The controversial world of enforcement agents -- bailiffs and sheriffs -- has been under official scrutiny for the past ten years.

It started when the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay, commissioned a review of the Organisation of Civil Enforcement Agents in 1991.Since then, the Lord Chancellor's Department (LCD) has come up with terms of reference and four consultation papers, the Law Society has done its bit with an as yet unenforced pre-action protocol and, most importantly, Lord Woolf's civil justice reforms have necessitated a new approach to enforcement.Add to this the hovering presence of the European Convention on Human Rights -- which has things to say on the 'right to peaceable enjoyment of possessions' -- and the future for bailiffs and sheriffs is looking, at best, unsettled.Which is why sheriffs (the legally trained arm of the enforcement world) have come out of their corner fighting, launching a campaign to promote themselves as 'the only effective and efficient service for the enforcement of debt'.This is also why the Certificated Bailiffs Association (CBA) has felt so wounded by a recent attack made on its profession in a report from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux (NACAB).

The report last month accused bailiffs of being an 'archaic relic of mediaeval times with no place in the modern world'.The report, made up of complaints by disgruntled individuals, claimed bailiffs regularly abused their powers, were aggressive, lied and cheated their way into homes, threa tened violence to pressurise people into paying lump sums, and took essential household equipment.The CBA, left smarting by the vehemence of the attack and puzzled by the findings, said it was unrealistic to draw conclusions from the relatively small number of people who went to advice centres in relation to bailiff action.

They hotly rejected any suggestion that the examples cited by NACAB were typical.Professor Jack Beatson QC of Cambridge University's Centre for Public Law has been charged with reviewing the powers of bailiffs and his report is currently out to consultation.The complex, ancient and piecemeal nature of legislation surrounding bailiffs (who to further complicate things can be either County Court or private sector employees) has made the need for reform all the more pressing.Bailiffs can distrain (seize goods) for all kinds of debts, including unpaid taxes, rates, fines, child maintenance payments and rent.

Their work is governed by common law and various legislative instruments.

Within this mish-mash is the complex law governing distress for rent, many aspects of which were found to be arbitrary and artificial by a Law Commission investigation in 1991.The government has accepted the commission's recommendation that distress for rent should be done away with as soon as reforms to the court system come up with alternatives for landlords.

Any reform of distress must take into account both the rights of creditors to go to court to recover what they are owed and, in the words of the LCD, 'debtors who genuinely cannot pay [and] must be protected from over-zealous creditors'.Not surprisingly, bailiffs themselves are keen to see their the rules reformed.

Mike Garland, who works for one of the leading enforcement agencies, the Drakes Group, and edits the CBA's newsletter, says that the distress laws should be re-thought and started again.'Yes, it does need updating.

There is room for modernising,' he says, but adds that there is no justification for the NACAB's call to abolish the bailiff system.

'It seems to me that the meaning of evidence in the report is limited to unsubstantiated testimony.

In other words, it's anecdotal,' he says.

'I am sure that there are bailiffs who behave in a less than exemplary manner, just as there are policemen, lawyers and politicians who do.'The best bailiffs' firms make stringent checks on their employees, he says.

Potential employees have credit checks made against them and they have to prove that they do not have a criminal record.

'If there is any hint that you have got a former life that's not in keeping with what we want, then you're out,' says Mr Garland.He is also concerned about the term 'debt' and says he has never collected debt but instead executed court warrants or liability orders over parking penalties, fines and other sums ordered by a court.In a recent straw poll of 50 local authorities he conducted on the subject of council tax, Mr Garland found that one authority referred 4,500 liability orders to bailiffs, who recovered £1 million and received six complaints.

Another council referred 3,500 cases and the bailiffs collected £500,000 with no complaints.

Yet another referred 22,000 cases and the bailiffs recovered £3.5 million with one justified complaint.One of the questions being put in the Beatson report on the future of bailiffs is whether there should be universally recognised rules on what can or cannot be seized.The NACAB reports says there should be fairer alternatives to seizing goods, such as direct deductions from benefits and attachment o f earnings.

But Mr Garland points out that taking from a defaulter's bank account is far more damaging in the long term than removing his or her video recorder.Sheriffs, whose turf is the High Court, may not have a consultation exercise aimed at them, but they too are coming under intense scrutiny.

New rules following Lord Woolf's civil justice reforms mean 'further changes had been thrust upon us', says the campaign literature of the Sheriffs of England and Wales on the Internet.Since April 1999, only claims for amounts above £15,000 could be heard in the High Court.

Cases involving anything under that figure were heard at the County Court.

Although this cut back the slice of work available to sheriffs, claimants can 'transfer up' and use sheriffs for any claim above £600.

In an effort to attract more potential clients to transfer up, the sheriffs have opened a centralised lodgment centre.Aside from the higher status a High Court judgement confers, sheriffs enjoy significant advantages over bailiffs in what they are allowed to do.

They can act within three days of instruction, rather than 15 days as is the case with bailiffs.

Unlike bailiffs, they can work outside business hours and on weekends, and have the power to break into commercial premises.

High Court judgements alone attract 8% interest.While some of their positions date back 1,300 years, the role of sheriffs has changed enormously since the days of William the Conqueror, when they were all powerful in their counties and would collect taxes, raise armies and sit as judges.

They appoint an under-sheriff, who is a solicitor specialising in the law of enforcement of judgement debt.

They in turn appoint sheriff's officers, the High Court equivalent of bailiffs.

Sheriffs operate with full indemnity insurance and are accountable to the courts for their actions.

They enforce High Court orders which include the recovery of money, goods and land.

This last aspect of their work has landed some sheriffs with particularly unenviable jobs, such as solicitor Trevor Coleman, Under-Sheriff of Devon, who in 1997 had the difficult task of evicting famed eco-warrior Swampy from the site of the proposed A30 bypass.So what makes them so different to -- and, as they seem to suggest, better than -- bailiffs? Solicitor Claire Sandbrook is Under-Sheriff of Surrey.

She says sheriffs and their officers are better trained and qualified and offer value for money.

She describes the claims made in the NACAB report as 'shocking'.

The power to enter peoples' homes and business 'has to be used with extreme caution and it has to be taken extremely seriously,' she says.'The Law Society has failed to recognise the importance of this debate.

They fail to acknowledge the importance of under-sheriffs as members of the profession,' she says, adding that the issue of enforcement is 'one of the most controversial things happening in law at the moment'.'We are entering peoples' homes and businesses and taking their goods away to pay their debts.

If that's the law, then that law has to be enforced properly and fairly.' To seek co-operation from judgment debtors, one has to be in tune with what is happening in society, she adds: 'You have to leave a person's dignity intact.'David McIntosh, chairman of the Law Society's civil litigation committee, say: 'Enforcement of judgments is a vital part of civil justice and the Law Society does support the central role played by sheriffs and under-sheriffs.

We are contributing to the enforcement review being undertaken by the Lord Chancellor's Department.'Ms Sa ndbrook says the improved marketing of sheriffs' work can only lead to an improved service all round.

'Yes, we want more business,' she concedes.

'Yes, we're anxious to do more, but at the end of the day we're officers of the court.

We want the right people doing it and we want good professional standards.'The Law Society certainly tried to enshrine these standards, when it created a pre-action protocol on enforcement.

Although a great deal of work went into the project and many groups were consulted, the protocol is currently in the hands of the LCD and has not been enforced.A meeting with both debtor and creditor representatives about the protocol failed to reach a consensus.

But the exercise, according to working party chairman Jonathan Berkson, was very valuable.Mr Berkson, a partner at Liverpool law firm Hill Dickinson and a specialist in debt recovery and enforcement, says the existence of two, parallel enforcement arms has been considered 'very much against the feeling of Woolf'.

He explains: 'We are awaiting the consultation paper on the rules for enforcement proceedings with interest and hope that procedures will be streamlined.

As a lawyer, I'd like to see some changes, some streamlining and simplification.

Let's get one consistent system.'After around 1,000 years of activity and experience, sheriffs and bailiffs may find the next couple of years the most eventful in their history.