New analysis by the Financial Inclusion Centre (FIC) finds that county court judgments (CCJs) are nearly four times more prevalent in the worst affected parliamentary constituencies in England and Wales compared with better-off areas.
FIC analysed unique data from non-profit Registry Trust[1] along with wider economic and financial indicators, such as household incomes and take up of Universal Credit, to build a profile of financial vulnerability in parliamentary constituencies and local authorities across England and Wales.
The report can be found here: FIC Geography of Financial Vulnerability report September 2026
The full database of indicators for the parliamentary constituencies and local authorities can be accessed here: The Geography of Financial and Economic Vulnerability in England and Wales | Registry Trust
The report analyses vulnerability through the lens of CCJ data as it is both a lagging and leading indicator of financial vulnerability. It is a lagging indicator in that if a person (or small company) has a debt judgment registered against them this can be a clear signal they have been experiencing a debt related problem.[2] The data can shine a light on areas with high concentrations of problem debt and financial vulnerability which need to be addressed.
It is a leading indicator in that a CCJ stays on the public Register for six years and can affect ability to obtain affordable credit and other services, and access to other opportunities.[3] High concentrations of CCJs in local areas can undermine efforts to build financial inclusion, resilience, and sustainable, shared economic growth across the country.
The Prime Minister wants to see ‘good growth in every postcode’[4] and the Chancellor of the Exchequer hopes to ‘build a more resilient economy.[5] The Government’s Financial Inclusion Strategy seeks to improve financial inclusion and resilience across the country.
These are laudable ambitions. FIC believes that generating national economic resilience and sustainable growth, and promoting financial inclusion, needs a foundation of financial resilience amongst the most economically vulnerable communities and households.
This requires targeted, sustained interventions to address existing detriment and mitigate future detriment guided by timely, relevant data. Understanding which places are struggling and the scale of that struggle is surely a prerequisite for efforts to build inclusion and resilience.
Key findings
FIC estimates that there are 98 consumer CCJs for every 1,000 adults, or almost one CCJ for every 10 adults, across England and Wales.[6] Middlesbrough and Thornaby parliamentary constituency has the highest ratio at 225 consumer CCJs per 1,000 adults (almost one for every four adults).[7] This contrasts with Harpenden and Berkhamstead, which has the lowest ratio at 37 per 1,000 adults (one for every 27 adults).
At local authority level, the highest ratio is found in Barking and Dagenham at 206 per 1,000 adults (one per five adults) compared to 41 per 1,000 (one per 24 adults) in Waverley, the lowest.
In the 50 parliamentary constituencies with the highest density of CCJs the ratio is 172 per 1,000 adults (one per six adults) compared to 47 per 1,000 (one per 21 adults) in the 50 constituencies with the lowest density. So, the CCJ ratio is nearly four times higher in the worst affected constituencies than in the least affected.
Similarly, in the 50 worst affected local authorities the ratio is 145 per 1,000 (one per seven adults), compared to 49 per 1,000 (one per 21 adults). The CCJ ratio is three times higher in the worst affected local authorities.
Looking at the regions, the North East fares particularly badly with 130 consumer CCJs per 1,000 adults (one for every eight) compared to 80 per 1,000 adults (one per 12.5) in the South East. The North East has the largest concentration of parliamentary constituencies with very high CCJ densities. More than one in five (22%) of the constituencies located in the North East are in the list of 50 constituencies with the highest ratio of CCJs. This is followed by the London with 17% of its constituencies in the 50 worst affected, and the West Midlands with 14%.
The North East fares even worse at local authority level. Fifty eight percent of local authorities in the region are in the worst affected 50, followed by the North West (36%) and London (24%).
FIC also analysed wider economic and financial data and compared this to the data on CCJs. Those parliamentary constituencies and local authorities with the highest CCJ ratios also scored badly on these economic and financial indicators.
For example, in the 50 worst affected parliamentary constituencies: the percentage of working age people claiming Universal Credit is on average 30% compared to 20% across England and Wales; relative child poverty rates are on average 11 percentage points higher than the national level; and annual household incomes are on average £2,783 lower than the national level.
In the 50 parliamentary constituencies with the highest CCJ ratios the median proportion of BAME households is 37%, compared with 17% across England and Wales and 6% in the 50 lowest CCJ density constituencies. Forty of the 50 constituencies with the highest density of consumer judgments have a higher proportion of BAME households than the median level across England and Wales.
The constituencies with the highest consumer CCJ ratios also see much higher commercial CCJ densities. In the 50 highest consumer CCJ constituencies, the commercial CCJ ratio is, on average, 378 per 1,000 registered businesses (one per 2.6) compared to an average of 224 per 1,000 (one per 4.5) across England and Wales, and 124 per 1,000 (one per eight) in the 50 constituencies with the lowest consumer CCJ ratios.
We see similar patterns at local authority level. In the local authorities with the highest consumer CCJ ratios, the commercial CCJ ratio is, on average, 318 per 1,000 businesses (nearly one per three) compared to 211 per 1,000 businesses (nearly one per five) across England and Wales, and 129 per 1,000 (nearly one per eight) in the 50 lowest CCJ ratios.
The findings suggest that, in the worst affected areas, both consumers and small businesses are experiencing significant financial challenges.
FIC also constructed a composite economic and financial vulnerability score (from the range of indicators we analysed) for each parliamentary constituency and local authority. The parliamentary constituencies and local authorities with the lowest (worst) composite scores have CCJ rates around three times higher than constituencies with the lowest scores.
In the 50 constituencies with the lowest scores the CCJ ratio is 161 per 1,000 adults (one per six) compared to 51 per 1,000 adults (one per 20) in the highest scoring 50 constituencies. We find a similar result for local authorities – 139 per 1,000 adults in the low scoring local authorities compared to 50 per 1,000 adults in the high scoring local authorities.
It is perhaps not surprising that we found such a strong relationship between low economic scores and high CCJ rates. Of course, correlation is not causation. But, in this case, there is good reason to think that factors such as low incomes and take up of Universal Credit indicate or contribute to financial stress, which in turn contributes to overindebtedness and the likelihood of CCJs being enforced in a local area.
This reinforces the need for robust policy interventions to tackle the causes of high CCJ rates (economic vulnerability, low income levels, overindebtedness, and market practices) and the consequences (restricted access to affordable credit, and ability to repair finances and build financial security undermined).
Conclusions and recommendations
We hope this report and the accompanying data analysis will be of interest to civil society organisations, debt advice charities, think tanks and academics , politicians, the Government, regulators and agencies such as the Money and Pensions Service (MaPS), and impact investors.[8]
‘Place based politics’ is a popular concept nowadays. We believe that building a foundation of financial resilience amongst the most economically vulnerable communities and households is necessary if we are to generate national economic resilience and sustainable growth, and promote financial inclusion. Interventions should be guided by timely and relevant data.
CCJ data, as a lagging and leading indicator, could be particularly useful for targeting both remedial and preventative interventions. CCJ data helps point to: existing concentrations of problem debt which need to be addressed; and where there are likely to be future problems going forward as CCJs can affect future access to affordable credit and efforts to repair finances. Specifically, granular, timely data can help in the following ways:
- Supporting people already in financial difficulty The analysis can be used by MaPS, government departments, local authorities, and other organisations to more effectively target resources to support debt and legal advice services.
- Helping repair household finances and build future financial resilience Raising consumer awareness of: i. the impact of having a CCJ may help people avoid getting into financial difficulty; and ii. the need to ensure that a CCJ is marked as ‘satisfied’[11] could help repair household finances. Awareness programmes on the importance of dealing with CCJs, and debt matters generally, should be targeted on areas with greatest levels of detriment.
- Building sustainable financial inclusion and resilience If the national Financial Inclusion Strategy is to make a long term difference to the most vulnerable households and communities, then affordable alternatives to mainstream credit options will be needed. We should expand access to effective interventions such as credit union payroll savings schemes,[12]the No Interest Loans Scheme (NILS),[13] deduction based lending schemes,[14] and home improvement finance schemes [15]operated by non-profit funding community lenders. Comprehensive data on CCJs and other socio-economic indicators can help focus resources and interventions on priority places. We recommend that an audit be undertaken of the availability of alternative options in the local areas worst affected by high CCJ densities.
- Enhancing consumer protection The data on CCJs can provide the Government, policymakers, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and other consumer protection authorities with additional intelligence on emerging consumer detriment and enable more rapid responses. For example, if evidence emerges of rapid growth in CCJs in certain areas, is this due to corporate practices by certain creditors in these areas?
- Learning lessons and sharing best practice The data on CCJ density and other economic indicators can help stakeholders learn lessons and share best practice. For example, if two areas have similar economic profiles but with very different CCJ densities, then case study based analysis could be deployed to try to understand why. It may be that local authorities and local civil society organisations in certain areas are using effective interventions that minimise the numbers of problem debts resulting in CCJs which could be adopted by stakeholders in other areas.
- Further research into financial vulnerability We urge academics and civil society organisations to undertake further research into CCJ based financial vulnerability. Further insights are needed into the profile of those most affected by CCJs eg. stratification by age, gender, and ethnicity.
- Local area action plans We recommend that local authorities, regional authorities, and civil society organisations develop action plans with remedial and preventative interventions to address the causes and effects of high concentrations of CCJs.
[1] Registry Trust is the non-profit which operates the Register of Judgments, Orders, and Fines on behalf of the Ministry of Justice and similar registers in the other UK jurisdictions and Republic of Ireland by agreement with the relevant authorities. Mick McAteer, the lead author of the report, is also Chair of Registry Trust.
[2] NB Of course, many judgments can involve debts incurred from car parking fines which may result from a person forgetting to pay rather inability to pay. Nevertheless, the fact that a judgment may have arisen as a result of a car parking fine can still affect a person’s ability to access credit and other services.
[3] Such as insurance, or renting in private rented sector. Employers also use CCJ data as part of due diligence procedures so having a CCJ may affect employment prospects.
[4] speech-29-june — Andy Burnham
[5] John Healey says best thing we can offer young people is a first job – BBC News
[6] There are currently 5.88 million judgments on the registers operated by Registry Trust. England and Wales accounts for 97% of the total, around 5.7 million. At the time of the analysis, there were 5.5 million CCJs registered in England and Wales. Court Judgment Statistics | Registry Trust
[7] NB some individuals will have more than one CCJ outstanding. So that does not mean that one in every 10 adults have a CCJ, rather than one for every 10 adults. Registry Trust estimates that 4.6 million individuals and small business have one or more CCJs against them.
[8] Impact investors seek to use private capital to make a difference to social challenges. We hope this analysis will be helpful in better targeting resources in areas of greatest need.
[9] speech-29-june — Andy Burnham
[10] John Healey says best thing we can offer young people is a first job – BBC News
[11] For a debt judgment to be marked as satisfied on the Register of Judgments the outstanding debt has to be settled and proof of payment submitted to the courts by the person who owed the debt.
[12] Getting Workforces Savings-Payroll Savings with Credit Unions | The Financial Inclusion Centre
[13] See for example, No Interest Loan Scheme – Fair4All Finance
[14] New research shows deduction lending adds up for low income borrowers and lenders | The Financial Inclusion Centre
[15] Home Improvement Finance Schemes – Financial Inclusion Centre working with local government | The Financial Inclusion Centre