High Court Enforcement Update: Changes to Taking Control of Goods and Industry Regulation

 

 

The High Court Enforcement sector is going through some of the biggest changes since the Taking Control of Goods (TCG) regime was introduced in 2014. Recent government announcements show a clear aim to strike a balance between maintaining effective enforcement options for creditors and providing greater protection for debtors, while also increasing independent oversight of the industry.

Changes to the Taking Control of Goods Regime

Following a lengthy Ministry of Justice (MOJ) consultation and review of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 and the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014, a number of reforms came into force on 1 May 2026. The changes are intended to encourage earlier engagement and settlement, provide greater clarity around the enforcement stages and fees, and improve consistency across the sector.

One of the most notable changes is the extension of the compliance period before an enforcement visit can take place. Previously, debtors had to be given at least seven clear days' notice before an enforcement visit could take place. This has now increased to 14 clear days. In some cases, where a recognised debt adviser asks for additional time, the compliance period can be extended to up to 28 clear days for individual debtors.

Changes to High Court Enforcement Fees

The statutory fees have remained unchanged since their introduction in 2014, and a fee increase was required to help ensure the long-term sustainability of enforcement businesses while maintaining creditors’ access to an effective enforcement option. Although the enforcement sector recommended an increase broadly in line with inflation, estimated at around 20%, the MOJ approved an increase of only 5%.

At the same time, the threshold for additional percentage-based fees has increased from £1,000 to £1,200. As a result, fewer cases will attract the additional 7.5% fee.

However, the MOJ has committed to more frequent fee reviews in future. The sector will certainly welcome that commitment and hopes it will not have to wait another 12 years for the next review.

The MOJ had also addressed concerns about how the Enforcement Stage 2 fees was applied. During the consultation process, debt advisers and regulators highlighted inconsistent interpretations of the rules. The updated position is that if there is no contact with the debtor during the first enforcement visit (Enforcement Stage 1), the HCEO cannot move to Enforcement Stage 2 until the debtor has been given another clear opportunity to pay. The aim is to make fee recovery more transparent and consistent.

In addition, the MOJ has confirmed that the Taking Control of Goods National Standards will be updated to prevent creditors from receiving additional payments or profit-sharing linked to enforcement fees. This is designed to strengthen confidence in the independence and fairness of the enforcement process.

The Enforcement Conduct Board: What's Next?

Alongside these procedural changes, there is also growing focus on the future role of the Enforcement Conduct Board (ECB).

The ECB was established in 2022 as an independent oversight body and currently operates a voluntary accreditation scheme covering most of the private civil enforcement market. It oversees compliance with professional standards, complaints and increasingly plays a key role in shaping best practice across the industry.

In June 2025, the government launched a consultation on introducing statutory regulation for enforcement agents, enforcement businesses and High Court Enforcement Officers.

If adopted, the proposals would bring all enforcement professionals under a common regulatory framework overseen by an independent regulator. While the final details are still being worked through, the direction of travel is clear: the government wants independent oversight to become a formal, statutory requirement and to create greater consistency across the sector.

The ECB's recent work helps explain why these reforms are gaining support. It has identified differences in how firms interpret and apply fee regulations and has introduced stronger standards around vulnerability, reflecting a growing emphasis on identifying vulnerable debtors and ensuring repayment arrangements are both affordable and sustainable. Since 2025, the ECB has also been responsible for handling complaints.

What Does This Mean for Legal Practitioners?

For solicitors acting for judgment creditors, these changes require a careful balancing of interests. The new rules may lengthen the early stages of enforcement and place greater emphasis on engagement before any physical attendance takes place. However, they may also encourage more settlements and reduce the risk of disputes over procedure.

Perhaps the most significant development is the proposed move towards statutory regulation to ensure we operate within a framework that demonstrates transparency and proportionality. If implemented, it would represent the biggest change to enforcement governance since the introduction of the TCG regime in 2014 and could reshape the way the sector is regulated for years to come.

For legal professionals, the key message remains unchanged: enforcement is an essential part of the justice system, and the use of High Court Writs remains widely recognised as the most effective (and cost-effective) option available to creditors.