Digital, Enforcement and a Fracturing Social Contract?

In this discussion Sarah Naylor discusses how the enforcement sector has evolved over the past decade, with a particular focus on local government debt. Sarah describes the shift towards earlier engagement, digital communications and customer-focused resolution, alongside the growing importance of vulnerability and independent oversight.

The discussion also explores the limits of digital engagement, the continuing value of face-to-face interaction, the effects of social-media misinformation, changing attitudes towards public debt and growing pressures on enforcement employees. It examines the emergence of first-time debtors and the need to move from a narrow enforcement model towards one based on understanding individual circumstances and identifying workable solutions.

A final theme is data: enforcement providers frequently begin with limited information, while fragmented data across local authorities can make collections less efficient and require customers to disclose sensitive vulnerability information repeatedly.

The discussion identifies improved data sharing, combined with human judgement, as an important opportunity for improving both outcomes and customer experience.

Find out more about Dukes -> Here.

Key Discussion Points

The effect of the 2014 regulatory reforms on moving enforcement towards earlier engagement and resolution.
The role of technology and digital communication in increasing compliance-stage resolutions.
The growing expectation for instant, convenient and 24/7 customer access.
The increased importance of vulnerability identification, customer support and independent oversight.
Changing attitudes towards authority, civic responsibilities and payment of public debts.
The impact of misinformation and social-media algorithms on customer anxiety, beliefs and willingness to engage.
Increasing abuse and violence towards enforcement staff and the resulting need for employee wellbeing support.
The continuing value of face-to-face interaction in explaining circumstances, overcoming misconceptions and agreeing practical resolutions.
The ability of field agents to provide creditors with additional insight into customers’ circumstances and vulnerability.
Increasing financial pressure, including the emergence of people experiencing debt for the first time.
The evolution of enforcement from simply collecting debt towards understanding circumstances, supporting customers and recommending appropriate outcomes.
The opportunity to improve affordability and vulnerability outcomes through better data sharing between creditors, enforcement providers and local-authority departments.

Take Aways

Enforcement has shifted materially towards earlier resolution. The 2014 Taking Control of Goods Regulations were described as a catalyst for greater emphasis on compliance-stage engagement and resolving cases before an enforcement agent is required.
Digital investment is delivering measurable results. In some UK debt streams and locations, more than 50% of cases can now be resolved before reaching an enforcement agent.
Accessibility has become central to collections design. Customers increasingly expect services to be available instantly and 24/7, allowing them to manage debts in their own environment and at a convenient time.
Vulnerability has moved towards the centre of enforcement practice. The sector has placed substantially greater emphasis on identifying vulnerable people, providing appropriate support and strengthening independent oversight.
Digital engagement does not remove the need for human interaction. Face-to-face conversations can uncover circumstances, build rapport and identify solutions that customers may not have understood were available.
Online misinformation is changing customer behaviour. Social-media narratives about council tax and enforcement can create anxiety, reinforce resistance and discourage people from engaging earlier in the process.
Employee safety and wellbeing are becoming material operational considerations. The interview described increasing abuse towards both field agents and contact-centre staff, requiring additional employee support such as mental-health champions and counselling.
Vulnerable customers may still have a strong willingness to pay. Non-engagement can reflect fear, uncertainty or lack of understanding rather than an unwillingness to resolve the debt.
The profile of indebted customers is changing. The interview highlighted more people entering debt for the first time, creating a greater need for early education and support before problems spread across multiple creditors.
Collections increasingly requires a broader support model. Where customers cannot pay, the role moves beyond enforcement towards understanding individual circumstances, gathering information and identifying the most appropriate resolution.
Data fragmentation remains a significant barrier. Enforcement providers can receive little more than a name and last-known address, requiring substantial downstream investment in tracing, contact data and affordability information.
Better data sharing could improve both efficiency and customer experience. Fragmentation between local-authority departments can create duplicated conversations and require individuals to disclose vulnerability information repeatedly.

Innovation

Compliance-stage digital engagement: using technology and digital communications to resolve substantially more cases before field enforcement becomes necessary.
24/7 self-service: making payment and debt-management services accessible whenever customers are prepared to engage.
Benefits and support identification: using tools to identify benefits or relief that customers may be entitled to but do not know how to access.
Blended digital and human servicing: using digital channels for scale and early engagement while retaining face-to-face contact where judgement, reassurance and contextual understanding are required.
Field agents as information sources: using observations from home visits to provide creditors with a richer understanding of an individual’s circumstances.
Tracing and propensity-to-pay information: supplementing limited creditor data with telephone numbers, email addresses, current addresses and payment-related information.
Cross-department data sharing: improving information flows between local authorities, enforcement providers and different council departments to reduce fragmentation and repeated disclosure.
Human judgement supported by richer data: combining digital information, affordability details and field observations to determine the most appropriate next action.

Key Statistics

Duke’s was described as having operated in the sector for over 30 years.
The business was established in 1993.
The Taking Control of Goods Regulations came into play in 2014.
In certain areas and debt streams, more than 50% of cases were said to be resolving before reaching an enforcement agent.
Services have increasingly been designed to be accessible 24/7.
The interview cited approximately nine assaults per day against enforcement agents during the first half of 2025.
The interview stated that assaults had subsequently risen by 300%.
One example described customers having had around 30 days to engage before an enforcement-agent visit.

#Dukes

RO-AR.com contact list

Join the RO-AR.com contact list and select updates covering the most important developments in risk operations – research, regulation, technology, and events. Unsubscribe anytime.