January 2014

Bankruptcy Policies Unravelling

Bankruptcy Policies Unravelling

Fergus Ewing has acknowledged that he got his decision to increase the application fee for bankruptcy wrong. Speaking in response to the third quarter insolvency statistics for 2013-14, he has said “Scotland’s bankruptcy legislation has to do more to provide a safety net for vulnerable, low-income debtors and their families.”

However, despite this, with the new Bankruptcy and Debt Advice (Scotland) Bill 2013, lessons are still not being learned

For the fourth quarter in a row, Low Income, Low Asset bankruptcies (LILA) in Scotland have increased as an overall percentage of all bankruptcies, now representing 39.6% of all bankruptcy awards in Scotland.

The increase, reported in the Accountant in Bankruptcy’s (AIB) third quarter insolvency statistics for 2013-14, show that LILA bankruptcies as a total percentage of all sequestrations are now returning to their pre-first quarter levels for 2012-13, when the application fee was increased by 100% from £100 to £200, which reduced LILA awards by 60%.

However, although as a proportion of all bankruptcies the numbers of LILA awards continue to increase, LILA numbers themselves remain significantly reduced from their pre-fee increase levels, with many organisations such as Citizen Advice Scotland and Money Advice Scotland, claiming many debtors are still being priced out of any formal remedy for dealing with their debts.

In acknowledgement that they got it wrong, the Scottish Government in the Bankruptcy and Debt Advice (Scotland) Bill 2013 are now proposing a new Minimum Asset Procedure (MAP) to replace the LILA route into bankruptcy.

This new type of bankruptcy it is anticipated will reduce fees to £100 or less, but it is anticipated will only be available to 75% of all current LILA applicants with debtors only being able to apply if they have debts of less than £17,000, whereas under the current LILA route, there is no debt level cap.

For those debtors unable to apply using the new route, they will have to apply for normal bankruptcy and pay the full application fee, which is likely to be significantly more.

Although it is to be welcomed that the Scottish Government are now beginning to accept that for most bankrupts the purpose of bankruptcy legislation is to provide a social safety net, with more than eighty percent of all applications being debtor applications, and more than three quarters being unable to make a contribution from their income to their bankruptcy, more needs to be done.

This includes looking again at their decision in the new bill to increase contribution periods from 36 to 48 months against overwhelming evidence from debt charity NGOs, regulatory professional bodies and even creditor organisations that such a policy is wrong. They also need to reconsider their decision to replace the Low Income, Low Asset route into bankruptcy with a more restrictive type of bankruptcy which will exclude rather than include more debtors.

They also need to ask themselves, although it is commendable that they have accepted in sequestration and protected trust deeds it is wrong (and illegal) for debtors to make contributions from social security benefits, why is it correct for those debtors to have to use those same social security benefits to apply for bankruptcy, when prior to 2008 (and the SNP minority Government) they would have been covered by a fee waiver.

Debt Arrangement Scheme

The other revealing figures from the third quarter statistics relate to the Scottish Debt Arrangement Scheme.

Although still very much the little brother of all Scotland’s formal statutory debt remedies (representing 26.1% of all remedies used), the Scottish Government have wrongly reported in their press statements that applications have increase by 20.9% on the same period last year.

The actual increase is only 10.7% (applications 3rd quarter 2012-13: 1,067; applications 3rdquarter 2013-14: 1,181).

On the last quarter, the increase is less than 1%, confirming the view of many that, allowing for occasional seasonal variations, take up of the Scheme has now plateaued.

What is increasingly of concern, however, is the number of Schemes being revoked. Although the Minister has claimed only 3% of Debt Payment Programmes under administration are being revoked quarterly, some research by others in the insolvency industry suggests this amounts to 13.9% per annum and the cumulative effect of which will mean over 50% of all average length programmes (6.8 years) will fail.

Evidence of this can be seen in the figures for 2013-14, which show although 3,551 programmes were approved by the end of the third quarter, 1,064 have been revoked.

There are clearly a significant number of debtors entering the Debt Arrangement Scheme for whom the Scheme is not suitable and for whom it is failing to provide a sustainable, lasting solution.

There was always a danger with the Debt Arrangement Scheme that it would be seen, for political reasons, as a panacea for all debtor’s debt problems, but it has never been more than just another tool in the toolbox: suitable for some, but not others.

As the fee increase for bankruptcy has shown, policy decisions in this area without supporting evidence from those at the coal face or other empirical evidence risks unintended consequences. The danger now is we will see more of those unintended consequences if the Scottish Government continues with its policy of trying to make bankrupts pay more in sequestration, whilst hailing the Debt Arrangement Scheme as a one size fits all solution for all debtors, whilst failing to research why, for so many debtors, it continues to fail to provide solutions for their problems.

Opinion column: Alan McIntosh

Opinion column: Alan McIntosh

First pubished in The Journal of the Law Society of Scotland.

The proposal to extend the contribution period in bankruptcy from 36 to 48 months is unsupported, and arguments contradict ministerial statements relating to protected trust deeds

In money advice and personal insolvency, it is accepted as a truism that the longer people pay into any debt repayment plan, the likelihood of them defaulting increases. However, this is not universally accepted. The Minister for Energy, Enterprise & Tourism, Fergus Ewing, believes debtors can pay for longer and have not been paying long enough for the last 28 years, since the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 was introduced.

In support of this belief, he has cited evidence from the Scottish Debt Arrangement Scheme, where the average payment period is six and a half years: if these debtors can pay that long, he believes others can too. He has also made the point that only 3% of all DAS cases are revoked each quarter. Obviously a success, until you realise that some in the insolvency industry who have researched this are equating it to 13.4% per annum and, with the average lifetime of a debt payment programme being six and a half years, are suggesting the attrition rates for DAS could eventually be more than 50% for average length programmes. Not so successful, and not so supportive of the argument that paying for longer is suitable for all debtors.

The minister also believes that bankrupts can pay for longer, despite evidence heard by the Energy, Enterprise & Tourism (EET) Committee during stage 1 of the Bankruptcy and Debt Advice (Scotland) Bill. Organisations such as Money Advice Scotland, Citizens Advice Scotland, the Law Society of Scotland, Stepchange, Lloyds Banking Group and the Consumer Finance Association all opposed the change, fearing it could result in increased defaults, hardship and disputes between debtors and trustees.

Part of the problem with the Government’s proposal is that many feel it is completely left field and was never consulted on. The minister has said it was consulted on, and supported by respondents. He cites question 10:41A, where respondents were asked whether they would support an extension of the payment period in one particular type of bankruptcy product. Only 27 supported retaining the three-year period, while 32 supported a rise to five years.

This ignores, however, that the original consultation had proposals for five different bankruptcy products, and, in relation to another product, question 10:47A, in identical terms to question 10:41A, produced 33 responses for keeping the three-year period and only 28 wanting it extended.

What has been overlooked, however, in relation to both questions is that more than half of the 129 respondents ignored both questions, and many indicated they did not feel any additional products were required. Eventually, the proposal to have five different products was shelved.

The minister has argued that the extension is necessary as payment periods must be harmonised with those for protected trust deeds which, since 27 November 2013, now last a minimum of four years. Without harmonisation, it is said, debtors may opt to use bankruptcy as an easier option for dealing with their debts.

However, on 11 October 2013, while giving evidence to the EET Committee on the Protected Trust Deed (Scotland) Regulations 2013, which extended the minimum payment period to four years, the minister dismissed concerns that introducing such changes ahead of the bill being commenced would result in debtors using bankruptcy as an easier way to deal with debts.

He pointed to the rest of the UK, where individual voluntary arrangements, which normally last five years, remain popular despite bankruptcy only having a three-year payment period. Debtors, he argued, did not take the easiest remedy for dealing with their debts and wanted to pay back what they could.

In my view, the real problem here is that the Scottish Government’s proposals to extend bankruptcy payment periods have not been thought through, and are not supported by research. They are not supported by the vast majority of civic Scotland, who make up the key stakeholders and, bizarrely, for once the debt charities and the trade body of payday lenders are all singing from the same hymn sheet.

The four-year period appears to be completely arbitrary, and the arguments in favour of it are weak. They have also been inconsistent, with the minister arguing one minute that harmonisation is not necessary and the next that it is vital.

The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland has called for more research before stage 2 of the bill to explore what, if any, net benefits there would be for creditors. I would support that, but suggest such research should also extend to consider how debtors will be affected.

The Scottish Government may be launching a new Financial Health Service, but it is no National Health Service, and it is not even clear whether it has a Hippocratic Oath of doing no harm.