Tag Archives: scotland

The Cuckoo in the Nest: Four Year Bankruptcies

The Cuckoo in the Nest: Four Year Bankruptcies

In the campaign for Independence, the campaign for social justice is a key battle ground.

The idea being Scotland’s commitment to social justice is best served by ruling ourselves than relying on Westminster to protect the poor and vulnerable.

Typical sentiments are “we believe in Society”; “we believe in supporting the weak and vulnerable”; “we do not believe in the coalition’s welfare reforms”; “we will abolish the bedroom tax post-independence”…et cetera, et cetera.

Then you come to the Scottish Government’s position on bankruptcy law and if you support independence, it’s bewildering: the Scottish Government’s social justice gear in this area is completely in reverse.

In Clause Four of the Bankruptcy and Debt Advice (Scotland) Bill 2013 it is proposed in future Scottish bankrupts will pay for four years instead of three, meaning Scots will pay more and for longer than elsewhere in the UK.

The reasons behind this being the Scottish Government have said they want to create a Society where people pay their debts (don’t the majority of us already?) and wants to rebalance bankruptcy laws towards the rights of creditors.  

On the face of it, this appears reasonable, but there is a problem. The vast majority of bankrupts in Scotland apply only as a last resort and usually because their income is too low to apply for other formal debt remedies like Protected Trust Deeds and the Debt Arrangement Scheme. So making bankrupts pay more and for longer doesn’t make a lot of sense, unless your committed to punishing the poor.

Even if this point is lost on the Scottish Government, it is not lost on many of the largest creditors in Scottish bankruptcies.  Both the Lloyds Banking Group and the Consumer Finance Association got the point and made it patently clear when they gave evidence to the Scottish Parliament: stating bankruptcy was about allowing people a fresh start and paying for three years, and not four, in line with the rest of the UK, seemed reasonable.

Money Advice Scotland, Step Change, Citizen Advice Scotland, The Law Society of Scotland, Christians against Poverty, The STUC and The Church and Society Council of the Church of Scotland all agree, as do many individual advice agencies and advisers.

Even many Insolvency practitioners, who arguably could benefit from the changes, have voiced their concerns that forcing people to pay for four years instead of three, will lead to more defaults and disputes arising with debtors.

So what is driving the policy?

The Credit Union movement is in favour of it, possibly because they are less able to suffer the losses and are disproportionately affected by debts being included in bankruptcy. However, they represent less than 0.5% of all bankruptcy debts in Scotland: so it’s ridiculous that Scottish Government policy in this area should be driven by them.  There may be an argument that their debts should be treated differently in bankruptcy, however, that’s a separate matter and although the Scottish Government consulted on it, have chosen not to bring anything forward on it in the bill.

If the truth be told there is little logic driving forward this policy, but there is a wilful ignorance being shown by the Scottish Government to the effects such a policy will have on low income debtors. It will leave many of them having to subsist for longer on only essentials, whilst forcing them to pay back more as they struggle with rising living costs, stagnating wages and unexpected financial emergencies.

It will not just affect debtors, but also their families and with over 60,000 having been made bankrupt in Scotland in the last five years, it’s not unreasonable to suspect tens of thousands, not including their dependants, will be affected in coming years.

In real terms this means cars not being repaired, boilers remaining broken and children continuing to wear last year’s winter coats, whilst going 4-5 years without even the most humble of summer holidays.

The Scottish Government’s policy of extending bankruptcy payment periods from three to four years is a cuckoo of a policy in a pro-independence social justice nest. Unlike the bedroom tax and other cut backs, it cannot be blamed on Westminster. It is wholly Scottish in its making, with nothing else as regressive being proposed elsewhere in the UK and should be a cause of concern for those SNP members that believe in social justice.

How such a policy, less than a year before the independence referendum, has found its way into a SNP Government Bill, is beyond me.

Fifty Shades of Lay

Fifty Shades of Lay

First published in The Journal Online,  the publication of the Law Society of Scotland.

New rules on lay representation introduced this month, taken with the other schemes that continue in force, have resulted in an excessively complicated picture that should be simplified

The introduction of s 127 of the Legal Services (Scotland) Act 2010 into law should have been a time for celebration: it aimed to introduce wider rights of lay representation into the sheriff court and, therefore, wider access to justice.

Although this objective has been achieved to some extent, we should be cautious with our celebrations. We now have a system of lay representation and support in Scotland which is no longer clear and, with tongue partially in cheek, it could be said litigants would be wise to take legal advice before deciding on which rules they use.

The problem is there now exists a multitude of different types of lay representation in Scotland’s sheriff courts, not including those rules that provide for lay supports, and in some circumstances representatives and supports will now have to choose between the types of representation or support they wish to provide. This requires a knowledge of the system that the majority will not have.

Scope for confusion

The idea behind s 127, which amended s 32 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971, was that it allowed the Court of Session to introduce a new type of lay representation into the sheriff court, and widen access to justice, by allowing representatives to appear in any category of civil action on behalf of a party and make oral submissions on their behalf. Such rules have now been implemented and have been in force since 4 April 2013.

These new rules are unlike previous lay representation rules in two ways. First, they allow the representation to occur in any category of civil action, whereas in the past such representation was only allowed in specific categories of actions; but secondly, the type of representation allowed is only to make oral submissions, whereas lay representatives previously were permitted, on the whole, to do for clients whatever they could do for themselves.

Prior to the new rules being implemented, the existing rules allowing lay representation related to actions under the Heritable Securities (Scotland) Act 1894, the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970, the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985, the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987, the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, the Debt Arrangement and Attachment (Scotland) Act 2002, the Bankruptcy and Diligence Etc (Scotland) Act 2007, and summary cause and small claim actions.

The new provisions now run parallel with these rules and also the rules for lay supports, which means that lay persons now have a choice between the rules they wish to use. What rules they choose will have a material effect on what they can and cannot do. For example, if someone asks the court to allow them to act as a lay support, this does not allow them to make oral submissions; whereas if someone applies to be a lay representative under the new provisions, they are not allowed to question witnesses, but they can do this if they apply to represent under existing small claim rules.

In addition to this, the tests that apply for sheriffs to decide whether someone should be allowed to act as a lay person vary depending on the type of representation or support that is applied for. Under the new rules, lay representatives are only allowed where this would assist the sheriff with their consideration of the case, whereas under older rules, such as in relation to small claims, the sheriff can only refuse where they believe the person is not suitable or indeed is not authorised to act as a representative. In relation to lay support, an individual can only act if the sheriff considers it would be in the interests of the efficient administration of justice to allow it.

Under the new rules, there are also specific provisions which stipulate that a condition of the representation is that the representative does not receive any direct or indirect financial remuneration from the case, whereas under the older and co-existing rules for lay representation, the provisions are silent on this.

Likewise, under the new rules the representative must make a written application to appear, but under other lay representation or support rules, no such requirement exists in relation to the sheriff court.

Rethink needed

Clearly, in such a situation only experienced in-court advisers will understand what their rights to act are as lay representatives; only the most experienced will understand what provisions they may wish to apply under.

On reviewing the rules we now have, it is hard not to think that the spirit of allowing lay persons into court has been lost. The idea was to increase access and assist the court in their consideration of the case when qualified legal representation was not available. The rules however are inaccessible, confusing and exist in parallel with existing provisions. They create obstacles by applying different tests and designating different functions to different roles, even though those roles go by the same name.

Without being overly critical about what was undoubtedly a genuine attempt to improve the ability of litigants to obtain representation and support in court, it has to be asked, is it not time that a rethink of this whole area of law was undertaken?

It must be possible simply to have two different types of lay persons: lay supports,with the right to make oral submissions and act in any category of civil action; and lay representatives, who can do for the litigant what they can do for themselves. This latter role could be performed by specialist advisers provided through advice agencies and trade unions, with a prerequisite that they must have sufficient professional indemnity insurance.

Scotland has been slow to warm to allowing lay persons into our courts: it took us nearly 40 years to introduce our own McKenzie Friends. Our rules have been developed in an ad hoc manner by both the UK and Scottish Parliaments, arguably because the courts have been slow to do it themselves using existing powers. It is now time to create a system that is genuinely accessible to all lay persons.

Why the SNP won’t remove the threat of eviction

Why the SNP won’t remove the threat of eviction

0 comments

Margaret Burgess, Scotland's Housing Minister, has said she will not prevent Bedroom Tax evictions.

The reason: she doesn't believe the cuts will result in evictions.

If that's true then why not just remove the threat of eviction from those affected by them?

The reason why she won't is simple: neither the SNP or Margaret Burgess want the threat of eviction to be taken off the table. They don't want benefit claimants to decide whether they should eat, pay the heating or pay the £12 per week from their other benefits towards their rent.

And that's the brutal truth of these cuts and the SNPs unwillingness to remove the threat of eviction. Some will be faced with evictions, but many instead will voluntarily disconnect their gas or electricity or go hungry and this is in a country where already one in six children go hungry according to Save the Children Scotland.

So in a nutshell, the real reasons why section 16 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 will not be amended as proposed by Govan Law Centre is the threat of eviction is too important.

These cuts may be made in Westminster, but they are going to be enforced in Scotland using Scottish laws and the SNP know this, as does Margaret Burgess, an ex Citizen Advice Bureau Manager of 20 years from East Ayrshire.

Ultimately, this is the true shame of the SNPs inaction to date. They understand exactly what they are doing, or not as the case is, and the Minister has the experience to know exactly what she is doing.

This inaction would be more understandable if other action had been taken, such as proposed by Shelter, like making £50 million available in the next year to compensate social landlords, but none is being taken.

It's certainly possible action could be taken.

Already the SNP have found £40 million to protect Scots from 10% cuts to Council Tax Benefit. Would this money not be better spent protecting the more vulnerable from housing benefit cuts? It may still mean people would accrue debts, but not the type that could leave them on the street.

These are indeed difficult times and difficult decisions have to be made. Unfortunately, the SNP don't appear able to make those decisions, or if they can, they are making the wrong ones.

In the long run people will blame the Tories for the Bedroom Tax, but I suspect they will also blame the SNP and when they are evicted in Scottish courts using Scottish laws, it will be hard not to see their point.

Sign the petition

Taming the Rest

0 comments

Mike Dailly in his blog for The Firm has called for a new Debt Arrangement Scheme to deal with payday lenders.  I consider whether such a scheme is feasible and if so how it should differ from the current scheme

The Scottish Government’s Debt Arrangement Scheme (DAS) currently allows pay day loans to be included into Debt Payment Programmes. That’s not a problem.

What is a problem is the fact the number of DAS’s where these types of debts are being included is now sharply on the increase, particularly amongst those under 30.

This highlights the problem that is payday loans: they are rapidly on the increase and can quickly turn temporary financial difficulties into longterm serious financial hardship. They also create a problem in that their laissez faire policy of high risk lending often damages not only the interests of the borrower, but their family who may be unaware of the borrowing and other lenders.

The debts that are rolled over often quickly increase in size and with continuing payment authorities being used to deduct funds directly from bank accounts often force clients to default on other debts.

But if the DAS can already be used are we seeking a problem for the solution?

Well maybe, but payday loans being included into Debt Payment Programmes bring their own problems. One of these is it can take between 2-3 months to get a normal DPP programme set up and approved and in that time payday loans can quickly increase due to the fact interest, charges, fees and penalties are not frozen until the DAS is approved. This can significantly lengthen the time of the programme. Also good practice states all unsecured debts should be included into a programme, even when if it wasn’t for the payday loan, the contractual payments to those other debts could be maintained.

So is there a way it may be possible to cut out the cancer without amputating the leg?

We could have a fast track scheme which could have a capital limit on the amount of debt that could be included, such as £3,000. There could  be a maximum length of time such schemes could run for such as 2 years. It would only be possible for short term pay day loans to be included into such programmes and it could be possible to continue to exclude other debts where the client could maintain the contractual payments.

In such cases, as Mike points out, interest could be set at the judicial rate of interest of 8% to reflect the fact other creditors and debts are not being included in the programme and presumably still getting interest paid.  Also programmes could automatically be approved in principle providing they meet the criteria for entry with lenders then having 3 weeks to submit objections. If the programmes is subsequently revoked as the lenders objection is upheld and it is found to be unfair or unreasonable, the lender would be able to reapply the interest, charges, fees and penalties they could have but for the scheme being approved.

In doing this we would be isolating a problem that often leads to more severe solutions becoming inevitable such as bankruptcy. It woul encourage early and limited intervention, in very much the same way a doctor would try and isolate and cut out a malign tumour before it spreads.

Such a Scheme would be a powerful deterrent to payday lenders in Scotland. It would also act as a powerful bulwark against their practice of rolling over accounts and contain the rot that sometimes begins with them but quickly spreads like gangrene to infect other more responsible lenders.

UPDATE:  Govan Law Centre have now published a discussion paper on the proposals. See here.

Credit Unions: are they a special case in personal insolvency?

Credit Unions: are they a special case in personal insolvency?

0 comments

One of the most controversial issues in the Scottish Government’s consultation on bankruptcy law reform is the issue of extending the type of debts that should be excluded from bankruptcies and protected trust deeds.

Two specific examples are suggested: debts owed to credit unions and child maintenance arrears.

The problem with excluding debts, however, is it dilutes the protections that personal insolvency offers and can be a slippery slope.

However, is there a case for extending the list?

Child Maintenance Arrears

There are clearly strongly moral reasons why child maintenance arrears should be excluded: others may suffer as a result and there are possibly few more deserving cases than innocent children who are the dependents of their parents.

However, life is rarely simple and often child maintenance isn’t paid because estranged parents are raising other families or relationships have broken down to the extent that access to children is being denied and maintenance is not paid.

Also it doesn’t take long for arrears to accrue to the extent where they cannot be repaid.

There is also no evidence from England, where they are excluded, to suggest giving them special status improves recovery rates.

It is also has to be borne in mind that other children in new families can also suffer where there are no effective methods of relief.

Credit Unions

In relation to Credit Unions, however, there may be a stronger case for special treatment. Other than a few large industrial and city wide credit unions, the vast majority of these organisations are small and particularly vulnerable to debts owed to them being included in insolvencies.

Few debtors will actually become personally insolvent because of a credit union debt and the amounts loaned are normally small. In actual fact, many debtors may prefer not to include credit union debts, feeling a strong responsibility to the other members, who may be neighbours or work colleagues.

Another reason for credit unions to be given special treatment is that, unlike other creditors, they are restricted in how much interest they can charge (which is effectively limited to 2% per month, although in reality most charge 1%). They are, therefore, restricted in what they can do, unlike other consumer creditors, who can just increase interest rates when they suffer significant losses due to insolvencies.

For example, if a Credit union suffers a bad debt of £7,000 they would have to lend £350,000 at 2% within a year to recover the loss.  For many small community and workplace based credit unions this is just not feasible.

However, other involuntary creditors, such as HMRC or local authorities can make similar arguments, especially when they use the summary warrant procedure to constitute debts and can only charge a 10% surcharge on the debt, instead of charging the judicial rate of interest at 8% per annum.

That is the slippery slope of excluding debts.

There are other arguments in favour of excluding credit unions, however. They could continue to offer small amounts of credit to debtors during their insolvencies for small emergencies, such as broken washing machines etc. This would remove the risk of debtors failing to make contributions to their bankruptcies and protected trust deeds.

They could also provide a vehicle for debtors to continue having modest savings, although this would possibly require legislative change, but most trustees do permit allowances in debtor’s financial statements for costs that have to be set aside; so logically should we not encourage debtors to set these aside for the purposes intended?

Education

The Accountant in Bankruptcy office is also keen to incorporate some form of education for debtors in Scotland’s debt relief and management remedies and generally support for this principle is supported across the board.

Credit unions could play a pivotal role in this education, by not just making any education a classroom exercise at the end of an insolvency, but by encouraging good practice, such as saving with and borrowing from socially responsible lenders during the operation of the bankruptcy or protected trust deed.

Arguably there is a case for allowing credit unions to have priority during a debt payment plan under the debt arrangement scheme if this approach is taken as most debtors in an 8 year DAS will require some form of credit during that programme.

Alternatives

Even if we don’t accept credit unions deserve to be excluded from bankruptcies and protected trust deeds, this does not mean we cannot give them some form of special treatment.

Changes could be made to the way claims are settled in personal insolvencies. Currently many involuntary and socially responsible lenders are disadvantaged with the current scheme of division, where dividends are paid to ordinary creditors on the basis of what is owed at the time of the insolvency, including interest.

This means the pay day lenders that might charge say 3000% APR and front load interest onto loans, proportionately  can claim more in relation to what they loaned than a credit union or a local authority can.

This could be avoided by introducing a system where dividends are initially paid on the original debt, with interest having a deferred ranking. This would mean our bankruptcy system would still treat all creditors equally but also more fairly. It would also mean we don’t reward predatory lending and would remove the requirement for trustees to challenge extortionate credit agreements, which rarely occurs anyway.

Conclusion

There is no clear answer to the question of what debts should be excluded and what should be included. Many creditors have strong cases, but the argument for excluding credit unions is particularly strong, especially in a society where we see the growing scourge of payday lenders.

They also have a strong case as institutions we would wish to encourage Debtors to use.

They are also arguably part of the solution for dealing with the recurring issue of over indebtedness amongst some of the poorest in Society and could help prevent Debtors repeatedly becoming insolvent.

Maybe it’s time to make one last exception.

Scotland’s Debt Landscape Possibly Changing

Scotland’s Debt Landscape Possibly Changing

0 comments

The recent statistics producced by the Accountant in Bankruptcy has shown that the Scottish debt landscape has begun to change.

The number of sequestrations (formal bankruptcies) in the first quarter of this year remained the same with the number for the previous quarter (3,139), but showed a 16 % decrease on the numbers from the same quarter last year.

A similar story can be told for protected trust deeds, with only 2,239 becoming protected in the first quarter, which although up 10 % on the previous quarter was down 13% on the same quarter for last year.

The real story, however, is the 495 debt payment programmes entered into under the Debt Arrangement Scheme, showing a 19% increase on the previous quarter and a 60% increase on the same quarter last year.

The Debt Arrangement Scheme is a statutory alternative to personal insolvency and allows debtor to repay their debts in full, whilst providing them with protection from their creditors. Importantly, it also avoids debtors having to realise assets and  allows interest and charges on debts to be frozen and eventually written off if the programme is succesfully completed.

Launched in October 2004, the scheme has had a troubled beginning with a poor uptake and problems with debtors unable to access it. This has largely been because access is exclusively through an approved money adviser and there has been a shortage of approved money advisers. This has now been partly solved with increased private sector involvement and it is now believe up to 10% of all applications may now be originating in the private sector. Concerns have, however, been raised in relation to private sector involvement with some private sector providers charging debtors up to £1,800 to access the scheme.

However, the increase in the number of the debt payment programmes may not just be a sign that debtors are keen to repay their debts, but that they have no other remedy available to them.

Those  who enter the Debt Arrangement Scheme have to have disposable income to make payments  and, therefore, it may be that increasing numbers of  white collar debtors may be using the Scheme where there has been a drop in the household income and they are unable to use personal insolvency as a remedy. This may be as in personal insolvency debtors are required to realise the value of  assets, such as homes and cars for the benefit of creditors. One of the advantages of the Debt Arrangement Scheme is that debtors do not normally have to realise their assets for the benefit of their creditors.

This creates a problem, however, for those debtors with assets, if they are unable to realise those assets (it may make them homeless or leave them unable to get back and forth to work), resulting in them having to enter repayment plans with their creditors that could take 10 years or more.

The Scottish Government will be introducing a new route into seqeustration also in October, which will allow debtors who cannot repay their debts as they fall due to apply for bankruptcy. This may result in an increase in the number of bankruptcies each year, but may equally result in a reduction in the number of protected trust deeds. In addition to this, the Government, as part of the new Act, will also be introducing new forms of protected trust deeds that will allow debtors to exclude their home from it, allowing them to keep it even though they are personally insolvent. This, however, is likely only to be  in cases where there are small amounts of equity in the home.

It is clear that Scotland’s debt remedy landscape  is now beginning to shift with one debt payment programme being entered into for every four protected trust deeds being signed. It could be tomorrows debtor landscape is one where there is more debt payment programmes and less personal insolvencies. It could also be with the decreasing number of personal insolvencies and increasing numbers of debt payment programmes, Scotland’s personal insolvency industry will now begin diversifying to offer the Debt Arrangement Scheme as one of the services they can offer.

Debt Arrangement Scheme

Accountant in Bankruptcy

The Debt Arrangement Scheme – Is it working the way it was intended?

The Debt Arrangement Scheme – Is it working the way it was intended?

The Debt Arrangement Scheme (DAS) is now approaching its fourth anniversary, but before it reaches that it will go through its second review, which is expected to run between July and December this year. The first review, which was implemented at the end of June 2007, allowed, inter alia, for the automatic waiving of interest and charges on debts included in debt payment programmes, providing they were successfully completed. It also extended the role of the DAS Administrator[1] in the scheme, reducing the role of the Sheriff, and allowing the Administrator, whenever a creditor refused consent, to apply a fair and reasonable test, before approving or refusing a Programme under the Scheme.

Although, there will be a process of consultation in the review, allowing for all stakeholders to participate, it is clear that what is being asked is whether the Scheme is working the way it was intended. The DAS Administrator has indicated she will be looking at a number of factors in relation to the Scheme, primarily the quality of applications being made by Approved Money Advisers[2] and the use of the Scheme by debtors.

The Application Process for Debt Payment Programmes

The Administrator has clearly indicated, through her staff, she is concerned with the proposed duration of some of the programmes being applied for. When the Scheme was originally implemented, there were two principles in the legislation which underpinned when a programme should be approved. The fist of these was contractual freedom, that is “the client and the creditors can reach whatever agreement suits them.”[3] The second was where a creditor did actively refuse consent that a fair and reasonable test should be applied.

The DAS Administrator’s concern that the Scheme is being used in a way that was not intended appears to be directed to the first of these routes for a payment programme being approved: that is through the agreement of the debtor and the creditors. This is partly because, at present, where a creditor fails to reply to a notification that a Debt Payment Programme is being applied for, they are deemed to have implied consent. A programme can, therefore, be automatically approved despite the fact no creditor has actively agreed to it, even if it will take twenty years or more to complete. These cases are being automatically approved as a result of the creditor’s active and implied consent. It is true many creditors are prepared to wait lengthy periods for their debts to be repaid, knowing they will in all likelihood recover far less if the debtor chooses another route, such as personal insolvency. It is also true, however, that another significant reason for these programmes being approved is poor creditor participation, resulting in them being deemed to have consented when they fail to reply within the statutory time limits.

Does this constitute misuse of the Scheme? In the situation where all creditors actively consent it would be hard to argue there is any abuse and, therefore, little justification for limiting the principle of contractual freedom, as surely the parties involved must be presumed to know what is in their best interests. When the programme is approved as a result of deemed consent, the question is more complex. There is a strong public interest in the DAS: it provides a remedy for those in debt and restricts the right of creditors, by implying they have consented, when they have not. Where those creditor rights are lost as a result of a legal fiction, there is a duty for the DAS Administrator to ensure any infringement is limited and proportionate.

However, removing the concept of deemed consent is unlikely to be the solution. For a start, the concept is hardly an alien one, already existing in Scots Law in relation to Protected Trust Deeds and was recently reaffirmed with The Protected Trust Deeds (Scotland) Regulations 2008. In the case of trust deeds, the creditor who fails to respond loses far more rights, than the creditor who fails to respond to a notification of an application for a Debt Payment Programme (DPPs pay 90p in the pound in comparison to Protected Trust Deeds, which on average pay only 10-20p in the pound). Also if the concept of deemed consent was removed from the DAS, it would not necessarily increase creditor participation and, arguably, would remove one of the incentives that currently exist for creditors to participate in the scheme: that is, they ignore it at their peril. In terms of restricting the rights of creditors, the approval of a programme still allows creditors to apply for a variation or appeal, on a point of law, and although the DAS does currently include an element of debt relief for debtors from interest, fee and charges, this is only realised if the DPP is successfully completed. The creditor, therefore, retains the right to pursue the debtor for these sums should the plan fail. The creditor whose debts are included in a Debt Payment Programme, therefore, is in a significantly stronger position in regard to his rights, than the creditor with debts included in a Protected Trust Deed or Sequestration. Arguably, therefore, the rights of the creditor who fails to respond to notification are outweighed by the public interest of ensuring creditors act responsibly and meet their obligations to assist debtors facing financial difficulties. It cannot be argued, for example, that the creditor is obstructed from participating in the procedure or is having his rights infringed upon without due process.

In light of this, it is difficult to argue that those programmes currently being applied for, which may have proposed durations of twenty or more years are in actual fact abuses of the scheme. Firstly, the DAS Administrator has said, in the guidance provided, that where it is felt a case is fair and reasonable, an application should be submitted.[4] What is fair and reasonable will always depend on the particular facts of a case and also the views of those involved. It is not possible for an Approved Money Adviser to know in advance whether a creditor will respond or what his view will be.

The possible reason why it is felt such applications may be a misuse of the scheme appears to derive from the second way a DPP can be approved. That is, when a creditor actively refuses consent. As mentioned above, in such situations the DAS Administrator has to apply a ‘fair and reasonable’ test. There is nothing in the legislation that stipulates such a test should apply to a programme when creditors don‘t refuse consent. It would appear, however, the fair and reasonable test is being used as a benchmark against which cases where creditors either do consent, or are deemed to have consented, are being measured. If this is the case, the question needs to be: should the fair and reasonable test be used as a benchmark in all cases?

Possibly the first question that needs to be asked, is how is the fair and reasonable test being applied? At present there is nothing in the primary or secondary legislation stipulating how long a DPP should last, although, The DAS Guidance for Approved Money Advisers does state “…the DAS Administrator is likely to approve anything under 5 years in duration and refuse to approve anything over 10 years. Between these periods will be a matter of individual assessment”.[5]

Although, such guidelines can be helpful, they are arbitrary. They appear to be more for convenience than because they have any basis in fact or in law in determining when a case is fair and reasonable. The regulations do, however, provide a list of other factors that the administrator should consider, such as the total amount of debt, the level of equity a debtor has in his home, the extent to which creditors have consented and any other factors considered appropriate.[6]

At present there is little information what weight is being given, on a case to case basis, to these factors and what other factors are considered relevant. For example, there is no indication whether relevant factors would include the length of time the original debt was for, or whether a client risks losing their home.

The current practice is that when an application is rejected, the Administrator states the application failed the fair and reasonable test. This lack of specificity creates two problems: first it is near on impossible to decide if there are any grounds for appeal by the debtor (albeit it would need to be on a point of law). And, secondly, without any understanding as to the reasoning behind decisions, money advisers are not able to improve the quality of the applications they make.

If the DAS Administrator is determined to restrict the duration of payment programmes under the scheme, possible solutions could be sought from examining English Administration Orders. Although these orders have no statutory limit on their duration, it is generally accepted debts included in such schemes should be repaid within a reasonable time. Where repayment plans are likely to exceed such a reasonable time, a Composition Order can be imposed, only requiring the debtor to repay a percentage of the debt. The DAS could be reformed along the lines of such a model. This would help resolve some of the issues concerning the duration of programmes, although it would involve a greater infringement on the rights of creditors.

Another option used in Administration Orders would be to impose limits on the level of debt that can be included in DPPs, although caution needs to be exercised here as the scheme could become too restrictive. It should also be noted such limits are believed to be the reason behind the declining use of this remedy in England and Wales.

It would still need to be decided, however, how programmes get approved. That is whether the fair and reasonable test should be applied in all cases or whether the principle of contractual freedom should still apply, with or without deemed consent. Also, arguably the grounds of appeal should be widened to include appeals not only on points of law but also on the merits of the case. This would not only improve decision making and accountability, but considering the gravity of the decisions on both creditors and debtors alike and the fact composition of debts could be included, would be in the interests of justice. This would also be in line with the Administration Order model.

Freezing of Interest

The other issue the DAS Administrator has raised through her staff, concerns the reforms that arose after the first review of the scheme. Currently, when a debtor’s programme becomes approved, all interest, fees and charges on their debts are frozen and ultimately waived, should the programme be successfully completed.

Concerns have been raised that some debtors are opting for the Scheme as a less expensive alternative to consolidation loans and as a way of evading their contractual obligations to pay interest. This is without doubt a possibility. However, two points are being ignored: firstly, under the present climate many debtors are not able to access consolidation loans; secondly, even when debtors are able to obtain consolidation loans, they usually face adverse interest rates. This often exacerbates the debtor’s financial situation and can eventually be the precursor to the debtor becoming insolvent.

The same concerns could also be raised with regards sequestration and protected trust deeds, but there is no suggestion that access to these remedies should be restricted because debtors have not yet borrowed enough. The purpose of debtors using these remedies is that they are acting responsibly to manage their financial difficulties and not acting irresponsibly, posing a hazard to other lenders.

Recognising there is the potential for abuse, the qualifying criteria should be that the debtor should be able to demonstrate with their financial statement that they cannot meet their contractual obligations and are, to that extent, practically insolvent. The alternative to this, that the debtor either must first have defaulted on their debts or that a creditor has obtained a court order, would mean that a debtor would need to wait much later before they can act. It was never intended the DAS would work like this, as the idea was to reduce litigation and encourage debtors to act sooner rather than later.

The Future of the Debt Arrangement Scheme

On average, at present, the number of Approved Money Advisers fluctuates between 90 -100 and in some local authority regions in Scotland there are still no Approved Money Advisers being employed by the public and voluntary sector. Part of the problem has been stretched public and voluntary sector services.

As Approved Money Advisers are the gateway which debtors must pass through to enter a Programme, this creates a significant problem. The Debt Arrangement Scheme is a legal remedy and like other remedies, in the interest of justice people must be able to access it. The equivalent would be to say to people you are able to go bankrupt, but only if you live in certain parts of the country and not others.

In the coming review, therefore, attention should be focused on increasing access to the Scheme, either by providing further resources or countenancing greater private sector involvement.

If the private sector is to be encouraged to increase their involvement, the current standards must be maintained, for the sake of both the creditors and the debtors. One of the driving principles behind the DAS, however, was that it should be a free service. This, however, will have to be squared with the fact any private sector involvement will need to be commercially viable.

This isn’t an impossible task. One option would be to expand the statutory fees that creditors are liable for when their debts are included in a Programme. Currently, they pay 10% to the Payment Distributor. If they also had to pay 10% to the Money Advice Service Provider, this could act as an incentive for increased private sector involvement in providing access to the Scheme. Increased take up of the Scheme may also encourage greater creditor involvement.

Creditors, even with an additional charge, would still receive greater dividends than they do when debtors becoming insolvent and would benefit from no longer having to pursue customers for payment.

Whatever reforms come out of the review, what is important, is not only that some of the above problems are resolved, but that the Scheme continues to provide relief to debtors and an organized method for them to manage their complex multiple debt problems.

[1] The DAS Administrator is the Accountant in Bankruptcy.

[2] All applications for a Debt Payment Programme under the Debt Arrangement Scheme, currently have to be made through an Approved Money Adviser.

[3] Pg 2, Foreword, DAS Guidance for Approved Money Advisers (version 4)

[4] A3.3 DAS Guidance for Approved Money Advisers (version 4)

[5] A3.3 DAS Guidance for Approved Money Advisers (version 4

[6] Regulation 26 (2)