![]() In 2019, the Justice Select Committee (JSC) conducted an inquiry on the impact of the regulations. Data provided by some individual firms indicated that some firms were considerably better than others at settling debts at the compliance stage and that the rates varied by debt type. It was expected that compliance stage enforcement would improve for both High Court and non-High Court debts as the reforms bedded in.Ī second review, held in 2018/19, found that the proportion of settled cases that were resolved at the compliance stage remained very similar to the levels found at the one-year review and, therefore, remained below the predicted rate for non-High Court debts. However, for EAs enforcing non-High Court debts, compliance stage enforcement rates were lower than expected. Īt the time, EAs enforcing High Court writs settled more debts at the compliance stage than predicted 10% of total writs issued compared to a predicted 1%. The review obtained data about the percentage of enforcement cases that were settled at the compliance stage one year after the regulations came into force in 2015. Data provided for the first review showed that the effectiveness of enforcement had improved, with a greater proportion of debts being successfully enforced than predicted. The original scope of the one-year review was to focus on urgent unintended consequences, and to identify any obvious flaws in the fee structure that appeared to be driving negative impacts.Ī light-touch check of average fees was carried out to assess any dramatic differences from predictions made during the formulation of the fee structure. future reviews of the impact of the reforms proposed in this paper and the level that the fees are set at.įollowing the implementation of the TCG Regulations and the Fees Regulations – which fundamentally changed the enforcement landscape - a one-year review was held in 2015. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |