header-logo header-logo

LNB news: MoJ publishes response to alignment of online and paper civil possession fees

09 March 2021
Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has published the government’s response and impact assessment to the MoJ’s consultation on the subject of the alignment of the fees for online and paper civil money and possession claims, with 22 respondents replying to the consultation

Lexis®Library update: The consultation response notes that a ‘majority of respondents, namely those from the legal and credit sector…disagreed with the proposed alignment’ on the grounds that ‘the proposed fees do not represent the costs of proceedings’ and that the alignment is  ‘unjustifiable in relation to the quality of the service provided’. Indeed, a majority of respondents opposed the principle of enhanced fees.

Despite this, the government has responded that it believes that there is ‘a strong justification to proceed with the alignment of the fees for online and paper civil money and possession claims’. However, as a result of the concerns raised by respondents to the consultation with regards the quality of the county court bailiff enforcement service, especially in relation to ‘the difficulty users of the service currently experience in enforcing warrants in a timely manner, and the potential for increased debt to be passed on to debtors’. As a result of these concerns, the government has decided not to align the £77 online fee with the £110 paper fee for Fee 8.1. Instead, the government intends to introduce a 7.7% inflationary increase backdated to 2016. Online and paper fees will instead be consolidated at £83.

Consequently, the government has decided that fees will be aligned to their correspondent paper level as set out in the consultation, with the exception of Fee 8.1.

The government’s response can be found here.

The impact assessment can be found here.

Source: Alignment of the fees for online and paper civil money and possession claims

This content was first published by LNB News / Lexis®Library, a LexisNexis® company, on 8 March 2021 and is published with permission. Further information can be found at: https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll