Credit Management November 2021 2

HIGH COURT ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
A question of parity
If court fees can be increased to take into account
inflation, why are similar adjustment not made to
High Court enforcement fees?
AUTHOR – Alan J Smith
AT the end of September,
a number of court fees
were increased following a
Government consultation
that took place earlier in
the year. Since the fees
hadn’t been reviewed since 2016, the
rationale for this increase was to account
for historic inflation.
Some of the fees increased were around
sealing a Writ of Control, possession and
delivery, the enforcement of which is the
main focus for our members, High Court
Enforcement Officers in England and
Wales.
It begs the question – if court fees
charged to the court user are subject to
inflationary increases, then why do other
associated High Court enforcement fees
remain untouched?
The last change to High Court
enforcement fees took place over seven
and a half years ago. After its Transforming
Bailiff Action consultation response in
January 2013, the Government set fees
for High Court and non-High Court
enforcement stages in the Taking Control
of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014.
The principles on which they are
based, including the stages, are designed
to encourage prompt settlement of the
judgment debt to allow creditors to receive
the money that is owed to them. The
compliance fee has undoubtedly helped to
improve that.
That consultation included recommendations
on fees by Alexander Dehayen for the
Ministry of Justice. The report stated: “The
report recommends that the Fee Structure
undergoes a full review at intervals of four
years, with interim reviews after the second
mid‐review year, supported by ongoing interim
measures to monitor the successful
operation of the Fee Structure. Between review
dates the various fee levels should be
indexed to RPI, and updated annually, with
Percentage Fee thresholds updated periodically.”
Despite this, to date there have been zero
reviews of the enforcement fee structure
since it was introduced in 2014.
In order to remain an effective option
for businesses and individuals seeking to
recover debts owed to them via Writs of
Control, an urgent review of High Court
enforcement fees is needed.
Interestingly, the Government’s most
recent consultation on court fee increases
elicited a number of responses by
participants from a range of sectors, including
legal, public, property, enforcement
and court users. They suggested that the
principle of inflation should be applied to
enforcement fees, supporting the index-linked
fee structure proposed in the
Transforming Bailiff Action consultation
report.
Interestingly, the report from the March
2021 consultation did not provide any
Government response to these suggestions.
In addition to maintaining the
effectiveness of High Court Enforcement,
our members are private businesses, not
a Civil Service department. What other
business is expected to continue to operate
without permission to increase the fees
they charge, while their own costs are
increasing in line with inflation?
Like all businesses, the enforcement
industry has had additional costs placed
on it with the fully justified requirement to
comply with Coronavirus legislation.
So, when can High Court enforcement
officers expect to be paid in line with
inflation, rather than taking the brunt of a
real term annual decrease in the value of
their services, with no sign of change on
the horizon?
Moving forward, while we all have grown
accustomed to inflation being a part of
life, and a perfectly reasonable reason for
increasing court fees, introducing a big
hike every five to 10 years does seem like
an odd approach across the board. Smaller
annual increases to account for inflation
would seem to be more appropriate for
everyone involved.
In the meantime, though, we’re looking
to Government to extend the principles of
the inflationary catch-up increases to other
important parts of the justice system.
Definitely hoping and arguing for sooner,
rather than later.
Alan J Smith FCICM, is Chair of the High
Court Enforcement Officers Association.
Introducing a big hike
every five to 10 years
does seem like an
odd approach across
the board. Smaller
annual increases to
account for inflation
would seem to be
more appropriate for
everyone involved.
Alan J Smith FCICM
Advancing the credit profession / www.cicm.com / November 2021 / PAGE 43