Chapter 3: The delivery of Enforcement Services
3.1 Professor Beatson and others have indicated that the issues of bailiffs’ fees and powers cannot be considered separately from the regulatory framework. The same follows for service delivery. This Paper has proposals for the structure and regulation of enforcement and a single piece of bailiff law with possible new powers for enforcement agents and principles for their fees. It represents an important step forward for the Enforcement Review and the opportunity to achieve a fundamental improvement in our enforcement system. It would be a waste of this opportunity not to go further and look carefully at methods of service delivery. Our commitment to the continuous improvement in the quality and efficiency of public service requires that we do.
3.2 The current arrangements for service delivery are explained in Chapter Two and in Annex C. A variety of relationships exist between the different service users and providers; these may be paid for through a contractual arrangement or rigid fee structure either by the creditor of debtor or a mix of both. Briefly, in the private sector, the sheriffs have an overall existing monopoly for enforcement of all High Court judgments, writs for possession and return of goods. Within this a regional monopoly also operates so that creditors have no choice about whether to use the sheriffs or which sheriff to choose. In the public sector, the county court bailiffs have responsibility for the enforcement of all judgments and orders made and registered in the county courts, for those over £600 the creditor may choose to transfer the judgment to the High Court for enforcement.
3.3 Other enforcement work is either delivered:
3.4 There is little real evidence available by which to compare effectiveness of performance or quality of service delivery across the enforcement system as a whole. The NACAB Report, which relies on anecdotal rather than empirical evidence, focuses on CABx’ clients’ experiences of bailiffs acting on behalf of the local authority or magistrates’ court. Concern about county court bailiffs is substantially less — and comprises only 4% of complaints to CABx. NACAB considers that this is because they are part of a structured management and supervisory system. It is also pointed out that as public sector employees, they do not rely on their fee income and so do not have the same financial incentives to exploit the fee structure or intimidate clients, both of which are particular criticisms of the private sector.
3.5 Another view might be that the more effective the enforcement agent is in acting on the creditor’s behalf the more likely it is that the debtor will feel aggrieved. The debtor may go to the CAB to complain about the enforcement agent’s behaviour, he may also be there because the scale and unavoidable nature of the debt he faces has, quite literally, been brought home to him. However that is not the nature of many complaints of exceeding powers or abuse of position recorded in the NACAB report.
3.6 The Government has made public its commitment to improving service delivery in the county courts by increasing the enforceability of civil judgments. Our target is a 10% increase in the amount recovered per pound under executed warrants issued in the county courts in 2001—04. This target will be reviewed and new targets for civil enforcement set for 2002—04, by December 2001. The new target will need to take account of the findings of the enforcement review, to be more closely linked to service delivery and to measure return to the customer.
3.7 A wider approach to regulation of the whole sector provides an opportunity to try to ensure that all enforcement is carried out to a consistent and satisfactorily high standard. To do this we need a comparative measurement of effectiveness across the whole area, including debts to the Revenue Departments and local authorities, and criminal fines and compensation orders, and agreement between the respective Government Departments and the private sector on how to measure what enforcement agents do.
3.8 There are many similarities between the existing service providers — both in the work and the fact that most, but not all, enforcement agents really want to do a good and fair job. There are also many differences such as, the regulatory constraints and powers, the existing monopolies, the financial constraints and nature of some of the objectives. These mean that it has not yet been possible to draw conclusions about relative levels of effectiveness, standards of behaviour or future service delivery. We simply are unable to compare like with like.
3.9 A regulated industry coupled with an enhanced culture of professionalism among enforcement agents could provide the framework within which improvements in service delivery could take place, and the effectiveness of enforcement be developed and measured. However, specific options for service delivery cannot logically be considered prior to conclusions being drawn on options for regulation.
3.10 The Court Service issued a Consultation Paper ‘Modernising the Civil Courts’ in January 200125. The Consultation Paper sets out ways technology should be used to support the courts. It recognises that the Enforcement Review has its origins in dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of enforcement and acknowledges that the structures, line management and administrative arrangements for enforcement have not provided clear responsibility for service delivery. The Paper notes that ‘new technology provides an opportunity to automate, streamline and put the bailiff on the doorstep for longer’.
3.11 If, as a result of this Review, the Government concludes that responsibility for some or all bailiff enforcement in the county court should remain with the Court Service, the Service will develop more detailed proposals for improvements to the Bailiff Service including one or more concentrated enforcement ‘business centres’. The business centre approach would streamline the administration of all types of enforcement, enabling scarce resources to be focused on IT systems to support the work of those centres. The Court Service would like to build on the success of its present business centres, notably the Computerised Payment centre and the County Court Bulk Centre. Such an approach could be extremely worthwhile and deliver real gains, but there may be an opportunity to go much further, and move towards an integrated and comprehensive system, across civil and criminal enforcement generally. Work is still needed to explore this possibility further.
3.12 Lord Justice Auld is conducting a wide-ranging independent review of the Criminal Courts in England and Wales. The review will consider the practices and procedures of, and the rules of evidence applied by, the criminal courts at every level. The progress report of 6 October 2000 indicated that the review was considering the scope for some types of work, including television and vehicle excise licence prosecutions and council tax enforcement, to be taken out of the criminal courts. It will be necessary to consider the conclusions in the final report when it is published.
3.13 The publication of this Green Paper represents an important step forward for the Enforcement Review. There have been previous Reviews and previous consultation exercises which have not resolved all of the issues necessary to improve the effectiveness of enforcement. This Paper has set out some clear proposals for a regulatory framework, possible new powers for enforcement agents and fee principles. Our terms of reference and the Government’s commitment to the continuous improvement of the quality and efficiency of public service as set out in the Modernising Government and Better Quality Services agenda require us to go further. We need to look carefully at methods of service delivery; we will also need to do some further work on the issue of fees and, in the light of responses to these proposals to give some further and more detailed consideration to the legislation and regulatory framework.
3.14 This work will be complicated and some input from those in the private, public and voluntary sectors with both practical expertise and some detailed knowledge of the issues is needed to inform and advise the Review Team. In accordance with the Government’s published guidance and commitment to openness and accountability, the Lord Chancellor has announced the establishment of an advisory group to inform the policy-making process26. A White Paper will be published in early 2002 setting out proposals for legislation in the light of this public consultation. It will also cover revised procedures for attachment of earnings, garnishee orders and charging orders arising from Phase One of the Review. At that stage it ought to be possible to develop a practical structure for warrant enforcement service delivery.
25 Copies are available from Laura Bushell at the Court Service tel. 020 7210 1858 or at the Court Service website: www.courtservice.gov.uk. Closing date for responses was 21st April.
26 Non-Departmental Public Bodies: A Guide for Departments, issued by the Cabinet Office, March 2000. The Guide takes account of Quangos: Opening the Doors, 1998; Modernising Government, 1999; and A better quality of Life: A strategy for sustainable development for the UK, 1999.
» Return to contents