Embedding Fairness in Enforcement: The Evolving Role of Welfare Teams
By Vince Squires, Welfare Officer
Welfare is no longer a supporting function within enforcement — it is now a core operational safeguard that underpins fairness, compliance and public confidence. Vince Squires explains how CES embeds welfare into frontline delivery while aligning operational practice with emerging regulatory expectations.
Why Welfare Now Sits at the Centre of Enforcement Practice
The role of welfare within enforcement has evolved significantly in recent years. It is no longer a peripheral function or a reactive safeguard; it is now a central pillar of ethical, compliant and proportionate recovery. At Court Enforcement Services (CES), our welfare framework is embedded into daily operations and reflects the wider regulatory direction of travel towards stronger consumer protection, accountability and professional standards.
Rather than operating in isolation, welfare now forms part of a joined-up operational approach — supporting agents, informing case strategy and ensuring that vulnerable individuals are protected while maintaining lawful and proportionate enforcement outcomes.
“Welfare is no longer reactive. It is now a frontline operational safeguard that supports proportionate and compliant enforcement.”
Early Identification and Consistent Assessment
The primary responsibility of the CES welfare team is to assess and verify claims of vulnerability raised by debtors. Referrals are received from multiple operational touchpoints, including enforcement agents, the contact centre, audit and compliance functions and the enquiries team. This multi-layered referral structure supports early identification — a principle increasingly emphasised within national standards and regulatory guidance.
Where vulnerability is claimed, supporting evidence is requested in line with the individual’s circumstances. This may include medical diagnoses, documentation relating to long-term illness, disability, pregnancy, extended hospitalisation or formal exemptions indicating an inability to work. Once vulnerability is confirmed, the welfare team assumes oversight of the case to ensure that enforcement activity is managed sensitively, proportionately and in line with recognised best practice.
Staff are trained to recognise both disclosed and indirect indicators of vulnerability. Where individuals struggle to provide documentation, additional time is offered and authorised third-party support is encouraged. This reflects the growing expectation across the sector that engagement should be accessible, transparent and responsive to individual need.
Mental Health: Managing Complexity With Care
Mental health conditions such as anxiety, depression, PTSD and bipolar disorder can significantly affect a debtor’s ability to engage consistently. In many cases, individuals struggle to communicate clearly or submit formal evidence despite genuine vulnerability.
In these circumstances, welfare teams ensure that case notes are accurate, detailed and current. This enables enforcement agents to approach any attendance with heightened awareness and appropriate caution, supporting risk management and professional conduct standards.
Temporary vulnerability classifications may be applied where appropriate and reviewed regularly as circumstances change. This ensures decisions remain proportionate and evidence-led rather than fixed or procedural.
Temporary safeguards are also used in cases involving pregnancy, acute medical emergencies or extended hospital admissions, allowing flexibility while maintaining structured oversight.
“Accurate welfare records protect vulnerable individuals, frontline staff and the integrity of the enforcement process.”
Managing Crisis and High-Risk Interactions
One of the most sensitive aspects of welfare work involves supporting individuals who express acute emotional distress or indicate a risk of self-harm. These interactions require a calm, structured and professional response that reflects safeguarding principles increasingly embedded within enforcement standards.
The CES approach focuses on active listening, reassurance and appropriate signposting to specialist support services capable of providing immediate assistance. Where there is concern about an individual’s immediate safety, police welfare checks may be requested to ensure safeguarding measures are put in place.
Equally important is staff wellbeing. Welfare team members are encouraged to debrief following high-risk interactions, allowing time to reflect, share learning and maintain emotional resilience. This supports long-term workforce sustainability and service quality.
Financial Hardship and Evidence-Led Assessment
Financial vulnerability is assessed using a structured, evidence-based process. Debtors are asked to provide bank statements, payslips, Department for Work and Pensions correspondence and a completed Income and Expenditure (I&E) form.
This enables welfare teams to accurately assess affordability, income stability and expenditure priorities, supporting fair and consistent decision-making. Where repayment proposals are inconsistent with available income, these are challenged appropriately. Conversely, where documentation confirms vulnerability — such as receipt of Personal Independence Payment — cases are flagged to ensure appropriate safeguards are applied.
The I&E process also highlights wider debt pressures. Increasingly, individuals present with multiple liabilities. In such cases, CES routinely signposts debtors to free, independent debt advice providers, reflecting wider regulatory expectations around early intervention and sustainable debt solutions.
Breathing Space and Collaborative Working
Where debt advisers determine that additional time is required to stabilise a debtor’s position, applications may be made under the Breathing Space scheme via the Insolvency Service. Upon notification, enforcement activity is paused for the statutory 60-day period and monitored closely.
During this period, welfare teams liaise directly with advisers, review repayment proposals and engage with claimants where necessary. This collaborative approach supports transparency, fairness and procedural integrity while maintaining creditor engagement.
“Effective welfare is built on collaboration — not isolation.”
Raising Standards Through Welfare-Led Practice
The integration of welfare into frontline enforcement demonstrates that fairness and effective recovery are not competing objectives. By combining early identification, structured assessment, crisis management protocols and collaborative working, enforcement organisations can protect vulnerable individuals while delivering lawful, proportionate and compliant outcomes for creditors.
As regulatory oversight continues to evolve, welfare-led operational models will play an increasingly important role in strengthening public confidence, improving engagement outcomes and raising professional standards across the credit and enforcement sector.
About the Author
Vince Squires
Welfare Officer — Court Enforcement Services (CES)
Vince Squires specialises in vulnerability assessment, crisis engagement and financial hardship review within high court enforcement. He works closely with operational teams, compliance functions and external advice organisations to embed fairness, proportionality and safeguarding into frontline practice.
