The Government recognises that there is clear evidence of challenges faced by victim-survivors of domestic abuse in financial proceedings on divorce, including in relation to enforcement of financial orders, such as property adjustment orders. Enforcement is a critical issue within the wider context of domestic abuse, including economic abuse, as failures to secure compliance can perpetuate harm and undermine the intent of court orders. As outlined in the Government’s recent consultation, A Fairer End to Relationships, we recognise the importance of this issue and will give further careful consideration to how it might best be addressed.

The Government also recognises concerns about the adequacy of existing legal protections in preventing economic abuse through the disposal, transfer or occupation of property. Whilst protections exist for divorcing couples, the law does not currently provide a specific legislative framework giving financial rights and protections for cohabitants who separate. Our consultation proposed new framework of protections for cohabitants, and also asked for views on how domestic abuse, including economic abuse, could be taken into account in financial proceedings on divorce and in any future cohabitation proceedings. The consultation has now closed and the Government is considering the responses before finalising its policies.

The Department does not collect data on cases in which domestic abuse survivors are unable to access or occupy property awarded to them through family court proceedings.

There is no statutory mechanism through which victims can formally challenge or seek a review of enforcement activity relating to an unpaid compensation order. However, compensation orders are given the highest priority in the enforcement process, and all appropriate enforcement options are considered to maximise the prospect of recovery.

Court-imposed financial penalties are enforced as a whole, with payments distributed according to a statutory order of priority. This ensures the compensation is paid first to victims, followed by the victim surcharge, before any payments are applied to fines or other financial impositions.

The effectiveness of the enforcement of all financial penalties, including all criminal compensation orders is constantly under review.

HMCTS is taking action to improve the collection and enforcement of criminal compensation orders as part of the improvements to financial penalties more generally, and this includes compensation orders made to victims of fraud. For example, HMCTS is already investing over £14 million to replace an outdated IT system used to support the collection and enforcement of financial penalties. Although the functionality of the modernised system will initially be largely like for like, it will provide HMCTS with a stable foundation for more sophisticated technology features to be delivered in the future to provide further improvements to increase collections.

Court-imposed financial penalties are enforced as a whole, with payments distributed according to a statutory order of priority. This ensures the compensation is paid first to victims, followed by the victim surcharge, before any payments are applied to fines or other financial impositions.

HMCTS reports on compensation through the HMCTS Trust Statement, which is published annually on GOV.UK: HM Courts & Tribunals Service Trust Statement 2025 to 2026 - GOV.UK.

There is no specific escalation process for cases where a compensation order has remained unpaid for more than two years. However, HMCTS takes the recovery and enforcement of all financial impositions very seriously and remains committed to ensuring impositions are paid. The courts will do everything within their powers to trace those who do not pay and use a variety of sanctions to ensure the recovery of criminal fines and financial penalties.

Court-imposed financial penalties are enforced as a whole, with payments distributed according to a statutory order of priority. This ensures the compensation is paid first to victims, followed by the victim surcharge, before any payments are applied to fines or other financial impositions.

Victims can be informed about the amount of compensation awarded, payments received, and any outstanding balance. HMCTS may also explain the enforcement options available where payment has not been made. However, specific enforcement activity and personal information relating to the defendant cannot be disclosed due to legal and operational requirements including the administration of justice and data protection compliance.

There are currently no formal service standards or published guidelines setting out response times for general enquiries. However, the expectation is that enquiries will normally receive a response within five working days. Where a matter is submitted as a formal complaint, a defined service standard applies and a response should be issued within ten working days.

When applying to the Family Courts, applicants are asked to provide details of any previous or concurrent proceedings. In private law proceedings, HMCTS court staff will also undertake a search of case management systems to identify any linked proceedings, including any existing orders, and bring these to the attention of the judge or the justices’ legal adviser on the case. In public law children proceedings, the local authority will be asked to state on their application form if there are any other related proceedings.

The court will then consider the application. It is a matter for the court to determine whether that or any other orders ought to be made, remain in place, be varied or discharged.

We are seeking to improve the range and detail of data we publish, including about cases which return to court. Some of this work will be captured in the Family Justice Strategy, which will be published later this year.

The Child Maintenance Service (CMS) does not require a court order in all cases. The job of the CMS is to determine what contact is actually taking place and ensure that is reflected in the maintenance calculation. Where shared care arrangements are disputed, the CMS will seek to collect evidence from parents to establish the actual level of care being given. Acceptable evidence can include a current court order but can also include; a formal written agreement such as one drawn up by a solicitor, or other official documentation such as reports from Social Services or the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. This approach ensures that decisions are based on clear and verifiable information so that maintenance calculations are fair, consistent, and reflect the care actually being provided.

In some circumstances, where for example there is a dispute over whether the terms of a current court order are being honoured, formal evidence such as a revised court order may be required, especially in the absence of other robust evidence around the level of shared care being provided in practice. Here, the requirement for robust evidence plays an important role in ensuring that CMS decisions are accurate and that both parents are treated fairly, thereby minimising the risk of further disputes.

That said, the CMS does not determine contact arrangements itself, as these matters are primarily for parents and, where they cannot agree, for the family courts.

Shared care remains an important consideration within the child maintenance system, and this is an area that the CMS will continue to keep under review.

The Child Maintenance Service (CMS) does not require a court order in all cases. The job of the CMS is to determine what contact is actually taking place and ensure that is reflected in the maintenance calculation. Where shared care arrangements are disputed, the CMS will seek to collect evidence from parents to establish the actual level of care being given. Acceptable evidence can include a current court order but can also include; a formal written agreement such as one drawn up by a solicitor, or other official documentation such as reports from Social Services or the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. This approach ensures that decisions are based on clear and verifiable information so that maintenance calculations are fair, consistent, and reflect the care actually being provided.

In some circumstances, where for example there is a dispute over whether the terms of a current court order are being honoured, formal evidence such as a revised court order may be required, especially in the absence of other robust evidence around the level of shared care being provided in practice. Here, the requirement for robust evidence plays an important role in ensuring that CMS decisions are accurate and that both parents are treated fairly, thereby minimising the risk of further disputes.

That said, the CMS does not determine contact arrangements itself, as these matters are primarily for parents and, where they cannot agree, for the family courts.

Shared care remains an important consideration within the child maintenance system, and this is an area that the CMS will continue to keep under review.

HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) processed the claim accurately and in accordance with the information provided by the claimant.

HMCTS has advised that the hon. Member for Slough’s parliamentary email address was included on the claim form by the claimant to the proceedings as the contact address for the Second Defendant. As a result, this was added to the court database and would generate court correspondence including court orders to the hon. Member’s parliamentary email address.

HMCTS received an email from the MP’s office on 29 December 2025 and the court issued a response to him on the same day. The MP continued to receive correspondence because his office did not specify that the email address should be removed. The court would usually require notification and evidence that an administrative error has been made so the individual's details can be removed from the court record.

Documents were sent to the hon. Member for Slough who is not a party to this case rather than to the second defendant. HMCTS has corrected this and is ensuring service on the second defendant and will notify all parties.

This is not a matter for the Information Commissioners Office as HMCTS has followed the process and accurately recorded the claim details from the claimant’s form.

HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) processed the claim accurately and in accordance with the information provided by the claimant.

HMCTS has advised that the hon. Member for Slough’s parliamentary email address was included on the claim form by the claimant to the proceedings as the contact address for the Second Defendant. As a result, this was added to the court database and would generate court correspondence including court orders to the hon. Member’s parliamentary email address.

HMCTS received an email from the MP’s office on 29 December 2025 and the court issued a response to him on the same day. The MP continued to receive correspondence because his office did not specify that the email address should be removed. The court would usually require notification and evidence that an administrative error has been made so the individual's details can be removed from the court record.

Documents were sent to the hon. Member for Slough who is not a party to this case rather than to the second defendant. HMCTS has corrected this and is ensuring service on the second defendant and will notify all parties.

This is not a matter for the Information Commissioners Office as HMCTS has followed the process and accurately recorded the claim details from the claimant’s form.

The Building Safety Act 2022 (the Act) provides that a First-tier Tribunal decision made under or in connection with section 123 (remediation orders), will be enforceable with the permission of the County Court. Proceedings will function in the same way as under orders of that Court.

The current regime is intended to provide security to the majority of leaseholders and support actions to ensure buildings are remediated. As with all policies, the Government will keep open the option of considering changes in the future.

Indeed, our Remediation Acceleration Plan sets out our plan to go further in making sure there are severe penalties for landlords that delay works on cladding issues. We intend to introduce new criminal and civil sanctions for those who fail to assess and remediate unsafe buildings within fixed timescales, backed by a further £33 million investment in 25/26 to provide local and national regulators with capacity and capability to tackle hundreds of enforcement cases a year, targeting those neglecting to quickly remediate their buildings.