will relieve High Sheriffs of legal obligations that with the passage of time have become an anachronism. They provide for the authorisation of officers who will be duty bound to execute High Court writs. They confer on those officers the same enforcement powers that the common law confers on sheriffs, and they make supplementary provision for the exercise of those powers.
The proposed new regime for High Court enforcement
The High Court will continue to issue writs of execution, and it will be up to the Court (acting through the senior Judges) to decide who should enforce those writs. But these new arrangements will give the Court an efficient and better supervised regime for that purpose (High Court writs for the enforcement of judgment debts by the seizure and sale of a debtor's goods and High Court writs for the possession of land are known collectively as 'writs of execution').
It will introduce for the first time ever elements of consumer choice into the enforcement regime, because for the first time enforcement officers will be able to operate in more than one geographical area. That competition will encourage - and the process of authorisation will require - openness and transparency in applications to carry out this business, as well as modern, efficient and fair business and employment practices.
The provisions do not prevent the High Court directing a writ of execution to a named High Court Enforcement Officer, High Sheriff, or any other named person, if a judge thinks that appropriate in a particular case (although it is envisaged that it will no longer be necessary to do so). Nor does it affect any residual common law power that the High Court may have to direct a writ in a particular case to someone other than an enforcement officer or a sheriff.
The Schedule confers legal powers to make regulations to supplement its provisions, after consulting certain senior Judges. And it re-enacts, in modern English, the duty of a police constable to assist when necessary in the execution of a High Court writ, a duty that is already imposed by section 8 of the Sheriffs Act 1887.
Enforcement districts will be defined in regulations. At present, High Court writs are directed to the sheriff for the so-called 'bailiwick' in which the debtor lives or the land to be re-possessed is situated. 'Bailiwicks' are defined by reference to the county boundaries as they were before 1972. (This came into effect on 1st April 1974 under The Local Government Act 1972 s219 (4) and the Under Sheriffs Bailiwicks Order 1974 (SI 1974 222) article 2).
An enforcement officer may be authorised to act as such irrespective of whether he is self-employed, employed by an independent business, or appointed directly by the Lord Chancellor. Regulations made under paragraph 12 will make detailed provisions for authorisation, and will require appropriate guarantees of the competence, probity and financial sufficiency of every candidate for authorisation, and of everyone whom that person may allow to act under his authority in executing a writ. The Lord Chancellor is permitted to delegate this function to someone other than a civil servant, such as an appropriate office holder in the High Court.
The provisions require the assignment of at least one enforcement officer to each enforcement district, so that there will be in every district at least one officer responsible for enforcing High Court judgments. This is to guarantee not only full national coverage for High Court enforcement, but also to guarantee that there is customer choice for High Court enforcement across all of England and Wales. Unlike a sheriff, however, who is appointed to only one geographical area, an enforcement officer may be assigned to more than one district.
As there will be more than one enforcement officer assigned to a district in which a writ is to be enforced, provisions allow the approval of administrative arrangements, such as a 'cab rank' principle, under which one of them will be selected as the officer responsible for enforcing each writ.
The provisions also allow detailed regulations to supplement Schedule 6, covering, in particular, the matters listed in paragraph 12 sub-paragraph (2), upon which this paper is consulting and seeking views, and also providing for the fees that may be taken by enforcement officers. Clause 97 and Schedule 6 of the Courts Bill, as they stood at the Second Reading stage in the House of Commons on June 9th 2003, are reproduced at Annex H.
Regulations will make detailed provision as to the appointment method for High Court Enforcement Officers, and who will make that appointment. Although statutory powers contained within the Courts Bill put this power in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, it is a role that the Lord Chancellor may choose to pass on to a suitable delegate to carry out.
It is proposed that the new system comes into effect on 1st April 2004. This date is important as it marks the start of the new Shrievalty year, when new High Sheriffs take up office. With ministerial approval, departmental officials have already informally indicated the intention that new High Sheriffs who take up office on 1st April 2004 will not have to take on any High Court enforcement responsibilities.
This section deals with the proposals that will be included in the regulations and sets out in more detail how the process will work in practice. The secondary legislation will provide for:
Conditions to be met by individuals seeking to be authorised to act as enforcement officers;
The circumstances in which authorisations may be terminated;
The procedures to be followed in relation to the assignment of enforcement officers or changes in their assignment;
The publication of lists of enforcement officers assigned to each district and addresses to which writs may be sent;
Determination of fees.
In their Report on High Court enforcement the Advisory Group made the following recommendations:
In accordance with the aims of the Review and the future model for a regulatory structure envisaged, those who take part in High Court enforcement should be members of a professional body.
Such a professional body should be inclusive of everyone currently actively engaged in High Court enforcement and open to others. Its duties must include monitoring the performance and standards of its members, and setting and maintaining professional standards for High Court enforcement. Given the role and integrity of the High Court, those who enforce its judgments as Officers of the Court should present an exemplar for others in the private sector.
Such arrangements for further development of High Court enforcement officers would be expected to build upon those currently set out in the National Standards for Enforcement Agents. There will need to be openness and transparency of membership of any professional body.
Most importantly, in the longer term there must exist the ability for individuals to be authorised to undertake High Court enforcement without having previously been appointed either an Under Sheriff or Sheriff's Officer, or held membership of the Under Sheriffs' Association, the Sheriffs' Officers' Association or the High Court Enforcement Officers' Association.
Following on our consultations with interested parties and the recommendations of the Advisory Group, we believe the issues such a professional body would need to address include:
It will be for the authorising authority to satisfy itself of the competence, probity and financial sufficiency of individual candidates for authorisation.
An authorised High Court Enforcement Officer will be under a duty to enforce, either in person (in practice, with colleagues or employees) or by another authorised enforcement officer, every writ of execution that falls to be enforced in the area to which that officer is assigned. These can be delivered to that officer by the judgment beneficiary or on the beneficiary's behalf.
An authorised enforcement officer will have power to enforce, in person or by another authorised enforcement officer, any writ of execution that falls to be enforced in any area to which he is not assigned, if he is asked to do so by the judgment beneficiary or on the beneficiary's behalf and if the officer is willing to do so.
The proposals contained in the White Paper put forward a recommendation that every civil enforcement agent, including all High Court enforcement officers, should not only all be licensed under a new licensing regime but should also all belong to a professional association.
In their report on High Court enforcement the Advisory Group stated that given its existing extensive coverage among those actively engaged in High Court enforcement, their willingness to embrace change and the relevant professional standards involved, the Sheriffs Officers Association (as it was then known - anticipating the enactment of the Courts Bill it has since changed it's name to the High Court Enforcement Officers Association, or HCEOA) seemed a suitable existing model upon which to build.
The HCEOA is a voluntary association made up of the majority of those actively engaged in High Court enforcement, full membership of which is conditional upon meeting defined standards of competence and probity.
Once the HCEOA had been identified as a suitable existing model upon which to build, the department worked closely with them, encouraging them to make the necessary organisational changes to enable them to make the transition from trade association to professional body. They have continued to make strides in areas such as diversity awareness, training and development and conduct and discipline, whilst at the same time remaining aware of the needs of the industry and those currently involved in it.
It is unlikely that anyone who has not attained full membership of the High Court Enforcement Officers' Association will be authorised to act as a High Court enforcement officer, at least to begin with. Membership imports recognised and accepted standards, adequate avenues of consumer redress and the possession of adequate indemnity insurance. We have received an indication that there are now approximately 100 existing members who have expressed an interest in continuing with the work of High Court enforcement. At this stage, therefore, there appears to be an appropriate matching of the supply of enforcement officers with the need for them, and there is no need to open up the market any wider.
The Association's current rules are designed for working Officers. The examination is currently based on the assumption that candidates are employed in the business of the Sheriff and therefore experienced in the culture and practices of civil enforcement. The present system is that a person would join as a provisional member, study for and pass the examination (this can be achieved in a year) and become an Associate Member. Where the person is an appointed Sheriff's Officer, who swears an oath of office, it is expected that they are sufficiently senior in terms of experience so that they can progress to full Membership having passed the exam.
Anticipating the introduction of a new regime, those Under Sheriffs now actively engaged in enforcement work, and who wish to continue operating in the profession under the new regime, have joined the HCEOA.
The terms and conditions for full membership of the Association proposed by the HCEOA under the new regime are shown at Annex A. The HCEOA Annual Return form AR1 is also shown at Annex B. These provide a basis for any future discussions as to the minimum standards required of any professional association of civil enforcement officers under the proposed future regulatory regime.
As mentioned earlier, there are approximately 100 people currently involved in High Court enforcement who have indicated a wish to continue operating in this area under the proposed new regime. They and their representatives have approached departmental officials requesting guidance as to the criteria that will need to be fulfilled for an application to be assigned as a High Court Enforcement Officer to be successful, both for existing members of the HCEOA, but also for those who may be looking to move into the industry in the future.
We have already indicated a wish to implement the new regime from 1st April 2004, a desire that is shared by those within the industry. To help ensure a smooth transition to the new system, we have been asked to provide details of the criteria against which applicants will be measured as soon as possible. Of course, we are not in a position to give a definitive answer until the Courts Bill has received Royal Assent and the relevant regulations have been passed. However, bearing in mind the likelihood of a very short timescale between Royal Assent and implementation, it is felt that an indicative answer, giving details of what are likely to be the criteria on which suitability for appointment will be assessed, will give those people who wish to remain within the industry as much time as possible to prepare themselves for the requirements of the new regime.
Following consultations with the professional bodies that represent those within the High Court enforcement industry and recommendations from the Advisory Group on Enforcement Service Delivery, we have identified twelve criteria upon which we believe authorisations should be based. These criteria categories are identified below (and are also reproduced at Annex E):
Training
The applicant must have successfully completed all the relevant training required, and be committed to a programme of continuing professional development, both for themselves and any employees they may have. (Details of the training that HCEOA members currently have to undertake prior to achieving full membership is at paragraph 31, whilst details of their continuing professional development programme is at paragraphs 79 and 80).
Trading Address
The applicant must have a trading address and telephone number for business purposes. (This office must be based within a postal district to which they are assigned). This office must be staffed to deal with personal and telephone enquiries between 0900 and 1700 Monday to Friday inclusive, and outside these hours an answer phone service should exist that provides details for contacting an officer in an emergency.
Insurance
The applicant must have adequate insurance cover. This must include, as a minimum, Professional Indemnity Insurance, Employers Liability Insurance (if the applicant is an employer) and Goods In Transit Insurance (if the applicant will be conducting their own removals).
Banking
The applicant must have a separate client's bank account, where all clients' money is held, and for which an audit certificate is held.
Prioritisation
The applicant must have in place adequate arrangements for dealing with issues surrounding the priority of writs and insolvency notices. (Details outlining how the computer system developed in part by the HCEOA will deal with such issues can be found at paragraph 70).
Professional Conduct
The applicant must give a commitment to observing minimum standards of behaviour and professional conduct, both for themselves and for their employees. The current accepted minimum standard is the Department's National Standards for Enforcement Agents, issued in April 2002. Professional conduct will also include a commitment to providing certain minimum levels of customer service, covering such issues as minimum response and turnaround times for official correspondence.
Financial Propriety
The applicant must provide written confirmation that he / she is not an undischarged bankrupt. The need for financial propriety of applicants who wish to carry out High Court enforcement work cannot be overstressed. Those who work within this area of civil enforcement are expected to provide an example for the rest of the industry to aspire to.
Performance Statistics
The applicant must provide performance statistics to the department in the approved format and in line with agreed deadlines. At present, such statistics have to be provided quarterly, twenty-one days after the end of the relevant quarter (i.e. those for the Jan-Feb-Mar quarter should be provided, in the approved format, no later than 21st April). Failure to provide such statistics, in the approved format and by agreed deadlines, will be regarded as a serious disciplinary offence and may lead to the withdrawal of authorisation. (Please see paragraphs 74 - 76 for further details.)
Licensing
The applicant must (where appropriate) hold the current relevant licences under the Consumer Credit Act and the Data Protection Act.
Diversity
The applicant must adhere to an acceptable diversity policy, in employment matters and in relation to their clients and customers. The HCEOA have provided a copy of their diversity statement, which is attached at Annex D. The department considers adherence to that statement as sufficient. The HCEOA complaints and disciplinary procedure will address complaints on diversity related issues. High Court Enforcement Officers are legally bound by the terms of the Sex Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Act, in the latter case by virtue of the fact that they are carrying out a "public function" when carrying out their duties.
Disciplinary Procedure
The applicant must be subject to the terms and conditions of an approved complaints and disciplinary procedure. The current HCEOA complaint procedure, which we regard as meeting the necessary standards, is attached at Annex C.
Criminal Record
The applicant must provide a written statement, accompanied by any relevant certification, that they have no criminal conviction that might undermine public confidence in the propriety and integrity of High Court enforcement. Certain convictions, such as for a minor motoring offence, for example, need not disqualify an applicant. However, a conviction for serious financial dishonesty will be taken into account, even though it may be considered spent under the terms of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. As with issues of bankruptcy, it is necessary to stress the need for financial propriety of applicants.
| Question 1: Are these criteria sufficient to guarantee the probity of those who wish to work within the High Court enforcement industry? Question 2: Are there any that need to be strengthened, are irrelevant, or place unnecessary burdens on applicants? Is there anything that we have missed? |
There are three possible sets of circumstances that need to be addressed in this area: where termination is voluntary (i.e. through retirement or resignation); and where the termination is involuntary (either as a result of disciplinary proceedings within a professional association such as the HCEOA or otherwise at the instigation of the authorising authority).
Where the termination is voluntary, the individual concerned will have a personal responsibility to inform both their association and the authorising authority of their decision. The association will need to have in place a system for amending the necessary lists and records to ensure the person concerned is removed from all relevant documentation and is not sent any further writs. There also needs to be in place a system to reallocate any work that the person concerned may have in hand, as well as passing on any monies they may still be holding on behalf of creditor clients.
At present, such work is passed on from one officer to another by way of a straightforward contract agreement between the two parties. This appears to work smoothly, and would be permissible and effective under the proposed new regime. We are therefore content to let this procedure remain in place.
The involuntary termination of an authorisation as a result of disciplinary proceedings is by its very nature going to be a much more involved process. This would usually be as a result of the officer being subject to a complaint that has been upheld by the professional association or has been referred directly to the authorising authority. Such a complaint could come either from a debtor, a creditor or a third party. The HCEOA has produced a draft updated complaints procedure, shown at Annex C, which will initially serve as the basis for such disciplinary matters.
It is, of course, envisaged that once oversight of the civil enforcement industry as a whole comes under our proposed regulatory regime, that a Complaints Board will have overall control of any future appeals procedure. However, in the period leading up to the introduction of a future regulatory regime to cover all civil enforcement, we intend to use the HCEOA as an example to the rest of the industry as to how complaints should be handled.
There will, of course, need to be an appeals process built in to all these procedures in the meantime. Appeals could possibly come from three different sources. They could come from debtors or creditors who feel that their complaints have not been adequately dealt with; from HCEOA members wishing to appeal against expulsion or termination on disciplinary grounds; and potential members of the HCEOA who wish to appeal against their applications for membership being refused.
The authorising authority will assign at least one authorised enforcement officer to every district in England and Wales, the delineation of such districts to be determined by the Lord Chancellor. As an initial exercise, the HCEOA invited members to express an interest in being assigned to a particular area by way of postal districts. This department similarly proposes that assignment should be by way of postal district. There are 104 postal districts in England and Wales, listed at Annex G.
| Question 3: Do you agree that postal districts are an appropriate system to use? If you disagree, please provide an alternative suggestion. |
Every authorised enforcement officer will be under a duty to provide the authorising authority with one or more addresses at which writs of execution and insolvency notices may be delivered to him - whether by post, or by leaving the writ or notice at that address, or, if the Lord Chancellor in due course should provide, by electronic communication.
The department will initially publish, and from time to time will amend as necessary, a list of authorised enforcement officers, identifying the area(s) to which each has been assigned and their address(es).
Enforcement officers and their professional association will be obliged to notify the department of any change of address or district to which they are assigned.
We propose that the lists be published both alphabetically and by postal district. Copies will be available from the High Court and all District Registries and County Courts, and will provide the name and address for service for all authorised officers. The list will also be available on the departmental website.
| Question 4: Should the directories be made available from anywhere else, either in hard copy or in electronic format? |
Under the new regime, "poundage" will no longer be payable by the High Court Enforcement Officer to the Under Sheriff for the bailiwick in which the recovery action takes place.
An authorised enforcement officer will be entitled to collect such fees from judgment beneficiaries and debtors, in such circumstances, as may be prescribed by the Lord Chancellor. We propose that these should be analogous with the fees now prescribed under the Sheriffs Act 1887 (which includes the poundage fee).
As an authorised enforcement officer will be able to enforce anywhere in England and Wales, it is not acceptable that the debtor should bear the extra cost for the officer to potentially travel from one side of the country to the other. Therefore, it is proposed that mileage fees will be capped.
It is proposed that the maximum mileage fee chargeable be capped at a sum of £50.00 plus VAT (£58.75). This figure has been agreed as being easier to use and understand than having to use a formula based on the size of the largest existing bailiwick (50 miles) @ 29.2 pence per mile and that two visits be allowed, both consisting of an outward and return journey (which would have provided a maximum mileage fee of £58.40). Provision will be made for a summary assessment in the event of a challenge, similar to a summary assessment of costs under Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) Part 44.
| Question 5: Do you agree that mileage fees should be controlled in this way? Are there any alternatives to our proposal? Question 6: Are there any other changes to the fee structure for High Court enforcement that you think should be made at this time? |
Transitional arrangements
The fourth and final report of the Advisory Group on Enforcement Service Delivery, which is due for publication shortly, will deal with transitional arrangements. This report will be considering transitional arrangements for the civil enforcement industry as a whole, in the light of the recommendations contained within the White Paper Effective Enforcement, in particular those recommendations regarding a new regulatory regime for all civil enforcement agents within England and Wales.
This report will make it clear that a "passporting in" of all those who currently work in the industry en bloc without any further checks as to their suitability is not acceptable. This position is wholeheartedly endorsed by the Department with regard to High Court Enforcement.
By publishing the criteria on which applications for appointment as a High Court Enforcement Officer will be judged well in advance, the department considers that it has negated the need for special transitional arrangements for High Court enforcement. The department considers that there will be sufficient people of sufficient calibre to cater for the needs of the market. These people are well aware of the requirements that they need to fulfil to be appointed, and they have been given sufficient time to attain these standards if they do not reach them already.
It is proposed that writs of execution be addressed to any member of the HCEOA in terms that require their enforcement by any member within the designated area in question to whom they were delivered by the judgment beneficiary, but which at the same time permit their enforcement by any other member selected by that beneficiary who was willing to act. For HCEOA members to be permitted to collect for their own benefit such fees as presently Sheriffs' Officers collect under s.20, Sheriffs Act 1887 and the fees orders made under that section by the Lord Chancellor, the writ itself and the Supreme Court Fees Order require amendment too.
Writs of execution for enforcement by an authorised enforcement officer will in future be addressed, at the election of the judgment beneficiary, either to 'X, an officer of the High Court authorised to enforce judgments of the Court' or to 'the officers of the High Court authorised to enforce judgments of the Court and who are assigned to the district of X' (or words to that effect). Possible new versions of the new form of writ are included at Annex F.
In practice, authorised enforcement officers are expected to agree among themselves that judgment beneficiaries will be offered the opportunity, if they wish and for a (non-prescribed, commercial) fee, to deliver writs of execution to a central (non-statutory, commercial) registry (the enterprise currently known as the Sheriffs' Lodgment Centre, or SLC). The SLC will act as agent both for the beneficiaries and for the participating officers (as the SLC does now for judgment beneficiaries and Under Sheriffs). Writs received there will be passed, according to what the beneficiary has chosen when issuing the writ, to a named enforcement officer, or to any authorised enforcement officer assigned to the district in which the writ falls to be enforced: thus imposing the duty to enforce upon the recipient. Writs for transmission to an unspecified officer will be shared among the officers assigned to the district in question according to arrangements agreed between the participating officers and the SLC (and in practice superintended by the HCEOA).
To establish the priority of writs of execution, as among several writs and in relation to insolvency proceedings, authorised enforcement officers will be under a duty to record the date and time at which a writ is received, either by the officer or on his behalf. Authorised enforcement officers will be under a duty to report the receipt of a writ to all other authorised enforcement officers (and in practice they are likely to do this through the agency of the SLC). Authorised enforcement officers will be under a duty to receive insolvency notices issued in respect of insolvents in the district to which that officer is assigned, and to report the receipt of such a notice to all other authorised enforcement officers (again, in practice they are likely to do this through the agency of the SLC, which they are likely to nominate as their address for the receipt of such notices). The computer system which will house this is already based at the SLC and is up and running.
An authorised enforcement officer will have all the common law powers of enforcement presently exercised by Sheriffs when enforcing writs of execution.
An authorised enforcement officer enforcing a writ of fieri facias may enter into a walking possession agreement analogous with such agreements now entered by sheriffs' officers.
A police constable upon whom an authorised enforcement officer calls for assistance in enforcing a writ will be under a duty to assist that officer, analogous with the present duty to assist a Sheriff in enforcing a writ. The obstruction of an authorised enforcement officer in enforcing a writ will continue to be a criminal offence.
In enforcing writs of fi-fa and writs of possession, enforcement officers are enforcing orders and judgments of the High Court. That being the case, and given the role and status of the High Court, DCA considers that it is only right and proper that statistical records regarding the enforcement of these writs be kept for the information of the High Court, the department and the general public. This is particularly the case in the new regime, which will introduce an element of consumer choice in the provision of High Court enforcement.
Since July 2002, DCA has had an agreement with the HCEOA that its members will collate and provide performance statistics in an agreed format for cleared writs of fi-fa. These figures are collated centrally by the HCEOA, and are then forwarded to DCA, where they are analysed and validated by statisticians. The first half-yearly results (for the six-month period July to December 2002) have been published recently in the LCD's (as it then was) Annual Report.
It is DCA's belief that the timeous provision of performance statistics in the agreed format should be a key provision within the designated roles and responsibilities of a High Court Enforcement Officer. DCA also believes that those who continually and wilfully fail to provide such information should have their authorisations terminated.
The issue of the rewording of writs and other official documents is currently under active consideration by the Civil Procedure Rule Committee and the Heads of Division of the High Court. We expect them to prescribe new forms of writ of execution, to be addressed to authorised enforcement officers and not Sheriffs. In line with the overarching principles of the reforms to the Civil Procedure Rules, we expect them to be similar to County Court forms and to use modern English.
Consequential amendments will need to be made to reflect the substitution of Sheriffs with authorised High Court Enforcement Officers - e.g. in relation to interpleader.
The HCEOA has already put in place a survey seeking information about the ethnic background, disability status, and gender of all members actively seeking to continue in High Court enforcement, and also of their employees. They intend to use this information, which they will treat on a confidential basis, to advance their own equality and diversity plans. This is to be followed up by further training for all members, which will highlight many of the issues that the survey will raise, including training requirements for such areas as health and safety, avoiding violence / confrontation during the course of their work, and diversity awareness.
It is expected that the HCEOA will continue to undertake such training in the future, as part of a programme of continuing professional development that all appointed as High Court Enforcement Officers will be obliged to undertake. Indeed, one of the reasons why we identified the HCEOA as the suitable existing organisation upon which to build a professional body for the High Court enforcement industry was their commitment to addressing diversity and training issues and the long term opening up of their membership to all those who wish to become involved in High Court enforcement.
The Government has long been concerned about the potential liabilities faced by High Sheriffs because of their personal responsibilities for High Court enforcement. Under the present arrangement, if a High Sheriff incurs a legal liability to someone during his or her year in office, then a claim can be made anything up to 6 years later. (For example, there might be a claim against the High Sheriff for the acts and omissions of Under Sheriffs and Sheriffs' Officers in the course of enforcement of a High Court writ).
High Sheriffs have therefore always faced the possibility of a claim being made against them after their year in office that relates to something that happened during that year. In the past, insurance arrangements were made on their behalf to cover that possibility, and we are not aware of there having been any major problems with those arrangements. Under Sheriffs have given successive High Sheriffs an indemnity and covered this with professional indemnity insurance.
However, we believe that removing the personal responsibility in connection with the enforcement of High Court judgments from High Sheriffs is the best solution to the problem of these potential liabilities. We wish to ensure that these changes to High Court enforcement procedures preserve the character of the shrievalty, and build upon the traditions of the office, so that they can continue to make a valuable contribution to their local communities.
Concern has been raised about providing an indemnity between Royal Assent and the point at which the statutory limitation becomes legally effective. Now that High Sheriffs are being relieved of the burden of enforcement, the question of "run off" cover arises, to protect the current High Sheriff (and previous High Sheriffs who held the post for the five years preceding the current year) from any claims that may arise as a consequence of their time in office and for a period of six years thereafter. If the Government now paid any extra insurance costs for "run off" cover for the last High Sheriffs to carry out High Court enforcement, that would amount to subsidising the past profits of their Under Sheriffs. That would not only not be right, it may well be unlawful. An unlawful non-statutory indemnity would be of no use to High Sheriffs.
To resolve this issue, the Department has been working closely with the HCEOA to ensure that insurance is put in place to cover such eventualities. The HCEOA have arranged with an insurance advisor to cover this risk with an insurance policy that will provide "run off" cover for the High Sheriffs in each of the bailiwicks in England and Wales and their predecessors for the last five years.
Concern has also been raised about compensation for under sheriffs. As already stated our proposals relate solely to the enforcement of High Court writs, there are no proposals to change the system by which High Sheriffs appoint Under Sheriffs or Officers. There will be a separation of the responsibility and fees for High Court enforcement from any other activity. Under these proposals, it will be open to anyone who is actively engaged in High Court enforcement, who can meet the necessary standards, to apply for authorisation as High Court enforcement officers. The current system of annual appointment of Under Sheriffs does not give any legitimate expectation of continuing involvement or income and therefore it is unclear what compensation would lawfully be claimed.
Compulsory Purchase Orders
The Law Commission has recently issued a consultation paper Towards a Compulsory Purchase Code: Procedure. In our response, DCA has confirmed that the issuing of a warrant without application to the court to a High Court Enforcement Officer remains the preferred method of enforcement. However, we have informed them of the forthcoming changes to the method of issuing writs of execution, and have suggested that to avoid confusion the method of issuing Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) warrants should also be changed to reflect this. We also agree that the costs for enforcing such warrants should be borne in the first instance by the relevant local authority on whose behalf the CPO is being enforced, the costs to be recovered from any compensation payable, or if not sufficient by action through the courts. That being the case, there would no longer be any need for the High Court enforcement officer to levy distraint to secure their costs at the same time as enforcing the CPO warrant.
Ecclesiastical writs
Enforcement officers will only take over the High Court enforcement work that sheriffs now carry out - though that represents the greater part of High Court enforcement. The enforcement of some special writs against clergymen (which are very rare) will continue to be the responsibility of that clergyman's bishop.
We would welcome responses to the following questions set out in this consultation paper:
Are these criteria sufficient to guarantee the probity of those who wish to work within the High Court enforcement industry?
Are there any that need to be strengthened, are irrelevant, or place unnecessary burdens on applicants? Is there anything that we have missed?
Are postal districts an appropriate system to use? If you disagree, please provide an alternative suggestion.
Should the directories be made available from anywhere else, either in hard copy or electronic format?
Do you agree that mileage fees should be controlled in this way? Are there any alternatives to our proposal?
Are there any other changes to the fee structure for High Court enforcement that you think should be made at this time?
Name:
Organisation:
Address:
If you are a representative group please give a summary of the people and organisations you represent.
Please send your completed response to:
Mr Chris Bell
Department for Constitutional Affairs
Civil Justice Division
3rd Floor
Selborne House
54-60 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6QW
i) The objective
The proposals contained within this document intend to:
Implement the changes to the way that High Court writs are enforced as set out in Clause 97 and Schedule 6 of the Courts Bill.
Maintain and build upon the existing professional standards in a market that is truly competitive.
Open up the market to new entrants who are able to demonstrate that they meet required professional standards in due course.
These proposed changes apply to High Court enforcement in England and Wales only.
ii) The background
These proposals aim to implement the required changes to the High Court enforcement system, whilst at the same time ensuring that the high standards of probity required of those who work in this area are maintained. They also pave the way for a future opening up of the market to those who are currently excluded from operating in the area of High Court enforcement. We also see these proposals as a precursor to the proposed new regulatory regime for all civil enforcement agents that was outlined in the recent White Paper Effective Enforcement.
The enabling legislation to facilitate these changes is set out in Clause 97 and Schedule 6 of the Courts Bill which is expected to complete its passage through Parliament in the next few months.
iii) What risk is the regulation addressing?
The existing regime needs to change because:
The existing appointment structure has led to some posts being handed down within the same family or the same company for generations.
The system of annual appointments and regional monopolies has been criticised as lacking openness and transparency, and as being anti-competitive.
It has also led to criticisms of overstaffing, and as providing a disincentive to those who might otherwise wish to invest in more modern business practices.
There has been reluctance on the part of some of those within the industry to provide information on their performance to creditors.
High Sheriffs face potentially costly liabilities due to their personal responsibilities for High Court enforcement.
Fees paid by way of 'poundage' could be used to fund ceremonial functions.
i) Do nothing.
ii) Voluntary self-regulation.
iii) Introduce new criteria for the appointment of High Court Enforcement Officers, appointed by the Lord Chancellor or his delegate, working within new boundaries based upon postal districts rather than 'bailiwicks', in free and open competition, with mileage fees charged under a new and fairer fee structure.
i) Clause 97 and Schedule 6 of the Courts Bill would remain unimplemented.
ii) Voluntary self-regulation has been suggested in the past, and would of course have its benefits, but proposals that had been promised either never materialised or were unworkable. As a result, Clause 97 and Schedule 6 of the Courts Bill were brought forward.
iii) The proposed new system for High Court enforcement will produce numerous benefits, which include:
Implementation of Clause 97 and Schedule 6 of the Courts Bill.
Continuing and building upon the existing standards of conduct and probity for High Court enforcement, by initially keeping the role limited to those who currently work within the industry and who meet the criteria for appointment.
Providing an element of consumer choice by letting High Court enforcement agents be appointed to more than one district, and allowing the creditor to choose who they would like to enforce their writ.
In the longer term, it will open the industry to those who currently do not operate within it, providing there is room in the marketplace for them to operate and that they meet the criteria for appointment.
The appointment system, which will no longer be reliant upon an annual appointment system based on patronage but will be carried out by the Lord Chancellor or his delegate against a list of appointment criteria, will be more open and transparent
By working in conjunction with the High Court Enforcement Officers Association, the department will be working in partnership with a professional body that represents all those who are actively involved in the High Court enforcement industry, and which is committed to issues such as diversity, professional conduct and statistical provision.
High Court enforcement fees will no longer be used to help finance the ceremonial duties of the Shrievalty.
There will be no costs to the public purse. Indeed, insofar as increased competition may lead to future reductions in fees, and bearing in mind that some government departments and public bodies make use of High Court enforcement procedures to pursue monies owed to them, there may indeed in the long term be some savings to the public purse.
None.
None.
At present it is not intended to open up the High Court enforcement market any further beyond those currently actively involved in it. This is because at the current moment in time there appears to be an appropriate matching of the supply of suitably trained and qualified enforcement officers with the market need for them, and there is thus no need to open up the market any wider. In due course, however, it is our intention to open up the market to new entrants who are able to demonstrate that they meet the required professional standard.
This is where any costs may arise, when the market is opened up to others in the enforcement industry in the future. The department is strongly recommending that all those who wish to become involved in High Court enforcement become a member of a professional body - which at this stage looks likely to be the High Court Enforcement Officers Association - and that they undertake the necessary training and continuing professional development. It is in this area alone that the department may be seen as imposing costs upon those who wish to enter this sector of the market.
These costs are currently as follows:
It costs £35 to join the association, this covers the first year of membership as a student / provisional member.
Annual membership thereafter costs £60 for full membership and £35 for student / provisional members.
The costs of training courses etc varies depending upon the subject, type of venue and geographical location, but is usually between £45 and £90 per day, with an average of four such days per year.
There is no charge for sitting exams.
The criteria for appointment as a High Court enforcement officer include, for example, relevant insurance cover. The department, however, is not imposing these. They already exist for business in, for example, health and safety regulations, or through the terms and conditions for membership of professional bodies.
These costs are seen as reasonable, as they are a necessary part of meeting the relevant criteria for those currently working in civil enforcement but outside the High Court field being appointed to work in an area which is widely seen as being prestigious and lucrative.
None identified.
The Small Business Service will be included in the consultation and their comments noted.
One of the key purposes of our proposals is the opening up of the market and to introduce competition where at the moment none exists.
The power to appoint High Court enforcement officers will be in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, or his delegate. Those who do not meet the relevant criteria will not be appointed.
The HCEOA will be responsible for overseeing the continuing fitness of officers to remain in their appointment, through their Annual Return form and their conduct and discipline procedures. They have the power to expel members from their association, which would lead to the officer concerned therefore no longer fulfilling all the criteria for appointment, and having their appointment withdrawn by the Lord Chancellor or his delegate.
This paper has been drawn up in consultation with the High Court enforcement Officers Association. It's content is also based upon discussions held with the Sheriffs Officers Association (a previous incarnation of the HCEOA), the Under Sheriffs Association and the Association of High Sheriffs of England and Wales.
This paper has also drawn heavily on the work carried out by the Lord Chancellors Advisory Group on Enforcement Service Delivery. This group was appointed in 2001, and was comprised of members who represented the whole spectrum of civil enforcement, including court user groups, sheriffs officers, under sheriffs, local authority bailiffs, private bailiffs, the advice sector, magistrates courts, economists and academics, as well as officials from the LCD (as it was then) and Court Service.
The consultation period for this paper is 12 weeks. The paper is aimed at court users, sheriffs and other private enforcement agents in England and Wales. Its implications are limited to, and will probably be of interest to, only a small number of individuals whom we would normally consult via their representatives. However to ensure that all those likely to be affected or with an interest have an opportunity to comment the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Written Consultation is being adhered to.
Option iii) offers the greatest opportunity to increase the efficiency of the existing system while retaining and improving the expertise already in the sector.
Chris Bell at DCA (contact details are set out in the section How to Respond).
A full member is someone whose name appears on the list of full members of the High Court Enforcement Officers Association and who has paid any subscription demanded.
The member is in receipt of a valid Practising Certificate issued to him by the High Court Enforcement Officers Association, which is on public display at the principle place of business.
Has an address and telephone number for business purposes within the jurisdiction. The telephone number is answered between 0900 and 1700 Monday to Friday inclusive. Outside these hours an answerphone service should exist that provides for contact details with an officer in an emergency.
Has adequate insurance cover.
The member will submit the Annual Return, duly completed to the High Court Enforcement Officers Association, in Form AR1 by no later than 31st March each year.
Has a separate client's bank account where all clients' money is held, and has provided an audit certificate in respect of that account.
Has a contract in the specified form with nicesheriffs.co.uk and an open account that is in credit.
The member and any relevant employees are up to date with their continuous professional development training.
The member has certified that he will adhere to the National Standards as issued by the Department for Constitutional Affairs.
The member is not bankrupt.
Has confirmed his commitment to supplying statistical reports and has agreed to allow representatives of the Association full access to information held for audit purposes.
Holds current licences in respect to the Consumer Credit Act and the Data Protection Act.
Full name:
Full business address:
DX number:
Telephone number:
Fax number:
E mail address:
I, (full name), certify that:
I am a full member of the High Court Enforcement Officers Association and will abide by its rules and regulations.
I have the required insurance cover and I enclose a copy of my current certificate of insurance.
I have a separate clients account where all my clients money is deposited and I enclose a copy of my accountants certificate showing that the account was last reconciled on (date).
I (and my qualifying employees) am / are up to date with our continuous professional development training.
I will continue to adhere to the National Standards for enforcement as issued by the Department for Constitutional Affairs.
I am not a bankrupt.
I have not been convicted of any non-driving criminal offences within the last twelve months.
Signed:
Dated:
All complaints should initially be raised with the office of whom you are complaining about. The HCEOA will not consider any complaint where this has not been done in the first instance.
The HCEOA will also not consider complaints about alleged acts of violence, which ought to be reported to the Police; disagreements as to the amount claimed on the writ, which should be taken up with the court or the creditor concerned; or where court proceedings against the officer concerned have already been instigated, in which case before the HCEOA can consider the complaint, the court must decide whether the claim is valid or not.
All complaints must be in writing and addressed to the Disciplinary Chairman of the HCEOA. The complaint will be acknowledged within 7 days, and a request made for any previous correspondence from the complainant regarding the complaint.
Any request for information made by the Disciplinary Chairman to a member shall be responded to within 14 days. The Disciplinary Chairman shall upon receipt of all correspondence from both parties examine the complaint.
Should the complaint be without foundation / frivolous / vexatious, the Disciplinary Chairman will inform the claimant of their decision, together with a leaflet on what to do if the claimant disagrees with that decision.
Should the complaint have foundation, the correspondence will be forwarded to the Disciplinary Panel for their observations. All panel members will agree a draft response. The response will then be forwarded to the complainant and the office in question. A leaflet will be enclosed on what to do next if you disagree.
In complex cases the panel will meet to discuss the complaint and inform both parties of their findings, enclosing a leaflet on what to do next if you disagree with their findings.
If the member complained about is also a member of the disciplinary panel or a member of the HCEOA committee, they shall withdraw completely from any involvement dealing with the case.
Should the complainant or the office complained about disagree with the panel's decision, on written application by either party the HCEOA committee will examine the complaint. Either party may attend and make oral submissions. The committee's decision shall be final.
In the case of a proven complaint the HCEOA committee may impose a penalty against a member, this may be any or a combination of the following: undertakings; a reprimand; financial penalty; suspension of membership; expulsion from the HCEOA. Any member who refuses to abide by the penalty imposed by the HCEOA committee faces expulsion from the Association.
There exists an appeals process, by way of an Appeals Committee, and as the final appellate tribunal a Disciplinary Tribunal. The Disciplinary Tribunal is the final hearing (for the HCEOA) and can hear appeals from the complainant, the member, or cases referred to it by the Appeals Committee. The Tribunal consists of two members of the Association and three lay members, and all parties will have right of audience. All complainants have the right to appeal to the Appeals Committee and then to the Tribunal.
The above shall not be a substitute for any other remedies that either party may in law rely upon.
The High Court Enforcement Officers' Association (HCEOA) became a public authority as from April 2001 under the new Section 19b of the Race Relations Act 1976 (as amended). This makes it unlawful for the HCEOA to discriminate in carrying out any of its functions.
The individual members of the HCEOA, who are enforcement officers, are also public functionaries when engaged in their duties. This means that debtors and others involved in the enforcement process are protected from acts of discrimination by an enforcement officer, and will be able to bring proceedings where an act of discrimination occurs.
We recognise that the HCEOA, both by itself and through it's members, serves a diverse society, made up of men and women, people of different races, cultures and religions, people with and without disabilities, young people and older people, straight and gay people, people with and without caring responsibilities, and of people with many other differences.
We recognise, respect and value that diversity and will strive in all we do to serve the interests of people from all sections of society.
We will also strive to become an organisation that reflects more fully the diversity of the society we serve, and truly value those who work with us and for us, our members, and those who wish to join us.
In particular, we will: -
Maintain codes of standards, rules and practices, which are fair, transparent and culturally sensitive.
Operate a complaints procedure, which strives to protect the interests of debtors, creditors and enforcement agents.
Promote and encourage equality and diversity training, regular ethnic monitoring and performance evaluation in our Association and amongst our members.
Encourage a thorough review of the employment practices and procedures of our members to achieve greater equality of opportunities.
As an Association, we will: -
Commit ourselves to providing equality of opportunity and valuing diversity in everything we do.
When working with others we will promote valuing diversity and learning from each other. We will improve our contacts with groups representing different sections of society.
We will make greater efforts to assess the differing needs and expectations of our members and the public they and we serve.
We will present ourselves to the outside world as an organisation that recognises, reflects and values the diversity of its own people and the society we serve.
We will set ourselves goals and monitor our progress towards achieving them. We will publish assessments of our progress and consult our members and others about how we can improve our performance.
We will ensure that the actions set out in this statement are fully implemented.
For our members who are either sole practitioners or small businesses, we shall issue basic guidance on avoiding unlawful race, sex and disability discrimination. We will provide advice and information on general good practice, which will help our members to act lawfully, and which will also make good business sense. We will promote good employment practices amongst our members and provide help and guidance on a wide range of employment issues.
The Association will also endeavour to provide advice to its members or to direct its members to places where advice can be obtained with regard to the laws on equality.
The Association has in place an Equality and Diversity Committee, who are responsible for promoting equality and diversity issues within the Association. The committee reports directly to the Chairman of the HCEOA.
The applicant must have successfully completed all the relevant training required, and be committed to a programme of continuing professional development, both for themselves and any employees they may have.
The applicant must have a trading address and telephone number for business purposes. This office must be staffed to deal with personal and telephone enquiries between 0900 and 1700 Monday to Friday inclusive, and outside of these hours an answer phone service should exist that provides details for contacting an officer in an emergency.
The applicant must have adequate insurance cover. This must include Professional Indemnity Insurance, Employers Liability Insurance (if the applicant is an employer) and Goods In Transit Insurance (if the applicant will be conducting their own removals).
The applicant must have a separate client's bank account, where all clients' money is held, and for which an audit certificate is held.
The applicant must have in place adequate arrangements for dealing with issues surrounding priority of writs and insolvency notices.
The applicant must give a commitment to abiding by minimum standards of behaviour and professional conduct, both for themselves and their employees.
The applicant must provide a written statement to the effect that they are not an undischarged bankrupt.
The applicant must give a written commitment to providing performance statistics to the department in the approved format and in line with agreed deadlines.
The applicant must (where appropriate) hold the current relevant licences under the Consumer Credit Act and the Data Protection Act.
The applicant must adhere to an acceptable diversity policy, in employment matters and in relation to their clients and customers.
The applicant must indicate that they are willing to be subject to the terms and conditions of an approved complaints and disciplinary procedure.
The applicant must provide a written statement, accompanied by any relevant certification, that they have no criminal conviction that might undermine public confidence in the propriety and integrity of High Court enforcement.
Combined Request for
a Writ of Fieri Facias, Writ of Possession, Writ of Delivery 
[11kb]
The freely available Adobe Acrobat reader is required to read this document. Viewers with visual disabilities may find it useful to investigate services provided to improve the accessibility of Acrobat documents - http://access.adobe.com.
AL - St. Albans
B - Birmingham
BA - Bath
BB - Blackburn
BD - Bradford
BH - Bournemouth
BL - Bolton
BN - Brighton
BR - Bromley
BS - Bristol
CA - Carlisle
CB - Cambridge
CF - Cardiff
CH - Chester
CM - Chelmsford
CO - Colchester
CR - Croydon
CT - Canterbury
CV - Coventry
CW - Crewe
DA - Dartford
DE - Derby
DH - Durham
DL - Darlington
DN - Doncaster
DT - Dorchester
DY - Dudley
E - London East
EC - London East Central
EN - Enfield
EX - Exeter
FY - Blackpool (Fylde)
GL - Gloucester
GU - Guildford
HA - Harrow
HD - Huddersfield
HG - Harrogate
HP - Hemel Hempstead
HR - Hereford
HU - Hull
HX - Halifax
IG - Ilford
IP - Ipswich
KT - Kingston upon Thames
L - Liverpool
LA - Lancaster
LD - Llandridnod Wells
LE - Leicester
LL - Llandudno
LN - Lincoln
LS - Leeds
LU - Luton
M - Manchester
ME - Medway
MK - Milton Keynes
N - London North
NE - Newcastle
NG - Nottingham
NN - Northampton
NP - Newport
NR - Norwich
NW - London North West
OL - Oldham
OX - Oxford
PE - Peterborough
PL - Plymouth
PO - Portsmouth
PR - Preston
RG - Reading
RH - Redhill
RM - Romford
S - Sheffield
SA - Swansea
SE - London South East
SG - Stevenage
SK - Stockport
SL - Slough
SM - Sutton
SN - Swindon
SO - Southampton
SP - Salisbury
SR - Sunderland
SS - Southend on Sea
ST - Stoke on Trent
SW - London South West
SY - Shrewsbury
TA - Taunton
TF - Telford
TN - Tonbridge
TQ - Torquay
TR - Truro
TS - Cleveland (Teesside)
TW - Twickenham
UB - Southall (Uxbridge)
W - London West
WA - Warrington
WC - London West Central
WD - Watford
WF - Wakefield
WN - Wigan
WR - Worcester
WS - Walsall
WV - Wolverhampton
YO -York
(104 Postal Districts)
(1) Schedule 6 contains provisions about High Court writs of execution.
(2) Any rule of law requiring a writ of execution issued from the High Court to be directed to a sheriff is abolished.
If you have any complaints or comments about the consultation process, you should contact the Department's consultation co-ordinator, Laurence Fiddler, on 020 7210 8516 or email him at Laurence Fiddler. Alternatively, you may wish to write to the address below:
Laurence Fiddler
Consultation Co-ordinator
Room 8.23
Department for Constitutional Affairs
Selborne House
54-60 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6QW
The criteria in the Code of Practice on Written Consultation issued by the Cabinet Office is as follows:
Timing of consultation should be built into the planning process for a policy or service from the start, so that it has the best prospect of improving the proposals concerned, and so that sufficient time is left for it at each stage.
It should be clear who is being consulted, about what questions, in what timescale and for what purpose.
A consultation document should be as simple and concise as possible. It should include a summary, in two pages at most, of the main questions it seeks views on. It should make it as easy as possible for readers to respond, make contact or complain.
Documents should be made widely available, with the fullest use of electronic means (though not to the exclusion of others), and effectively drawn to the attention of all interested groups and individuals.
Sufficient time should be allowed for considered responses from all groups with an interest. Twelve weeks should be the standard minimum period for a consultation.
Responses should be carefully and open-mindedly analysed, and the results made widely available, with an account of the views expressed, and reasons for decisions finally taken.
Departments should monitor and evaluate consultations, designating a consultation co-ordinator who will ensure the lessons are disseminated.