First published in the January 2009 edition of SCOLAG

Bankruptcy and Diligence Etc (Scotland) Act 2007

Although at the time of writing no draft regulations or precise dates are available, the next stage of implementation for the Bankruptcy and Diligence Etc (Scotland) Act 2007,  appears to have been delayed and will be at the end of April 2009, rather than early 2009, as initially intended.

Actions of Arrestment and Furthcoming

Previously a common law diligence, Actions of Arrestment and Furthcoming are commonly used to arrest bank accounts, but can be used to arrest any moveable property held by a third party. Soon to be almost entirely a creature of statute, the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 is to be amended to include the rules governing them under a new Part 3A[1].

Importantly, there will now be protection for a minimum amount held in bank accounts[2]. The amount to be protected from arrestment will be the monthly amount, under which no deduction can be made using an earnings arrestment: currently £370[3].

There will be no automatic protection for social security benefits or tax credits held in bank accounts, but a recent decision by Sheriff Principal Kearney[4], held where social security benefits and tax credits, paid into an account can be identified, it will not be possible to subject those funds to arrestment[5]. This leaves open the possibility that where benefits paid into an account exceed £370, then providing they can be identified, it may be possible to protect funds over the minimum amount.

Under the new provisions, despite the heading under Part 10 of the 2007 Act, there will no longer be an Action of Furthcoming, with funds arrested being automatically released to creditors after 14 weeks[6], unless the debtor agrees to the early release of the funds.

There will be no automatic release of property, however, where the debtor, the arrestee of a third party submits a notice of objection[7]. Notices of objection must be intimated within 4 weeks of the arrestment being executed or final decree being obtained (in the case of arrestment on the dependence). Grounds of objection are the warrant authorising the arrestment is invalid, the arrestment was executed incompetently or irregularly or the property is owned solely by the third party or in common with the debtor[8] (this could include joint accounts or funds held in trust for the maintenance of others, such as children).

Automatic release will also be prevented where a debtor or other person, who the court believes has an interest, applies for release of all or some of the funds on the grounds the arrestment is unduly harsh[9]. In considering whether the arrestment is unduly harsh, the Sheriff shall have regard to the source of the funds (possibly also that they are benefits) and whether other arrestments are already in place (including possibly earning arrestments and the fact diligence has being executed twice on the same funds).

Where a Sheriff finds an objection founded or that an arrestment is unduly harsh, he may restrict or recall the arrestment.

New provisions will also be implemented to oblige arrestees to disclose to creditors, within 3 weeks, the nature and value of the property arrested[10].

Inhibitions

New provisions will also be implemented in relation to inhibitions, which will abolish the bills and letters procedure and will include the authority to apply for an inhibition in extract decrees and documents of debt[11].

A Sheriff will also now be able to grant a warrant for diligence by inhibition, on the dependence of an action[12].

Inhibitions will also no longer confer preference in bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings[13] and will take effect from the date of recording[14].

Accountant in Bankruptcy Reviews

The awaited reviews of the Debt Arrangement Scheme and Low Income Low Asset Bankruptcies have now been published and are available from the AIB website[15].

Unfortunately, the AIB has used different geographic regions to show the number of applications being made with regards both Schemes, making any meaningful geographical comparison of use of the schemes, not possible. More importantly with regards the Debt Arrangement Scheme, it appears the AIB do not currently have figures showing the numbers of homeowners in Debt Payment Programmes. This is unfortunate, as it could reveal to what extent the DAS is being used as a remedy to protect homeowners from sequestration.

Where it would appear LILAs have been a huge success, with over 2,929 debtors applying for bankruptcy using the route between April and July 2008, the Debt Arrangement Scheme has not been as successful, although take up has significantly increased since June 2007 (a five fold increase on that of the previous year).

Significant emphasis continues to be placed by DAS Administrator on the problem of lengthy payment programmes (23% of the cases in the review period are expected to last more than 10 years), but this may only reflect the fact that for an increasing number of debtors, other than surrendering their homes and possibly making themselves and their family’s homeless, such programmes are the only option available.  Again the lack of figures regarding homeownership by debtors in DPPs appears to be a missed opportunity to understand use of the scheme.

The main concern with DAS remains its accessibility for debtors, with, in the review period, no DPPS being applied for or approved in 7 local authority regions.

The AIB has proposed a number of options for the DAS. The options outlined in the review are: do nothing and allow it to continue; abolish it; introduce composition (which could address the issue of DPPs which will last beyond 10 years); the AIB taking over the administration of cases and finally the AIB taking over the administration of cases and removing the need for debtors to apply through Approved Money Advisers.

With regards the last two options, the concept of debtors applying themselves seems unrealistic, when it is considered one of the issues most commonly raised by approved money advisers is that the application process is complex and time consuming.

With regards the DAS Administrator taking over the administration of cases, this may have merit if it was to reduce the workload on approved money advisers. The problems remains, however, the majority of work on cases is at the set-up stage and in carrying out variations. It is likely this work would still have to be carried out by money advisers and, therefore, the benefits of the work being taking in house seem negligible.

The reality is, the problem with DAS is not that it is an unattractive option to some debtors, although introducing composition could make it more so, but there is difficulty in accessing it. Considering the fifth option of removing approved money advisers as a gateway to the scheme is not realistic and in reality money advisers would still need to make most of the applications for debtors, as they currently do for LILA, the issue of increasing the number of approved money advisers remains the only plausible option.

Furthermore, as increasing measures are being taken by both the UK and Scottish Government to protect homeowners from repossession, DAS remains the only credible options open to those with multiple debts facing sequestration and protects them from losing their homes. Indeed, it would seem ridiculous to increase protection for debtors from secured lenders, only for them to lose their home through the actions of unsecured lenders.

Abolition of the Scheme, in these times, cannot, therefore, be a serious option..

In light of this, one suggestion is to leave the rules governing it intact and focusing on increasing access through increasing numbers of approved money advisers.

If any changes to the Scheme should be considered, possibly one is that the current procedure, which allows a debtor to intimate an intention to apply for a DPP and obtain six weeks protection from sequestration, should be increased to six months. This would allow those who can demonstrate a significant drop in income to safeguard their homes, for a period, whilst seeking new employment or methods to increase their income.

It is expected any changes that are introduced, however, will be introduced by June or July 2009 and left unchanged for 5 years to allow them to bed in.

Time to Pay Directions/Orders

Council Tax and Summary Warrants

There appears to be some confusion with regards time to pay measures under the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 and their use with regards Council Tax. Prior to April 2008, neither remedy was competent in relation to a debt constituted by Summary Warrant, but now is in relation to Council Tax.

Despite the legislation and explanatory notes to the 2007 Act, suggesting Time to Pay Directions are competent with regards council tax debt, the summary warrant procedure does not allow an application to be made.

Debtors have to wait until a Charge for Payment is served and then they are able to apply for a Time to Pay Order. The detriment to the debtor is this results in them incurring the cost of the charge being served, whereas if they were able to apply earlier, as intended, the further expense could be avoided.

Transferring Powers to Award Proposed

Indications are that the Accountant in Bankruptcy will now be proposing to the Scottish Government that she takes over the role of granting Time to Pay Directions/Orders under the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987.

It is probably to be welcomed the possibility of removing these remedies from the adversarial environment of the courts and it would make the process of applying, less stressful for debtors.

It raises the issue, however, whether the AIB are now taking on a judicial role.  They now award sequestration, when debtors’ apply, where previously this was the role of the courts. If they are to take over the role of awarding Time to Pays, will this also mean  decrees, which when currently granted by the courts results in an instalment decree. It also begs the question what will happen when debtors wish to dispute the level of their liability and apply for a Time to Pay. Will the AIB adjudicate on these issues or will the courts retain authority on these matters? A further issue is whether debtors or their representatives, will retain the right to make oral representations, as they can currently in front of a Sheriff, or whether that right will be lost? Importantly it will need to be clarified whether the process will remain free to debtors.

With the proposed changes to the DAS, this could see a huge increase in the role of the AIB.

There clearly needs to be proper discussions as to whether this possible increased role is in the wider pubic interest and whether it is appropriate that a government agency takes on such judicial functions. If they take over the role of deciding time to pays under the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987, why not Time Orders under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 or S2 orders under the Mortgage Rights (Scotland) Act 2001?

Historically, the AIB’s expertise has been in Insolvency and case administration, not in the provision of advice and performing what were previously, judicial functions. If the AIB is to take on wider roles, such as this, there must be more transparency in their decision making process: not just providing guidelines for advisers, but also publishing the detailed guidance they make available to their decision makers.