July & August 2016 Credit Management magazine

BENCH PRESS
FORMULARE FORMULARE!*
Amir Ali provides the devil and the detail following the meeting between the CCUA and Lord
Justice Briggs on proposed reforms.
LORD Justice Briggs and District
Judge Christopher Lethem started the
Stakeholder meeting at Inner Temple by
outlining certain key points within the
proposal of Reform.
He firstly noted that 95 percent of
claims are undefended and suggested that
undefended claims could bypass triage. He
said he does not wish to make the situation
worse, and suggested that contractual
documentation may only have to be supplied
if a defence is raised.
In terms of the lack of sanctions around
non-cooperative parties, Sir Michael
said that while he appreciated the views
being expressed, the desire to increase
engagement and/or introduce sanctions was a
challenge. He said that he is looking to avoid
unnecessary hearings, and with court closures
he is keen to ensure the rationalisation of the
estate in conjunction with digitisation, video
and phone hearings. He was also especially
keen to look at ADR and enforcement.
It was suggested that
courts are granted access
to tax records, which
would focus the mind
at an earlier stage and
would allow an accurate
assessment of income,
introducing a sliding scale
under the Tribunal Courts
and Enforcement Act.
Another suggestion was
that passports or driving
licenses could be seized.
District Judge Lethem of the Hard Working
Group spoke briefly, supporting Sir Michael’s
earlier pronouncements and reiterating that he
and Sir Michael were there to listen.
Q&A SESSION
An active Question and Answer session
followed. Suzanne Lawrence from
Bournemouth Water suggested that the onus
should be upon the Judgment Debtor to
respond to a County Court Judgment with
proposals for payment rather than being the
responsibility of the creditor.
Lord Justice Briggs stated that it is not
something that has been thoroughly explored
as yet, and that it would be ideal to stage
a sanction until the final curtain of prison
was imposed. Relating to committal and
the regime, Sir Michael pointed out that this
system was not helped by the fact it can
only be carried out by Circuit Judges, and
suggested that it may help if it were extended
to District Judges. He would gladly listen
if there were any other suggestions on this
matter that were less oppressive and more
efficient.
District Judge Lethem stressed that there
is a real issue as to how proper enforcement
can be achieved in an effective manner,
stating that costs just added to a debt (which
was already not being paid) and welcomed
suggestions from the floor. It was suggested
that the current draft Pre Action Protocols on
Debt Claims are arduous and excessive.
TAX RECORDS
It was suggested that courts are granted
access to tax records, which would focus the
mind at an earlier stage and would allow an
accurate assessment of income, introducing
a sliding scale under the Tribunal Courts and
Enforcement Act. Another suggestion was that
passports or driving licenses could be seized.
Stephen Allinson from Shoosmiths
welcomed much of the report, in particular the
enforcement specialist regime. He said that
The Ministry of Justice should be applauded
for the engagement with users, and voiced
two opinions: firstly that there needed to be a
separation of commercial and consumer debt,
which the current forms did not distinguish;
secondly, that the current PAP costs should be
halted until reforms were in place and that with
the majority of debts being uncontested, PAP
is only duplicating costs.
In speaking of commercial property, Alison
Hancock of Shakespeare Martineau said that
the N9 form was unsuitable for abandonment
claims. She said that property evictions can
cost thousands in the High Court, but the
alternative £110 in the County Courts can take
months. She proposed that her commercial
clients would be happy to pay the higher fee
if it meant the process could be dealt with
within a few days as opposed to a number of
months, and questioned why it couldn’t be
claimed back from the debtor.
From Southern Water, Kelly Young
acknowledged that she would want to see a
better balance between the rights of Creditors
and Defendants, and to make sure vulnerable
consumers were treated proportionately. She
stated that the real problem lay with those who
were consciously avoiding paying their debts,
and was firm in the opinion that PAP was
being used as a mechanism to delay payment.
Alan Smith of High Court Enforcement
Group commented that possession claim
changes meant that the transfer up to the
High Court now takes longer. He cited what
happens in the Netherlands: if the debtor
does not have the ability to pay, the Judicial
Officer establishes how to mediate the
order after attaining the relevant information
from agencies and authorities. In relation to
forfeiture and moving from County Court to
High Court, there was a new procedure using a
PF92 order, which in turn brought the need for
22 July / August 2016 www.cicm.com
The recognised standard in credit management