Are CCJ’s Against Tenants Registered?
The process of registering County Court Judgments (CCJs) is a key aspect of the UK’s legal and credit system, enabling credit reference agencies like Experian to maintain accurate credit profiles for individuals. This is managed by the Registry Trust Ltd, which operates under a contract with the Ministry of Justice to uphold the public register of CCJs, orders, and fines for England and Wales. While many CCJs are duly registered and accessible for credit checks, certain types of judgments—particularly those obtained through possession proceedings—are not included in the public register. This omission can create complications for landlords and agents who rely on credit checks to evaluate prospective tenants.
How CCJs Are Registered
Under the Register of Judgments, Orders, and Fines Regulations 2005, most monetary judgments made in County or High Courts are registered with the Registry Trust Ltd. This enables credit reference agencies to update their records, ensuring individuals’ credit histories reflect their financial obligations.
However, the regulations carve out specific exemptions for certain judgments. Notably, Regulation 9 outlines “exempt judgments” that do not need to be registered. One key exemption applies to judgments linked to possession proceedings. For example, when a possession order includes a judgment for unpaid rent, the monetary judgment is not registered unless the creditor takes steps to enforce the order under Part 70 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.
This means that tenants with CCJs related to possession proceedings may not have these judgments reflected in their credit history. Consequently, landlords performing credit checks cannot be certain that a prospective tenant’s report includes all relevant financial information, especially concerning unpaid rent or possession-related disputes.
Historical Context and Amendments
The Register of Judgments, Orders, and Fines Regulations 2005 consolidated and updated earlier regulations, including the Register of County Court Judgments Regulations 1985 and the Register of Fines Regulations 2003. Amendments made in 2009 further refined these provisions. To improve debtor identification, new civil procedure rules introduced in 2005 required courts to collect defendants’ dates of birth. These measures enhanced the accuracy of judgment registration but did not address the omission of possession-related judgments from the register.
Implications for Landlords and Tenants
The exclusion of possession-related CCJs from the public register creates significant challenges for landlords and letting agents. Without a comprehensive credit history, landlords may inadvertently let properties to tenants with unresolved financial disputes or unpaid rent. This lack of transparency undermines the effectiveness of credit checks as a screening tool.
For tenants, the current system offers a degree of protection. A possession-related CCJ does not automatically affect their credit score unless enforcement action is taken. However, this may also mean that tenants with repeated financial issues can secure new tenancies without their full rental history being disclosed.
The Case for Reform
Many industry professionals, including landlords, agents, and legal experts, argue that reform is needed to address the non-registration of possession-related CCJs. Including these judgments in the public register could serve several purposes:
- Enhanced Accountability: Tenants would face greater consequences for unpaid rent or financial misconduct, encouraging more responsible behavior.
- Better Screening Tools: Landlords and agents would have access to a complete picture of a tenant’s financial history, helping them make more informed decisions.
- Fairness and Uniformity: Aligning the registration process for all CCJs would ensure consistent treatment across different types of financial disputes.
Reforming the system to include possession-related judgments could rely on the existing self-financing model used for other registered judgments. Fees charged to credit rating companies and the public for accessing the register would cover the costs of implementation and ongoing operations. While initial investments in IT infrastructure and staff training would be required, these expenses could be recouped over time.
For instance, when the fine registration scheme was introduced in 2005, the cost of developing court IT systems was estimated at £100,250, with annual running costs of £237,750. These figures demonstrate the feasibility of expanding the registration system to include possession-related judgments without imposing a significant financial burden on the courts.
The Need for Awareness
The current exclusion of possession-related CCJs may come as a surprise to landlords and agents, many of whom assume these judgments are automatically registered and reflected in credit checks. This misconception highlights the importance of raising awareness about the limitations of the current system.
Landlords should consider supplementing credit checks with additional references and inquiries to gain a clearer understanding of a prospective tenant’s rental history. Similarly, tenants should be aware of how possession-related judgments might affect their future renting prospects if reforms are implemented.
Conclusion
The question of whether CCJs against tenants are registered depends largely on the type of judgment. While most monetary judgments are included in the public register, those tied to possession proceedings remain exempt unless enforcement action is initiated. This gap in the system creates challenges for landlords, who cannot rely solely on credit checks to assess a tenant’s financial history.
Reforming the registration process to include possession-related judgments would improve transparency, accountability, and fairness in the rental market. Until such reforms are enacted, landlords must exercise caution and employ additional screening measures to ensure they are fully informed when selecting tenants. For tenants, understanding the nuances of CCJ registration can help them navigate the rental market more effectively and prepare for potential changes in the legal landscape.