Issue

A return of goods order may establish a right to a creditor's entitlement to recover goods, but does it necessarily authorise entry onto a private residence?

Short Answer

Section 92 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA 1974) provides that access is restricted unless judicial authority is granted. Although this safeguards debtors against unauthorised entry, it does not prescribe what evidence a creditor must provide where a debtor refuses a request for voluntary surrender or fails to comply with an existing return of goods order.

The Statutory Framework

Section 92(1) CCA 1974 prohibits to enter any premises to recover the goods subject to the hire-purchase, conditional sale, or consumer hire agreement except under a court order.

Under section 133 of the CCA 1974 allows a court to order the return of goods order. However, such an order does not automatically decide whether the creditor may enter private premises to recover them.

Evidential Requirements

Requiring evidence of an attempted voluntary surrender (an attempt to recover the goods without going to court) may prevent premature or unnecessary entry onto a private residence. Such evidence could include correspondence requesting return, the goods' location and the debtor's response. 

A debtor's refusal to surrender the goods may support further enforcement, and non-compliance may provide a strong reason to act. Neither situation alone, however, justifies entry. 

The question is whether existing evidence of entitlement is sufficient, or whether further evidence is necessary to justify granting judicial authority.

Judicial Discretion

Where judicial authority (permission from a court) is sought, the court may consider the scope of the proposed order and the circumstances justifying entry. Relevant considerations include:

  • Whether the location of the goods is known;
  • Whether the creditor has asked for voluntary surrender; and
  • Whether entry should be limited to a specific area of the premises, such as a driveway, rather than allowing unrestricted access. 

A creditor seeking broad authority of recovery without an attempt at requesting voluntary surrender may encounter difficulty. The absence of clear evidential guidance may lead to repeated applications, increasing costs and delay. This sits uneasily with the overriding objective of handling cases justly and at proportionate cost.

Consequences of Refusal

Refusal of permission to entry may substantially limit the practical effect of a return of goods order. Although the creditor holds an entitlement to possession, it cannot assume this permits entry.

Entering in contravention of section 92 may give rise to an action for breach of statutory duty (a claim that a legal duty was broken) under section 92(3). If the goods are not returned, section 133(6) provides an alternative: the creditor can apply to the court, which may cancel the order for the goods and instead order the debtor to pay the amount still owed.

A court order to pay money may, however, be of limited value if the debtor cannot pay. If the court refuses permission and the creditor has no other workable way to recover the debt, the order may fail to achieve its purpose.

Conclusion

A return of goods order is only half the battle. The law intentionally separates the right to own something from the right to enter a home to get it. By drawing a strict line at the property boundary, the legal system ensures that commercial disputes never compromise personal safety and domestic peace.