It comes as no surprise to the courts that mortgage possessions are up 48 per cent for the first half of this year. They have been steadily increasing for at least the past two years and are now accelerating at an alarming rate.

At my court alone we have had to allow for extra days to deal with mortgage possessions which, by rule, have to be heard within eight weeks of the issue of proceedings.

As the courts still work five days a week with the same number of judges and the same hours for sitting, the only way that extra cases can be accommodated is by squeezing out less urgent ones.

Thursdays used to be mortgage possession day at my court but now I find mortgage possessions scattered around all the other weekdays, including on those days set aside for family cases.

There is a knock on effect from that, too. There is a consequential increase in the number of people applying to stop the bailiffs taking possession of their properties in furtherance of court orders. These have to be listed urgently, usually within a day or two if being issued. This means that the day’s list of cases is also pushed back so that these applications can be dealt with. If one of the parties is unhappy with the outcome then they often immediately lodge an appeal and the circuit judge then finds his or her list for the day interrupted.

So far, the courts are coping with the tidal wave but any further substantial increase in cases is bound to affect the way the courts do their work. We cannot suddenly appoint a load more judges or easily find extra time in busy days.

What is also intriguing is that a substantial number of defaulting borrowers are those who have taken out mortgages in the last couple of years, including a sizeable number who have not paid a single penny since the mortgage was taken out.

There could be a number of reasons for this odd situation: first, borrowers not doing their sums properly when buying property. The mortgage is only one expense that has to be considered. There is also council tax, ever-increasing energy, water and food bills and the cost of furnishing, maintaining and insuring the place.

Second, cheap fixed rate deals are also coming to an end, leaving borrowers facing more expensive obligations and limited options in a constricted mortgage market.

Third, there are the unknown contingencies: people losing their jobs, getting ill, marriages breaking down. A difficult economic climate puts strain on most people’s finances, which they didn’t anticipate before the dark clouds started gathering.

Lenders appear to be getting more aggressive. We are now frequently asked for permission to appeal decisions that the lenders consider too favourable to borrowers.

All that may be tempered by the introduction of a mortgage arrears protocol put forward by the Civil Justice Council, which recently finished consultation. This proposes much closer contact between lender and borrower to try and resolve issues and come to some accommodation rather than taking the ultimate step of issuing proceedings.

We are still waiting to hear the final results of the consultation but I was advised by a colleague not to hold my breath in the light of the anticipated response from the lenders.

In the meantime, court lists are being adjusted to allow for the influx of more cases. The stark truth is that more people are likely to be losing their homes. It is not something that the courts relish.

Judge Stephen Gerlis sits at Barnet County Court, in north London

Explore Law

• Corporate Law

• Public Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Student Law

• Law Reports

Times Recommends

• Future Stars of the Bar 2008
• Lawyer of the Week: Julie Morris
• Charging suspects - why it's a job for prosecutors