Cookies disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to deliver better content and for statistical purposes. You can disable the usage of cookies by changing the settings of your browser. By browsing our website without changing the browser settings you grant us permission to store that information on your device.


Understanding who we interact with is vitally important to us at Registry Trust. We want to ensure everyone understands the process of monetary court judgments in order to be in the best position to manage them. All the while, we want to bring attention to the effects judgments have on the financial lives of consumers and businesses.

In November 2019, we put together a small survey for our customer services team to record details of the calls they received over the course of the month. From the results, we were able to paint a picture of who was calling us, how they found us and common reasons for the calls.

This blog will offer a quick run-down on what we found in our survey!

Who were they?

Over the course of the month, the majority of our callers were defendants (75%). The other 25% was made up of claimants, courts and third parties. Demographically there were slightly more male callers in November than female callers, 58% to 42%. When looking at the value of judgments the callers were ringing in regard to, the vast majority of judgments were either in the £100 to £500 or the £3000+ category.
Male callers were more likely to be enquiring over higher value judgments, the average being £4,161, 69% higher than the female average (£2,468). Further, the majority of calls came from those aged 26 to 45 years old. The average value for judgments increases over the age groups by 145% until the 55 to 65 year old group, where the value drops by 62% and continues at this rate amongst those aged the 65+. Reasons for call by gender varies greatly, but just under half of all females callers were ringing to either obtain claimant details or satisfy a judgment. Male callers were also regularly calling for these reasons but also were just as likely to call to provide proof of payment.

cs demographics2.png


How did they find us?

If we were to receive 50 calls, this graphic outlines the expected distribution of how they would have found us.

CS how they found us2.png

This shows that our callers were most likely to have found us through Credit Reference Agencies (30%), which is suggestive that the reason for call maybe due to discovering a judgment when checking their credit score or looking to take out a loan. A further 14% a represented by Estate Agents, Banks/Lenders and Employers who may also be a route by which someone may discover a judgment aganist them. The second and third most common reasons, Courts and our Data Processing Letters respectively, are telling of those who are looking to action a judgment. This may be a defendant looking to confirm a satisfaction or a claimant looking to ensure the enforcement of a judgment.

What was the reason for the call?

Reasons for why people called varied widely. Highlighted below were the top three reasons which correlate with the methods in which our callers found out about us. But others included: Information enquires, Bankruptcy, to highlight an inconsistency on the Credit Report, to query satisfactions and cancellations, enquires about Writs and Tribunals, judgment enquires, to set up a payment plan, un-register judgments and employment driven calls.

CS reason for call.png

One of the most striking stories to come out of the survey was the prominence of incorrect credit files resulting from judgments being assigned to other family members. For example, a son, who has the same name as their father, as well as sharing their address, might see their father’s judgment being assigned to their credit file. This could be a precautionary measure from Credit Reference Agencies where they assign the judgment to both files as it is unclear which of them it applies too. However, with incorrect credit files accounting for 10% of calls during the month, it is clear this method is having a real impact on individuals. Expect a blog post at a later date which delves deeper into this!

Where were they calling from?

Highest concentration of calls came from Greater London. Followed by Scotland, then the North West of England and Northern Ireland. The North East of England, West Midlands, East Anglia and the South West saw between 10 and 20 calls over the month, whilst all other regions had less than 10 calls a piece.

CS geographic spread.png

What is interesting about the geographical spread is it does not map onto our density of judgments maps. Areas such as the North East of England have high numbers of records, whereas Scotland has relatively low proportion in comparison to the rest of the UK.

For more information on this see our stats page about it! If you want to find out about what judgments are or how to satisfy them, look at our learn pages!

If you want to check if you have any outstanding judgments, head over to TrustOnline.

If you want to keep up to date with our latest blog posts, you can click here to subscribe for updates.