The Accountant in Bankruptcy have laid new Bankruptcy Fee Regulations.
The Regulations, which are subject to the Negative Procedure of the Scottish Parliament are due to come into force on the 1st of June 2018.
They follow a consultation that was carried out by the Accountant in Bankruptcy, and unlike earlier Regulations that were withdrawn in 2017 (see here), are not expected to have any negative effects on debtors.
The Regulations can be found here.
It is not unusual for clients in formal debt solutions to find they are still subject to debt recovery action by the Department of Works and Pensions (DWP) for benefit overpayments, when they believed such action should have stopped.
So can the DWP still recover overpaid benefits whilst a claimant is in a formal debt solution?
The answer depends on whether the debt owed is included in the solution or not.
How do you know?
In terms of personal insolvency in Scotland, there are two types of formal solutions: the first is a protected trust deed and the second is sequestration (which includes bankruptcies accessed through the Minimum Asset Procedure).
In terms of both these solutions all debts are included up to specific dates. For sequestration, that date is known as the “date of sequestration”. So any benefits overpaid up to that date are included.
In terms of Protected Trust Deeds, the relevant date is the date when the trust deed was granted.
What date constitutes the date of sequestration depends on the route that was taken to make the debtor bankrupt.
If a creditor makes the debtor bankrupt, then the date of sequestration is the date the petition to sequestrate the debtor was warranted by the court. This is also known as the first order date ; and is always before the date when the court awards the bankruptcy.
Where the debtor has applied for their own bankruptcy, the date of sequestration is the date the bankruptcy is awarded.
In essence, the DWP don’t, although arguably they could during the bankruptcy or protected trust deed if they were to use direct deductions from benefits or a Deduction from Earnings order.
The Department of Works and Pensions recover benefits according to guidance (see here).
This guidance states in relation to personal insolvency, at paragraph 6.3:
Once the insolvency period has commenced, any deductions from benefit
should cease, and any deductions made after the start date of the insolvency should
be refunded to the debtor. This includes any monies recovered for a fraud debt
And at paragraph 6.7 in relation to sequestration, it states:
Where the recoverable overpayment period is entirely before the start date of the bankruptcy order, or where the overpayment period spans the bankruptcy order, recovery should be suspended until after the end date of the order. This is regardless of when the overpayment decision is made, for example a decision could be made after the order date. On discharge the outstanding balance is written off unless it is a fraud overpayment, when normal recovery action should commence.
What, is important, therefore, is the date the overpayment occurred, not the date that it was decided there had been an overpayment.
In terms of Protected Trust Deeds, the law is similar, although the important date is not the date of sequestration, but the date the trust deed was granted.
It is also important to note the guidance only applies to trust deeds that are protected and not unprotected trust deeds. Recovery action, therefore, does not cease until the trust deed actually becomes protected.
It also important to note, that the overpayment is only written off when the debtor is discharged. If the debtor is refused a discharge by his Trustee, recovery action can be commenced again.
In terms of whether the debt is included or not, all debts are included providing they arose in a period prior to the trust deed being granted.
The relevant paragraph in the guidance is at 6.9, where it is stated:
The recoverable overpayment(s) must be included in the Protected Trust Deed and any debts not included will not be discharged at the end of the period. Recovery is suspended until discharge at which point any debt included in the Protected Trust Deed is written off unless it has been classed as fraud when normal recovery action can commence, or recommence. Unprotected Trust Deeds are not considered a form of insolvency and recovery will continue as normal.
The Debt Arrangement Scheme is different from protected trust deeds and sequestration, in that it is not a form of personal insolvency, albeit it is a formal debt solution.
Debts remain owed until they are paid off in full, although all interest, fees and charges are stopped from the date an application is made to the scheme, providing it is subsequently approved.
In terms of benefit overpayments, this is also covered by the DWP guidance at paragraph 6.15, where it states:
DAS is NOT insolvency, but is a government-run, voluntary debt solution administered by the AiB [Accountant in Bankruptcy], but not involving the courts. It allows the debtor to freeze any interest, fees and charges on their debts whilst repaying their debts in full over a longer period by way of a Debt Payment Programme. The debtor makes agreed regular payments to an approved payments distributor who then makes payment to DWP Debt Management if included in the DAS. If our debt is included in the DAS we would suspend recovery until the period ends, but where it is not included we would continue with deductions throughout the DAS period.
All debts are normally included in debt payment programmes, but unlike with trust deeds and sequestration, where they are included by operation of law, in the Debt Arrangement Scheme the claimant must notify their adviser they have the debt and the adviser must include it.
If the debt payment programme is subsequently revoked, the debt again becomes recoverable .
The UK Money Advice Service (MAS) has released a new report, Debt Solutions in the UK: Recommendations for Change.
Now as a Scot, I am instinctively suspicious of such reports. It is not the role of the Money Advice Service to make policy recommendations for formal debt solutions in Scotland.
These are devolved matters, exclusively for the Scottish Parliament to consider and are devolved under the Scotland Act 1998.
The question needs to be asked, is this policy over-reach by the Money Advice Service?
We arguably have seen this before, with the Standard Financial Statement and the efforts to get it adopted as a UK wide tool (Is it Time to Call in the Common Financial Tool).
If it is, we need to be cautious. It would be the ultimate irony if, at this point in Scottish legal history, the independence of our debt laws were now eroded.
Scotland’s debt law have always been distinct, they even pre-date the Union. The Diligence Act of 1469 remains on the statute books, as does the 1661 Act of the same name, alongside the Adjudication Act of 1672.
This is legislation that existed not just prior to the modern day Scottish Parliament, but before the Act of Union and was made by the Parliament that sat in the current home of Scotland’s Court of Session, half a mile down the road from its successor. These laws survived 300 years of being in the custody of Westminister.
Even prior to devolution and the Accountant in Bankruptcy taking over as the policy lead in this area, this area of law has always been developed in Scotland, even if it was not made here. There are no shortage of historic Scottish Law Commision reports, concerning all areas of law in Scotland, relating to debt.
You could say we are not lacking in expertise.
There is certainly, however, a risk of erosion as the information revolution continues apace, and banks retreat from the High Street. With money now flowing seamlessly across borders and lenders increasingly lending on a volume basis, using algorithms to decide who to lend to, Scotland’s unique debts laws will increasingly feel like an inconvenience to them.
However, a country’s debt laws are a personal statement: how a society treats it’s debtors says something about that society.
This is what devolution was all about surely? About making these decisions ourselves. About steering our own path as the different parts of the UK continue to diverge.
However, I don’t believe this means we cannot learn from each other and even co-ordinate our direction of travel.
We have seen this before when England and Wales got one year bankruptcies with the Enterprise Act in 2003; followed by Scotland in 2008. Or that England and Wales followed the Scottish example of Low Income, Low Asset Bankruptcies with the adoption of Debt Relief Orders in 2009.
This legal dialogue has not just been restricted to the legal borders of the UK, however, but extended to the Republic of Ireland in 2012 with their Personal Insolvency Act and the creation of Debt Relief Notices and Debt Settlement Arrangements.
Maybe their Personal Insolvency Arrangements, which are used for mortgage debts, will find their way to our shores one day.
Another example of this exchanging of ideas and lessons can also be found in the Money Advice Service’s new report, with proposals for the introduction into England, Wales and Northern Ireland, of a form of the Scottish Debt Arrangement Scheme.
The report also makes other recommendations, such as a review in England, Wales and Northern Ireland of debtor fees in Bankruptcy, including the reintroduction of fee remissions when people cannot afford them.
This echoes a call that was made by Govan Law Centre after the UK Supreme Court decision on Employment Tribunal Fees (see here), which I supported.
The Accountant in Bankruptcy is currently consulting on their fees and how they are funded, and I largely support their policy objectives, as outlined in their consultation document.
However, I would urge them to now extend their consultation to accept the MAS recommendation for a debtor application fee review.
The Scottish Government cannot come to Money Advisers and ask them to accept Money Advice Service initiatives, such as the Standard Financial Statement, when, as it stands, it is likely to make our clients situation worse, and then ignore other recommendations, which may benefit them.
Likewise, the Money Advice Service need to be aware of the risks of policy over reach. They cannot produce financial tools that are detrimental to consumers, and which contain financial trigger figures that have to be kept a secret from consumers and then expect them to be rubber stamped through the Scottish Parliament.
As has always been the case and is a major feature of the UK: for the Union to succeed, there must be mutual respect between the different legal systems and traditions.
It has been that respect that has ensured there are still laws that predate Mary Queen of Scots on the statute books (although we do want to get around to repealing them).
Harmonisation of debt laws across the UK may not be possible, but to borrow a phrase from Brexit, broad regulatory alignment probably is and may even be desirable.
The Money Advice Service Report, Debt Solutions in the UK, can be downloaded here.
In the last ten years, over 183,000 Scots have been subject to Scotland’s Personal Insolvency Laws. In this seminar, Protected Trust Deeds and Sequestrations will be examined from the perspective of a money adviser
Since 2007, there has been three primary pieces of legislation that have largely dealt with this area of law, not including the consolidation act, the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016.
In that time, the law and practice relating to sequestration and protected trust deeds has seen substantial change, with a greater emphasis on adminstrative procedure, rather than judicial processes.
However, the courts continue to play a significant role in this area of law.
This one day seminar, is aimed at money advisers and legal practitioners who advise consumers on personal insolvency, before they enter an insolvency process, during those processess and after they have received a discharge.
It focuses on when insolvency is appropriate and when it is not; what form proposals can take and what are the rights and obligations of debtors who have been sequestrated or are party to a protected trust deed.
This seminar will be invaluable for practitioners who wish to gain an insight into the issues that debtors can face and will look at the law and practice that can enable them to negotiate and represent their client’s interests more effectively.
For more information see here.
Despite the numerous reforms, casework has shown up many failings of the personal insolvency system in Scotland, and a structure based more on principles and less on regulation is needed. I considered this issue in the January 2017 edition of the Journal of the Law Society of Scotland.
Can a debtor bring a protected trust deed, granted after the 28th November 2013 to an early end, without making 48 monthly payments or paying the creditors all monies owed to them?
This is a question I have recently been asked as the assumption is that since the Protected Trust Deed (Scotland) Regulations 2013 commenced, this is not possible. I answer it below.
One of the most useful tools that the Personal Insolvency Law Unit have had at its disposal in assisting our clients has been discharges on composition. In many cases, it has allowed us to finalise a debtor’s Protected Trust Deed and release them from their obligations, whilst protecting their home, which they would have lost otherwise.
To understand what composition is, it’s worth re-reading the comments of Sheriff Reid in the case of Allison Donnelly v Royal Bank of Scotland at paragraph 58:
“….a discharge on composition is a procedure whereby the creditors agree to an absolute discharge of the debtor, usually in return for part-payment of their debts. Composition may be judicial or extra-judicial, and it may be general (i.e. it applies to all creditors) or partial (i.e. it applies to some creditors) (McBryde, Bankruptcy (2nd ed.), 18-62). There is only one form of judicial composition and it is general in nature (Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985, section 56 & schedule 4). In any event, the essence of a composition is that it operates as a complete discharge, freeing the debtor from all debts and obligations for which he was liable at the date of sequestration, terminating the trust or sequestration process, and reinvesting the debtor in his estate to the same extent as it had vested in the trustee (Goudy, supra, 408).
In 2013 the Protected Trust Deed (Scotland) Regulations, stated unless the conditions in regulation 4 to 10 were met a trust deed could not gain Protected status (regulation 3(1)).
The conditions required to be met under regulation 8 were:
However, this doesn’t mean a debtor has to pay all 48 monthly contributions or all the debts in full to obtain a discharge and bring the Protected Trust Deed to an end.
Regulation 24 (2) (Discharge of Debtor) states to obtain a discharge a debtor must be considered to have co-operated with his trustee and met all his obligations under the trust deed.
To meet his obligations a debtor may have to make all 48 contributions (although arguably if he can show his circumstances didn’t allow him to, there is still an argument he didn’t refuse to co-operate or that he failed to meet his obligations under the Protected Trust Deed).
We need to look at the Trust Deed document itself, which will vary. Most Trust Deed documents will, however, lay out the basis in which trust deeds can be terminated. This may be because the debtor has refused to co-operate (and, therefore will be terminated by the Trustee – grounds to refuse a discharge), but equally usually includes a clause that allows a discharge on composition.
So in short, Trust Deeds, even those granted after the 28th November 2013 can be brought to an early close. It is the Trust Deed document itself which outlines how Trust Deeds can be terminated.
A debtor who seeks a discharge on composition is not failing to co-operate or failing in his obligations, but merely bringing the arrangement to an end in line with the provisions included in the deed, if it allows composition.
The conditions outlined in Regulation 8, only need to be satisfied for the Deed to become Protected.
Discharge on composition is an inherently sensible and equitable remedy that debtors can use, with the agreement of their creditors, when the circumstances of a case make it advisable.
As the Scottish Government host on Monday, the 24th Annual General Meeting of the International Association of Insolvency Regulators, their surroundings will be far from those where most bankrupts spend their time.
The conference itself will be hosted in the Edinburgh’s plush George Hotel and be opened by Scottish Government Minister, Fergus Ewing.
Later there will be a drink’s reception in the Great Hall of Edinburgh Castle and a formal conference dinner on the Royal Yacht Britannia.
The event is expected to be attended by insolvency regulators from 24 countries, including the Republic of Ireland which, like Scotland, is currently modernising its own bankruptcy laws.
Unlike Scotland, however, whereas the Irish are liberalising their laws to reduce the time someone will be bankrupt from 12 years to 3 years, Scotland, under Minister Fergus Ewing is introducing new legislation, which will may see Scots remaining bankrupt for longer than anyone else in UK.
Currently under existing legislation, bankrupts throughout the UK are only bankrupt for 1 year, then they receive a discharge from their bankruptcy.
Where debtors can afford to pay something towards their bankruptcy, however, they have to pay for three years.
New proposals being made by the Scottish Government, however, will see this change.
First, they are proposing removing the automatic discharge of debtors from their bankruptcy after one year and leaving it to the discretion of their trustees to decide when they should be discharged.
Second, they are changing the law so bankrupts don’t just pay for three years, but for four years, one year longer than anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
Many insolvency practitioners have already indicated that if it is left to their discretion when a debtor is discharged, then they will likely only discharge debtors when all payments to the bankruptcy have been paid, meaning for most Scots, bankruptcy will last four years.
Last year over 40% of all Scottish bankrupts were low income, low asset bankrupts (LILA), which mean they were either entirely dependent on means tested benefits or living on less than the 40 times the national minimum wage and didn't own their own home.
Previously these types of bankrupts in Scotland composed a larger number of those who went bankrupt, but applications by LILA debtors dropped by 60% last year after Fergus Ewing increased the cost of applying for bankruptcy from £100 to £200.
Since then many Citizen Advice Bureau and local authority money advisers have reported a sharp increase in the number of poor debtors unable to find solutions to their debts and who are now trapped in a cycle of debt.
The Scottish Government are now proposing a new procedure for Low Income, Low Asset debtors, but the procedure will be more restrictive than the current procedure and it is not expected as many debtors will be able to apply.
It will, however, allow those do meet the criteria to be discharged automatically after 6 months, but with the maximum amount of debt in such bankruptcy’s being restricted to £10,000 (average level of debt in LILA’s is £17,000), many low income debtors will be forced into the more formal, longer bankruptcy procedure.
The problem is the Scottish Government has not produced any evidence to suggest debtors in Scotland are able to pay for longer than anywhere else in the United Kingdom and no research has been undertaken to discover if this will increase hardship for bankrupt debtors and their families, although most money advice agencies are expecting it will.
Even if the motivation is to raise more money for creditors, it is expected four year bankruptcies will also increase the costs of administering bankrupties and any increased returns will be minimal.
Glasgow MSP Bob Doris has urged the Scottish Parliament to consider taking more action to clamp down on rogue marketing companies who are mis-selling personal debt solutions to vulnerable Scots.
Echoing concerns I raised in an earlier article for the FIRM (Trust Deed Bubble to Burst), the MSP made the calls whilst speaking in the Scottish Parliament.
Discussing the Scottish Government’s new legislative programme, Bob Doris urged MSPs to look closely at the new Bankruptcy and Debt Advice (Scotland) Bill and emphasised the bill could be vital in improving debt solutions for the most vulnerable people.
The Glasgow MSP raised concerns, however, that some lead generation firms were offering Protected Trust Deeds irresponsibly, incentivised by lucrative fees and called for the Scottish Parliament to take further action to regulate them.
At present any firm involved in providing debt advice must have a category E and D Consumer Credit Licence, issued by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT); but there are concerns by many in the debt advice industry that the OFT is an ineffective regulator and many of those involved in providing advice are unqualified or unsuitable to do so.
The Glasgow MSP, therefore, called for the Scottish Government to consider creating an Approved Intermediary Scheme that would require anyone involved in advising on Scottish statutory debt remedies for financial gain to be approved by the Scottish Government.
This Scheme could be deliberately targeted at lead generation firms and would not authorise them in itself to provide access to those remedies, but would allow the Scottish Government to issue guidance to them, or sanction them where they believed it necessary.
By requiring only those who provide leads for financial gain to be registered, this would ensure those that provide advice as part of their profession would not be prevented from doing so, such as elected representatives, solicitors or other professionals.
There is a powerful case for requiring further regulation where firms provide leads for financial gain. The debt advice industry is already recognised as a high risk industry due to the vulnerability of the people involved and the fact debtors have a tendency to panic buy and be distressed sold solutions. If you incentivise those generating leads with lucrative fees, it’s not hard to understand why then the risk of mis-selling or bad advice increases immeasurably.
The Scottish Government do currently operate a similar scheme in that to actually provide access to the Debt Arrangement Scheme, it is necessary to be approved as a money adviser and hold a Consumer Credit Licence, or alternatively be a licenced insolvency practitioner.
The argument, therefore, is to extend this approval scheme to not only those providing access to formal remedies, but also to those providing advice on statutory remedies for financial gain.
The fact such a scheme already exists, however, could also be an argument against any additional regulation. Lead generators acting as intermediaries cannot themselves provide access to remedies, so arguably debtors are already protected in that regardless of who gives them initial advice they must go through an approved money adviser or licenced insolvency practitioner.
However, this ignores the fact the current system is failing. There is fierce competition for referrals and some firms are prepared to pay in excess of £2,000. Also as most advisers and MSPs can testify, too many debtors are ending up in inappropriate solutions.
The simple and brutal fact is lead generators have become too powerful within the Scottish formal debt remedy industry.
They are not as well regulated as those who provide access to debt solutions, they do not have the same administrative and regulatory costs and, therefore, can channel their funds into dominating the internet, TV and radio waves and dominate the flow of clients seeking debt relief and debt management remedies. This is forcing firms to pay more for referrals and in some cases as a result they can exert too much influence over what cases are signed.
Additional regulation would not destroy the market, nor would it prevent legitimate and responsible lead generators from continuing to operate.
However, it would increase the quality of advice and allow the Scottish Government to exercise more control over how their formal remedies are marketed.
More importantly it would ensure vulnerable debtors are protected.
I believe this is what Bob Doris wants and I totally support him in that aim.
I recently explained in a blog how the Scottish Government were taking action to stop the human trade of debtors in the Scottish Protected Trust Deed market.
They have now released regulations that will take effect from the 28th of November.
It’s hoped these regulations will prevent such lead generation firms targeting financially vulnerable debtors and selling on their details to other firms, sometimes for as much as £2,000.
The problem is so bad, Glasgow MSP, Bob Doris, recently highlighted the issue in a speech in the Scottish Parliament and called on the Scottish Government to go further and create an approved scheme for such firms, so they are better regulated.
The problem is when such middle men are receiving such lucrative fees, how can anyone be certain they are receiving “best advice”.
Other possible debt remedies don’t earn them the same kind of money, so there is an incentive for the less scrupulous to wrongly advise.
So if you are thinking of signing a Protected Trust Deed, ask yourself some questions first.
If you have not yet had advice from a money adviser, how do you know a Protected Trust Deed is right for you?
Keep an open mind.
Protected Trust Deeds are only one option. There are others and some less severe.
If you have not spoken to someone, make sure you do speak to someone who is reputable. If they are not a licenced insolvency practitioners, a Citizen Advice Bureau or your local authority, ask them for their consumer credit licence number.
Only licenced insolvency practitioners can actually sign you up for a protected trust deed, so deal with one directly – miss out the middle man.
Alternatively, contact your local free advice agency.
If you have been contacted by someone offering you a Protected Trust Deed, ask if they are actually insolvency practitioners. If not, say no thanks.
If you have been advised to sign a Protected Trust Deed and you are a home owner, ask what will happen to it.
Trust Deeds are a form of insolvency, so your Trustee acquires a right in your home when you sign. This does not necessarily mean your home will be sold or that you will have to leave it, but you have to be sure before your sign. A reputable Trustee will tell you before you sign how your home will be dealt with.
They will also tell you what is expected of you.
If you cannot afford for the next three or four years to pay what is being asked of you, you may be making your situation worse.
If you sign a Protected Trust Deed and then stop paying, the Trustee can hand you back all your debts, plus interest . You could end up owing more than you started with and lose the money you have paid in.
If it is not affordable there may be other solutions.
Ask about Bankruptcy and the Debt Arrangement Scheme. These may be viable alternatives.
If you are being asked to pay a set up fee, refuse.
Never agree to pay money to setup a Protected Trust Deed, they can be set up quickly and you should not have to pay anything until it is protected.
No one should be in any doubt, the Scottish Government’s new proposals for Protected Trust Deed reform is about taking the heat out of the Protected Trust Deed market and ending the trafficking of debtors between lead generation and personal insolvency firms.
It’s no secret that with some firms now reportedly paying in excess of £2,000 for referrals, Scotland’s Trust Deed market has become an overinflated bubble with debtors being “mis-sold” products as new lead generation firms sprout up daily and chase down every possible lead for the lucrative fees that some firms are now dangerously paying.
The exorbitant fees have resulted in saturation level TV and radio campaigns that push and sell statutory remedies as products and don’t promote best advice. For some firms, the use of the products themselves in their company names, like Trust Deed, give away the game.
However, what many debtors are unaware of is in actual fact many of these firms are just lead generators whose entire business model is about trafficking debtors to insolvency firms for ridiculous referral fees. In addition to this, many debtors don’t realise that such levels of fees have created a high risk culture of mis-selling, with many being pushed into solutions that are not appropriate and are destined to fail when payments are not maintained and debts are handed back; but only after the lead generator has been paid and the debtor has made months of contributions towards a remedy that was never going to work.
The practice of paying fees has been allowed in Scotland since 2008, but only for work done. The logic being where someone else has gathered information about a debtor and passed it to an Insolvency Practitioner, then it is acceptable for that practitioner to pay that intermediary for the work they have done. This removes the need for the practitioner to do the work and prevents duplication, although they are still obliged to validate the information provided.
However, whereas such fees began at £2-300, they have exploded in recent years with some English firms now paying in excess of £2,000 per referral, allowing them to buy up significant portions of the Scottish Market.
However, the new Protected Trust Deed regulations which will be laid before the Scottish Parliament in early September and are expected to come into force by November are the clearest sign yet that the Scottish Government intends to curb the practice and clamp down on the mis-selling culture.
The new provisions that will be introduced will no longer allow trustees to recover referral fees as part of their outlays for a case and instead will require them to include them as debts into the case, where they will only receive a dividend on the fees and be treated like other creditors.
The way trustees charge their fees against cases will also change, meaning they will no longer be able to charge on a time and line basis and will have to propose a setup fee at the outset to creditors, with proposals thereafter only to take a percentage of the ingathered funds from the case. Effectively this will mean trustees will have to share the risk of the case failing with the creditors throughout the lifetime of the case and, logically ensure only those cases likely to succeed are taken on at the outset.
In addition to this new provisions will be brought forward extending the minimum time a trust deed lasts from 3 to 4 years, whereas the duration a debtor pays into a bankruptcy will, for the time being anyway, remain at 3 years. This means many debtors faced with the prospect of having to pay a trust deed for 4 years are more likely to opt for a bankruptcy where they will only pay for 3 years; or alternatively where they want to avoid that remedy and can repay their debts within a reasonable timeframe, a debt payment programme under the Debt Arrangement Scheme.
The only obvious conclusion that can be drawn from a consideration of these proposals, is that the Scottish Government are determined to take the air out the over inflated bubble that is the Scottish Trust Deed market.
And who can blame them?
The current state of the market is now at a dangerous level. The risks of mis-selling are high and many vulnerable debtors are now being targeted by firms, who to put it simply should not be advising anyone on anything and it would not be unfair to call them rogues.
The end result will probably be more sequestrations and a greater uptake of the Debt Arrangement Scheme by debtors. It will also probably mean that the high profile TV and radio campaigns will also come to an end as the commercials behind such campaigns will no longer be sustainable. We are also likely to see more insolvency firms, who are far better regulated by regulatory professional bodies, having to market themselves directly to consumers.
If this leads to better advice and less mis-selling, then that’s no bad thing.
I am looking forward to it and being able to breathe again.
