An introduction to the litigation in commercial debt recovery

White Paper

Most businesses suffer from bad debt and late payment to some extent and many will consider this an inescapable part of doing business. Most companies will have some form of debt recovery process in place and this will typically include some form of letter/call process or ‘dunning’ cycle, together with a commercial DCA for escalated matters. It is worth considering what the appropriate alternative might be if these traditional processes don’t work or if the business is not content to suffer a deduction from the amount it is owed by working with a DCA on a commission basis. Download this whitepaper to find out more.

Get the download

Below is an excerpt of "An introduction to the litigation in commercial debt recovery". To get your free download, and unlimited access to the whole of bizibl.com, simply log in or join free.

download

The Problem

Most businesses suffer from bad debt and late payment to some extent and many will consider this an inescapable part of doing business. Most companies will have some form of debt recovery process in place and this will typically include some form of letter/call process or ‘dunning’ cycle, together with a commercial DCA for escalated matters. It is worth considering what the appropriate alternative might be if these traditional processes don’t work or if the business is not content to suffer a deduction from the amount it is owed by working with a DCA on a commission basis.

One of the obvious answers is to make provision for a litigation process, but many businesses feel uncomfortable about engaging solicitors or ‘chucking good money after bad’.

Segmentation

The notion of wasting costs in the litigation process need not always apply. If the business follows a structured approach and segments the debt portfolio, it can apply resources strategically and adopt the process that is most likely to produce a recovery in a given case. For some customers, this might mean internal collections. For some (perhaps ‘repeat offenders’) escalation to a DCA might be more appropriate.

For companies that manage a sizeable debt book, however, there are almost certainly going to be a proportion of customers who simply will not respond to these methods. If there is a prospect of enforcing a judgment, it might be appropriate in these cases to consider litigation.

Costs

An often cited reason for a reluctance to litigate is the costs involved. Even in the cases where litigation is identified as the only appropriate method, a business may decide that the potential costs outweigh the potential benefit.

Segmentation will help increase the chance of recovery (the benefit) but there are options to help reduce the costs in order to make litigation a viable process. Many solicitors will work on a fixed-fee basis for sending letters before action and obtaining judgment. A business can also undertake the litigation process using its own resources, where possible, to reduce costs.

Integrating litigation into the debt recovery process

Whether the business seeks to engage a specialist debt recovery solicitor or to undertake the litigation process itself, it will need to determine a process of when to litigate and how to enforce judgments if necessary.

As High Court Enforcement Officers, Burlington can offer a cost-neutral method of enforcing judgment.

To enforce a judgment using High Court Enforcement Officers (HCEO’s), you will need to transfer the enforcement of the judgment from the County Court to the High Court. Once a High Court writ has been issued, an HCEO can enforce the judgment by seizing the assets of the defendant and demanding payment of the judgment amount. If the outstanding amount is not paid or terms of a payment arrangement are not made (or are made and subsequently breached), the HCEO can remove assets for sale.

One of the significant benefits of using HCEO’s is that the costs of enforcement action are payable by the defendant and, if the judgment is not enforceable, the costs to the creditor are usually limited to a fee of £75+VAT.

Choosing a debt recovery partner

When selecting an external partner to assist with debt recovery, choosing a supplier that can manage a soft collection, litigation and enforcement process in its entirety can help to provide a more seamless experience. It can also help simplify the communication process.

Burlington offers a range of services. We carry out contingent pre-litigation debt recovery on a commission basis and manage a panel of litigation partners who can issue legal proceedings. Naturally, as High Court Enforcement Officers, we also have the capacity to enforce judgments.

This entire process is supported by our Pathfinder technology. Pathfinder enables our clients to view our actions throughout the lifetime of an instruction and is updated live using data from our Enforcement Agents’ digital reporting terminals. Pathfinder offers a full solution for placement, monitoring and reporting of instructions (by producing historic MI and trend analysis).

Our systems and capabilities as a business complement our able Account Management team and make Burlington a trusted and dependable resource for any commercial organisation seeking to improve recovery rates.

Want more like this?

Want more like this?

Insight delivered to your inbox

Keep up to date with our free email. Hand picked whitepapers and posts from our blog, as well as exclusive videos and webinar invitations keep our Users one step ahead.

By clicking 'SIGN UP', you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

side image splash

By clicking 'SIGN UP', you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy