Summary Warrants

Prescription (Scotland) Bill

Prescription (Scotland) Bill

0 comments

The Prescription (Scotland) Bill 2018 should be welcomed, but the Scottish Parliament needs to ensure all obligations to pay debts arising from personal contracts and statute should be covered by short term negative prescription, with few exceptions.

Scotland’s law of prescription governs when an obligation to pay a debt is extinguished and no longer owed. This includes debts owed for credit cards and personal loans, but also debts such as council tax arrears, benefit overpayments and outstanding tax debts owed to the crown.

At present the framework for this area of law is provided for by the Prescription and Limitations (Scotland) Act 1973 (1973 Act), which the Scottish government aims to amend and clarify with the Prescription (Scotland) Bill 2018 (2018 Bill), currently at stage one in the Scottish parliamentary process.

Prescription Framework

The current framework under the 1973 Act provides that if a debt is specified in paragraph one of Schedule One of the Act, it is covered by short term negative prescription, which means the obligation to pay the debt expires after five years, unless the person owed the debt takes certain steps to protect their claim (or the debtor makes a relevant acknowledgement of it). Paragraph Two of the Schedule, then specifies which obligations are not covered by the five-year rule, whilst Schedule Three lists obligations which are never extinguished.

Where an obligation is neither covered by short-term negative prescription, or exempt from being extinguished, it is covered by long-term prescription, which means the obligation can be recovered for up to 20 years, with, as the law currently stands, that period being restarted if a creditors makes a relevant claim for the debt within that twenty year period or the debtor makes a relevant acknowledgement of it.

It was the operation of this long-term prescription rule that meant that even in 2014 some Scots still owed poll tax debts, which dated back as far as 1989, and led to the passing of the Community Charge Debt (Scotland) Act 2015 to write off the remaining debts owed.

However, as was entirely predictable, attempts by the 2018 Bill to simplify the law in this area have already been derailed, with certain statutory creditors arguing their debts are different and in need of special treatment. So, in section three of the 2018 Act, a new provision that aims to include all statutory obligations to pay a debt into the five-year rules, unless provided for elsewhere, has now led to several provisions which provide otherwise elsewhere.

This includes debts owed for council tax, non-domestic rates, benefit overpayments (under UK legislation) and tax debts owed to the crown.

Few Exceptions

The Scottish Parliament should resist these attempts to protect the “special interests” of certain statutory creditors, with a view to preserving the overall principle that all debts, with few exceptions, that arise from personal contracts or statute should be covered by the five year rule and creditors, who wish to protect their claim, should be required to take certain steps to do so.

This could easily be achieved in relation to debts for council tax, non-domestic rates, and crown tax debts by extending sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph two of Schedule One of the 1973 Act to include debts legally constituted by decrees or documents of debt. This provision currently states the five-year rule does not cover obligations if they relate to an obligation to comply with a decree of court, an arbitration award or an order of a tribunal or authority exercising jurisdiction under any enactment. By extending it to include decrees and documents of debts, this would mean debts that are constituted by summary warrants, which all local authorities and HMRC have the power to issue for the above debts, and regularly do so, would be covered by long-term negative prescription. It would also mean in future, where new statutory obligations are created, and there is a wish to allow the statutory creditors to protect their claim easily, it would not be necessary to further amend the 1973 Act, but instead to allow for a means of recovery that allows the summary warrant procedure to be utilised.

In relation to benefit overpayments, however, that are owed to HMRC and the Department of Works and Pensions, the Scottish government should bring forward rules to provide that UK benefit overpayments, owed under the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and the Tax Credits Act 2002, are expressly included into the five-year rule. This would ensure all UK benefit debts are treated the same as Scottish benefit overpayments, which because of section 38 of the Social Security (Scotland) Bill 2017, will be covered by short-term negative prescription. It makes no sense that debts which are essentially the same in nature, should be covered by different prescription rules, simply because the source of the debt is UK legislation, rather than Scottish legislation.

Equally, however, if the purpose of section 38 the Social Security (Scotland) Bill 2017 is to provide a short recovery period for benefit overpayments, it may be necessary to further restrict sub-paragraph (a), of paragraph two of Schedule one of the 1973 Act. The reason being is that it makes clear that debts that are constituted by a tribunal or authority exercising jurisdiction under any enactment are not covered by the five-year rule: this could include both benefit UK and Scottish benefit overpayments. Also, it may wish to consider whether the running of short-term negative prescription for these types of debt can be interrupted by claimants making relevant acknowledgements of the debt, such as in making payments towards them. The reason being most benefit overpayments are recovered by direct deductions from existing awards of benefits, meaning every payment constitutes a relevant acknowledgement of the debt and the five-year prescription period begins running again. Most people will, therefore, clearly still be paying back benefit overpayments, long after the expiry of five years.

Bill to be Welcomed

However, the new Prescription (Scotland) Billis to be welcomed. For many years, because of the omissions in the 1973 Act, it was not even clear if HMRC tax debts could be extinguished.

Also, section 6 in the 2018 Bill makes it clear it will no longer be possible for long-term prescription to be interrupted by a creditor making a relevant claim or the debtor making a relevant acknowledgment, meaning a repeat of the problems that arose with poll tax should no longer arise, with debts still be being owed long after the expiry of twenty years.

Also, section 14 of the 2018 Bill also introduces into the 1973 Act a new burden of proof on creditors who are pursuing a debt through the courts, to show, where a question arises, whether that debt is prescribed or not. With the increasing use of litigation by debt purchasers to protect claims for distressed debts, this will hopefully help stamp out the practice of them obtaining decrees for extinguished obligations.

Long term Prescription – Is it too Long?

However, the question does need to be asked, with the similar law in other parts of the UK being governed by the Limitations Act 1980and the prescriptive periods being six and 12 years, is the long-term negative prescription period in Scotland too long? There appears little reason it should be possible for debtors in Scotland to be pursued for the same types of debts, owed to the same organisations, for almost double the duration of debtors elsewhere in the UK. Arguably, a shorter period of long-term negative prescription of 10 or 15 years should now be adopted.

Beware the Danger of the Return of Warrant Sales

Beware the Danger of the Return of Warrant Sales

0 comments

THERE have been calls of late for the Scottish Government to reintroduce warrant sale-style procedures; these seem now to have found a sympathetic ear.

The Accountant in Bankruptcy (AIB), a Scottish Government agency that advises ministers on matters relating to debt law, has said it is prepared to consider how the replacement procedure that was introduced, known as Exceptional Attachment Orders, can be simplified and streamlined to allow more easy use.

The process of poindings and warrant sales, which allowed sheriff officers to enter people’s homes and remove their household possessions for sale, was abolished by the Scottish Parliament in 2002, after becoming synonymous with the poll tax campaign. Tommy Sheridan, who would later be elected to the Scottish Parliament and introduced a private member’s bill which led to the abolition of the procedure, famously went to prison after disrupting the first attempt to hold one for the poll tax.

The AIB has also said it will consider whether the current procedure that was introduced, and requires a judge to authorise an order, could be removed. Sheriff officers could then threaten use of the procedure more easily against those who cannot pay their debts.

However, if the AIB position is adopted, this could well herald the return in Scotland to a Dickensian-style system of debt recovery laws which allows people to be threatened with humiliation and home intrusion, unless they can find the money to repay their debts, even if that means driving them into the hands of illegal and predatory money lenders. It was this legal abuse that led to poindings and warrant sales being abolished in the first place. In 1999, for example, the year Mr Sheridan’s bill was introduced, there were 16,585 poindings (although thousands more were threatened), but only 110 warrant sales executed. The reason being, warrant sales themselves were never an effective method of debt recovery, whereas the threat of humiliation and home intrusion was. Even people who genuinely couldn’t afford to repay their debts would be panicked into a response where they would do anything to raise the money.

Sheriff officers know this and it is why some are now claiming the new procedure is no longer effective and needs to be made easier for them to use as a threat (there has been no exceptional attachment orders executed in Scotland since 2012).

Responding to a consultation carried out by the AIB, sheriff officers Scott & Co stated, that in their experience the

“proceeds of auction in most cases are very low due to the poor value of second-hand goods and tendency towards hi-spec electrical items being subject to finance agreements.”

The question then needs to be asked, why does the AIB believe it would now be appropriate to increase the use of such procedures, even when sheriff officers acknowledge they are likely to fail? The only logical reason is the hope that by issuing such threats to the poorest in society, more people will then seek advice for their debt problems.

However, although some may well do so, many will struggle to find services or solutions that can assist them, with funding to local authority money advices services having been cut by 44 per cent in the last three years. More likely is many will become prisoners in their own home, fearful of every knock at the door, whilst suffering the stress and anxiety of believing their home will be invaded and their possessions seized with those of their family.

First published in The Herald on the 16th April 2018.

Council Tax Freeze Failing the Poor

Council Tax Freeze Failing the Poor

If further evidence of the Scottish Government’s non-commitment to social justice is necessary, then one only need look today at the Annual Budget meeting of Glasgow City Council.

For the seventh consecutive year it will go through the formality of setting council tax rates. I say formality, as like many Glaswegians I have already received my bill for 2014-15 which sets the Council Tax rates at the same level they were at in 2006-07.

The Council Tax freeze is represented by the Scottish Government as a socially progressive policy which protects hard up families. However, there is now a growing body of evidence to show that’s what the Council Tax freeze is not doing.

Citizen Advice Scotland is reporting that although overall levels of personal debt are now falling, Council Tax arrears along with payday loans are increasing.

The Scottish Diligence Statistics for 2012-13 also show that over quarter of a million Charge for Payments were served on non-payers; whilst almost 203,000 bank accounts were arrested and 134,000 earning arrestments were executed.

When that level of formal debt enforcement is required in a country Scotland’s size, questions must be asked: are levels too high; or is the tax broken altogether?

I would say the latter.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has also warned that the true beneficiaries of the policy have been better off, middle class families and not the poor; whilst Local Government trade union, Unison, has called for Local Governments to be allowed to set the rates again, pointing to the fact the brunt of the freeze is being felt by cuts to vital services, which the poor depend on.

Others, such as Professor David Bell from the University of Stirling have delivered reports showing the most effective way for the Scottish Government to reduce inequality now, is not to freeze Council Tax rates, but to use existing powers to increase the gaps between Council Tax bands.

If the Scottish Government is committed to increasing social equality and avoiding the poorest facing rising personal debt levels, the evidence is clear: they would be better reforming local taxation law and using the powers they currently have, than sticking a plaster over a broken system; whilst wasting parliamentary time introducing punitive measures such as they are doing with Clause Four of the Bankruptcy and Debt Advice (Scotland) Bill 2013.

What we are seeing is the same lack of commitment or understanding that led to the unnecessary delays in neutralising the effects of the bedroom tax and the increase in application fees for Low Income, Low Asset Bankrupts (which it was argued at the time was necessary to generate an additional £460,000 of income, but then led to a 60% drop in the numbers able to apply in a year in which the Accountant in Bankruptcy then went on to report a £1.3 million underspend).

Two thirds of Scots have even said in a recent Mori Poll, presumably those that can afford the current rates that they would be prepared to pay more in local taxation if they were assured it was to be spent on local services.

The reality is the only other beneficiaries of the continued Council Tax freeze, other than better off, middle class families, are the Sheriff Officers who are now being paid millions by local tax payers to collect debts that simply many cannot afford.

The Iron Fist of Debt Recovery

The Iron Fist of Debt Recovery

It has been a decade since statistics were available into the use of diligence in Scotland. New figures show a country ridden with increased aggression in debt recovery, and a Sheriff Officer profession largely sustained by the enforcement actions of local authorities.

New Scottish Government figures have provided the first real look at how the use of diligence in Scotland has evolved over the last ten years with the abolition of poinding and warrant sales and the implementation of the Bankruptcy and Diligence Etc (Scotland) Act 2007.

What is revealed is that the use of diligence has increased by 134% in the last ten years and that local authorities are now responsible for 84% of all the 387,945 diligences executed in 2011/12. It is also clear Councils are now spending millions more in debt recovery than previously, with 76% of the total 338,701 charge for payments being served being done so for local authority summary warrants (prior to 2008 there was no requirement to serve a charge to execute diligence using a summary warrant.)

Non earnings arrestments have also increased with local authorities now executing more than three times the number they executed in 2002, which indicates increased aggressiveness by councils, but also possibly that more arrestments are failing and being repeated because of changes introduced by the 2007 Act, which introduced protection for minimum amounts in bank accounts.

Earning arrestment figures have also doubled, indicating changes in recovery strategy for councils and other non summary warrant lenders, but also possibly the success of the new s70A of the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987, which introduced a new requirement on employers to inform creditors of employee’s new employment details when employment with them has ceased.

Not all diligences have, however, proved popular. The replacement to poinding and warrants sales only saw 2,758 attachments and 51 exceptional attachments being executed. Contrast that with the number of poindings in 1997 (18,980) and its clear to see the corporeal property of debtors is now safer than ever.

Money attachments have also not proved a hit with only 502 being executed nationally.

Some diligences are more common amongst certain creditors than others. HMRC, for example, most commonly use non earnings arrestments (6,437) rather than earning arrestments (467). They also are more likely to use money attachments than local authorities and other non summary warrant lenders.

Local authorities most commonly use non earnings arrestments (219,905) than earning arrestments (116,703) and rarely appear to use any other type of diligence.

Non summary warrant creditors in contrast are more likely to use earning arrestments (17,127) than non earnings arrestments (7,643) and are also the highest user of attachments (1,755), possibly indicating more intelligence based recovery as they are more likely to have information on debtors employment, unlike statutory creditors like local authorities. In one sheriffdom there were more earning arrestments executed for summary warrant debts than non earnings arrestments, but that was the exception.

A number of conclusions can be drawn from these statistics.

First, recent criticism that Scotland has become overly debtor friendly is not true, but clearly local authorities are struggling to recover local taxes.

Second, it is also obvious that although many of these problems may disappear should Scotland introduce a Scottish Income Tax, collected at source this will have a dramatic effect on Scotland’s legal debt enforcement system as sheriff officer firms are clearly over dependent on local authority revenue.

Third, if the whole purpose of the review carried out by the fist Scottish Executive into debt recovery which culminated with the Striking the Balance Report was to create a less coercive system then it’s failed. Even allowing for changes in tactics, no one could have imagined a 134% increase in the use of diligence. The recent growth in schemes like the Debt Arrangement Scheme, which now see over 3,000 people applying per year, is still not enough, when over 338,701 Charge for Payments are being served, 134,297 earning arrestments are being executed and 233,985 non earnings arrestments are being applied for. It is clear the collaborative approach that was hoped for is still not being achieved and legal debt recovery is still, in relation to local authorities at least, based on a hit and miss, threat based approach rather than one based on intelligence and working with debtors.

It also doesn’t help that the Scottish Government has still not implement S74D of the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987, which requires lenders within 48 hours of executing a non earnings arrestment to serve on the debtor a Debt Advice and Information Package advising them where and how to seek advice on how to deal with their debts.

There is no easy answer to the current problems, but encouraging more people to seek advice and agreements with their creditors should be a priority for the Scottish Government; also a further review of local authority enforcement powers under the summary warrant procedure is now long overdue. It should be borne in mind that widespread abuse of these powers and the diligence of poinding and warrant sales is what eventually discredited that diligence and led to its abolition: we can avoid repeats with other diligences by acting now.