§ Mr. MilburnTo ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) proceedings were commenced to repossess homes and (b) homes were repossessed in (i) Darlington and (ii) each county in northern England in each year since 1990. [33783]
Mr. John M. TaylorThe question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked him to reply direct.
Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 11 July 1995:
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your Question about repossession proceedings.
The following charts show the total number of mortgage possession actions commenced in Darlington County Court, and the county courts in the counties of Cleveland, Cumbria, Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear, since 1990. As not all orders result in repossession, I am unable to tell you how many properties were repossessed in this period. I have therefore included in the tables the number of possession orders made. I should add that the figures for 1994 are provisional and are consequently liable to revision to take account of any late amendments.
Darlington County Court Year Actions commenced Orders made 1990 411 214 1991 565 471 1992 431 390 1993 313 302 1994 396 286
County Courts in Cleveland Year Actions commenced Orders made 1990 1,149 824 1991 1,578 1,347 1992 1,377 1,254 1993 1,086 1,094 1994 796 832 476W
County Courts in Cumbria Year Actions commenced Orders made 1990 700 535 1991 965 745 1992 848 969 1993 670 676 1994 506 589
County Courts in Durham Year Actions commenced Orders made 1990 1,165 727 1991 1,661 1,504 1992 1,187 1,173 1993 920 791 1994 918 659
County Courts in Northumberland Year Actions commenced Orders made 1990 219 157 1991 413 261 1992 250 210 1993 208 210 1994 128 159
County Courts in Tyne and Wear Year Actions commenced Orders made 1990 1,710 1,303 1991 2,300 1,703 1992 2,378 2,672 1993 1,755 2,266 1994 1,394 1,903 In some years the number of orders made was greater than the number of action commenced. This is because:
(a) some orders were made on cases which commenced in the previous year
(b) a number of cases were adjourned in the previous year but restored in the current year.