I confess, I pondered long and hard following an Order for possession made by a Tribunal judge sitting at the County Court at Basildon. The Order refused an application to transfer enforcement to the High Court, citing “High Court enforcement is draconian”. The comparison is a Warrant of possession executed by County Court bailiffs and my career in enforcement, predates the introduction of notices of enforcement and eviction. There’s an argument that all forms of civil enforcement are oppressive, but equally essential when a court order is disobeyed.
We had just executed a Writ of possession pursuant to an Order for possession made by the County Court at Edmonton. The order transferred enforcement to the High Court and required possession within 14 days. We obtained a Writ of possession in the RCJ and served notice of eviction on the same date. We delivered possession to the claimant exactly 30 days after the Order had been made. This represents the swiftest on notice residential tenant eviction ordinarily possible by HCEOs since CPR 83.8A was introduced in 2020.
Whilst 30 days from the hearing is considered swift in the current climate, County Court bailiffs conduct evictions in a similar timeframe in some areas. They are not required to hand-serve an eviction notice in transparent envelopes at the property. Both HCEOs and County Court bailiffs are permitted to use reasonable force and both may gain entry to the property without consent. The court fee for a Writ is £80 and a Warrant £148, which can be recovered from the Defendant in some circumstances. The notable similarity between the two systems is that enforcement costs are not payable by the Defendant.
In a twist some days later, the Claimants, represented by Riah Sattar of Thomas Mansfield, retrospectively applied to the County Court at Basildon for permission to transfer enforcement using the N244 procedure. The application referred to the financial hardship of the claimants being enhanced by the County Court delays.
The Court responded, “please state if he (the Claimants) is (are) willing to pay HCEOs fees”. The Court were referred to the draft order confirming the same.
Permission was granted by a District Judge. A further court fee of £123 applied and the initial refused application at the possession hearing is debatable. The claimants and defendants were adversely prejudiced as a result of this order and ended up paying further court fees and legal costs. There is also the needless judicial procedure and burden avoided by the Bailiffs.
I conclude that High Court enforcement is no longer draconian in the context of eviction. A Writ of possession simply evens up the playing field in larger cities, where court processing and bailiff delays, prolong the time from hearing to eviction to as long as 12 months.
The High Court Enforcement Officers Association is now supportive of HCEOs undertaking evictions and has jointly campaigned with the National Residential Landlords Association, Propertymark and Landlord Action to make it easier for Landlords to use HCEOs. Whilst this issue adversely affects many court users such as Lenders and Insolvency Practitioners, it is welcome support for a change in approach to reducing the burden on the court.
If you would like assistance with transferring enforcement to the High Court, please get in touch by email info@theenforcementagency.com or telephone +44 20 7100 9870
