Accountant in Bankruptcy | Scotland's Insolvency …€¦ · Web viewSince DAS first came into force in late 2004, there has been a consistent view that one of the greatest constraints

Building a Better Debt Arrangement Scheme

Consultation 2018

Report and Summary of Responses

Building a Better Debt Arrangement Scheme: Consultation 2018

Report on Public Consultation

Contents

1. Background........................................................................................................32. Table of Abbreviations......................................................................................53. Executive Summary of Responses..................................................................6

3.1 Payments Distribution....................................................................................6

3.2 A new fee structure........................................................................................7

3.3 Reducing bureaucracy – automatic approvals for DPPs................................9

3.4 Increasing flexibility......................................................................................10

4. Evaluation.........................................................................................................114.1 Methodology................................................................................................12

5. Consultation Response Results.....................................................................135.1 Payments Distribution..................................................................................13

5.2 A new fee structure......................................................................................19

5.3 Reducing bureaucracy – automatic approvals for DPPs..............................25

5.4 Reducing bureaucracy – automatic approval for variations.........................28

5.5 Increasing flexibility......................................................................................32

6. Next Steps........................................................................................................36

Annex A. List of Organisations and Individuals who responded to the consultation

Annex B. MA/CMAs who generated more than 10 DAS cases in 2018

2


1. Background

The Debt Arrangement Scheme (DAS) has grown in success since its introduction in 2004, becoming a vital part of the Scottish debt management system and an effective statutory alternative to insolvency or debt consolidation. The UK government has recognised this success and, in response to repeated lobbying, recently consulted on the development of a similar solution for the rest of the UK, a Breathing Space scheme and Statutory Debt Repayment Plan. That consultation closed on 29 January 2019.

From 2011, when significant changes were made to the scheme, to the end of 2017-18 over £200 million of debt has been repaid through DAS. In 2017/18 DAS paid more to creditors than both of the formal insolvency solutions (protected trust deeds (PTDs) and bankruptcies) combined. More than 6,000 people have now completed a debt payment programme under DAS, and over 12,000 people are currently in a programme.

The Scottish Government has aimed to continually build on the experience gained through operating DAS with feedback received from stakeholders, amending the DAS regulations over the years in an effort to help the scheme meet its full potential.

Accountant in Bankruptcy (AiB) consulted on making changes to DAS in 2016 and asked further questions in a supplementary consultation in 2017. The legislative changes and vision set out in “DAS: “The Way Forward”, published in March 2018, explained the AiB response to these consultations. Since then, AiB successfully implemented the 2018 Amendment Regulations, which came into force on 29 October 2018.

“The Way Forward” both explained the legislative changes introduced in the 2018 Regulations and set out a longer-term vision to refine and improve the DAS process further.

3


To stimulate a conversation on that vision, AiB set up the 2018 DAS Regulatory Review Working Group (“the Group”) - an independent short-life committee drawn from our stakeholder community. Further information on the group, including minutes of meetings and discussion papers, can be found on our website here. The public consultation on “Building a Better Debt Arrangement Scheme” launched on 31 October 2018 and put forward proposals which had been developed after careful consideration of feedback from stakeholders, including the Group.

This Report provides a summary of the responses to the questions raised in the consultation. In addition to these responses, we will also give full consideration to all the feedback and comments given by the respondents, to help inform future changes to DAS.

4


2. Table of Abbreviations

AiB Accountant in Bankruptcy

ABCUL Association of British Credit Unions Limited

CAB Citizens Advice Bureau

CMA Continuing Money Adviser1

DAS Debt Arrangement Scheme

DPP Debt Payment Programme

ICAS Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland

MA Money Adviser

PD Payments Distributor

PTD Protected Trust Deed

RPB Recognised Professional Body

1 Continuing Money Advisers may charge a fee for their service.

5


3. Executive Summary of Responses

The following is an executive summary of the responses to the consultation with greater detail found later in this document.

3.1 Payments Distribution

Question 1(a): Should the CMA role be extended to include payments distribution responsibility?

05

101520253035404550

48

17

Should the CMA role be extended to include PD responsibility?

Yes No

Almost three-quarters of respondents agreed that the CMA role should be extended to include the PD function

The two CMAs who replied ‘No’ to this question agreed with the principle of CMAs being able to do their own payments distribution but believed CMAs should continue to have the option of providing advice only. This view was also shared by six of the CMA organisations which had agreed that the CMA role should be extended

6


Question 1(b): Should AiB offer a payments distribution service?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

58

7

Should AiB offer a PD service?

Yes No

The majority of respondents agreed that AiB should offer a payments distribution service in some capacity Of the seven respondents who disagreed, four believed that AiB’s role as the DAS Administrator may demonstrate a potential conflict of interest if AiB were to offer a payments distribution service

Question 1(c): If you answered ‘yes’ to Question 1(b) above, under which circumstances should AiB offer this service?

Of those who believed AiB should offer a payments distribution service, over half chose the options for both “Where existing PD ceases/is unable to act” and “All public sector/CAB cases”

A small number of respondents believed that, although AiB should be able to act as a PD, debtors in public sector cases should be allowed to choose their preferred PD, rather than it being mandatory to use AiB

A similar number of respondents believed that AiB should be PD by default for all cases

3.2 A new fee structure

Question 2(a): In the event of the CMA role being extended to include payments distribution responsibility, at what level should the statutory administration fee be set?

7


Almost all respondents expressed a view on the level of the statutory administration fee. Around one-tenth did not reply.

Most public sector money advisers suggested a statutory administration fee of 15%

Over half of creditors who responded to the consultation took the view that the fee should be 20% or 23%

Question 2(b): If you have answered ‘No’ to Q1(a) “Should the CMA role be extended to include payments distribution responsibility”, should the CMA’s administration-only fee be capped at the agreed administration fee rate detailed at 2(a) above, less 8% (to cover PD costs)?

More respondents answered this question than those who had answered ‘No’ to Q1(a)

Of those who responded to this question, over three-quarters believed that the CMA’s fee should be capped at the agreed administration fee less 8% (to cover PD costs)

Question 2(c): If you answered ‘No’ to 2(b) above, please provide comment below on how you believe this process should operate.

Although only five respondents answered ‘No’ to Q2(b), 24 respondents provided comments in Q2(c)

The comments covered a wide range of views, from retaining the existing fee structure to having the fees as “no more than 23%”

8


3.3 Reducing bureaucracy – automatic approvals for DPPs

Question 3(a): Do you agree that automatic approval should be introduced for cases where the debt due to objecting creditors is less than a specified percentage of the total DPP debt?

64 out of 65 respondents agreed with this proposal

Question 3(b): If you have answered ‘Yes’ to Q3(a) above, what proportion of total debt owed to non-consenting creditors should trigger the requirement for a fair and reasonable test to be conducted?

5% 10% 15% Other No Answer0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

What proportion of total debt owed to non-consenting cred-itors should trigger the requirement for a fair and reasonable

test to be conducted?

MA CMA PD and CMA Creditor Other Organisation

The consultation provided options of 5%, 10%, 15% or ‘Other’. Two-fifths of respondents chose ‘Other’. However, there was no clear preference, and the ‘other’ responses covered a range of percentages from 20% to 51%

Over nine-tenths of respondents believed the requirement for a fair and reasonable test should be triggered if the non-consenting creditors were owed 10% or more of the total debt

Question 3(c): Do you agree that deemed creditor consent should be introduced for variations?

63 out of 65 respondents agreed with this proposal

Question 3(d): Where variation proposals will lead to a reduction in the duration of the DPP, do you agree these should be approved automatically by the DAS Administrator?

Of the 65 who answered, the same two respondents also disagreed that these variation proposals should be approved automatically

9


Question 3(e): Should AiB be able to submit variations on behalf of the debtor in the circumstances outlined above?

Nine-tenths of the 65 respondents agreed with this proposal

3.4 Increasing flexibility

Question 4(a): Should short-term crisis payment breaks be introduced to address periods of crisis?

All respondents agreed short-term crisis breaks should be introduced to address periods of crisis

Question 4(b): If you have answered “yes” to question 4(a) above, do you agree money advisers should be responsible for authorising the proposed short-term crisis payment breaks without having to consult creditors?

61 of the 65 respondents agreed that money advisers should be responsible for authorising the proposed short-term crisis payment breaks, without the need to consult creditors first

Question 4(c): How many short-term crisis payment breaks should be available per rolling-year?

One Two Three No Answer0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

How many short-term crisis payment breaks should be available per rolling year?

MA CMA PD and CMA Creditor Other Organisations

Respondents were split on this question but the strongest preference, expressed by over two-fifths of respondents, was for a maximum of two short-term crisis payments breaks per rolling-year

10


Evaluation

A total of 65 responses were submitted to AiB. A list of the organisations who responded (and who gave their permission for the details to be disclosed) can be found in Annex A of this document. We have included comments from some respondents throughout the report and have attributed the comments to the individual/organisation where they have given permission for us to do so.

45 of the 65 respondents were replying on behalf of their organisation. These respondents were broken down as follows:22 in public sector money advice 6 from CMA organisations3 from organisations which currently work as both CMA and PD 11 from creditors, including UK Finance and the Association of British Credit Unions, who responded on behalf of their members3 from ‘Other Organisations’ – ICAS, R3 and the charity, Money Advice Trust.

In addition, 21 people responded as individuals. Of these individuals, 15 identified themselves as being from the public money advice sector, 4 were from the CMA sector and 2 were from the creditor sector.

As Organisation As Individual Total NumberMoney Adviser 21 15 36Continuing Money Adviser 6 4 10Payments Distributor and CMA 3 0 3Creditor 11 2 13Other Organisations 3 0 3

Money Advis

er

Continuing Money A

dviser

Payments

Distrib

utor and CMA

Creditor

Other Organisa

tions05

10152025303540

Total Responses by Stakeholder Group

As Organisation As Individual

11


3.5 Methodology

Throughout the document we have provided tables to illustrate the responses to the questions asked in the consultation. Where a question required simply a “yes” or “no” answer, we have shown the number of responses in each category.

Where a question required respondents to choose a preferred option, including ‘Other’, the tables show the total number of respondents who expressed a preference for each option.

The responses to all questions have been further broken down into the total number of responses from each stakeholder group, rather than splitting it into responses from organisations and from individuals.

12


4. Consultation Response Results

4.1 Payments Distribution

Debtors can only access DAS through an approved money adviser. Since DAS first came into force in late 2004, there has been a consistent view that one of the greatest constraints on accessibility for clients, and the growth of the scheme, is the availability of money advisers to offer it. Feedback from stakeholders suggests demand for debt advice far outstrips supply, so there are likely to be large numbers of people who would benefit from DAS but who are unable to access an adviser when they need to.

In the fee charging advice sector and certain parts of the third sector advice community, the adviser is known as ‘the Continuing Money Adviser (CMA) and will support the debtor throughout the life of the plan.

Annex B shows the fee charging and non-fee charging money advice organisations who generated more than 10 cases in 2018. It also shows how their caseloads have varied over the preceding three years.

CMAs may charge for the service provided to their clients, and there are currently no statutory controls over the nature and scale of these fees. Although the ongoing administration CMA fees have been disclosed to AiB and creditors in all cases where the proposal was sent to creditors on or after 29 October 2018, the data available is still limited.

Information provided to AiB prior to the changes in October 2018 indicates that CMA ongoing fees average around £3,000 per case, or 15% of the level of debts in the average DPP. There is no visibility on any advance fees charged by CMAs, or the impact which this has on debtors – for example delaying their access to DAS until the fee has been paid or elongating the DPP by reducing the level of surplus income available.

Under the current regulations, the role of the CMA is largely separated from that of the payments distributor (PD). DAS PDs are appointed through a competitive tendering process which, in the majority of cases, sees one organisation providing debt advice and administering the DAS DPP, whilst another facilitates the payment process. At present four firms are appointed to perform this function and the DAS Administrator allocates cases automatically. The maximum fee that may be charged by a PD is 8% of each instalment, inclusive of any applicable VAT. This fee is charged to the creditors – that is, it does not increase the level of payments debtors have to make.

One drawback of the current PD process is that the CMA loses the continuity of their relationship with potentially vulnerable clients when the responsibility for payments distribution is transferred to a third-party. Similarly, the current system sees debtors and creditors dealing with different organisations depending on the nature of their enquiry, which can be perceived as rather disjointed and detrimental to their experience of DAS: the PD deals with queries over payments, but the CMA carries

13


out the annual review of the debtor’s circumstances and instructs any resulting variation to the DPP on the debtor’s behalf.

AiB also recognises that the majority of CMA organisations are headed by qualified Insolvency Practitioners who administer the full process, including advice and payments to creditors, in high volumes of sequestrations, trust deeds and alternative debt solutions. It would make sense, on practical and business levels, that they should also be able to administer the entire DAS process.

Anecdotally, AiB has also been informed that some CMAs are not attracted to DAS for commercial reasons. Under the current arrangements they lose a revenue stream from the payments distribution role and, at the same time, their actions effectively generate income for their competitors.

Extending the role of the CMA to include payments distribution responsibility would address these concerns.

The consultation also noted how the current regulations do not empower AiB to act as PD, and sought views on the possibility of AiB offering this service.

This potential change would open up the question of who should provide the PD function for those public sector and other organisations who are unable to provide it themselves. It would also mirror the benefits of continuity of relationship/service underpinning the proposed changes to the CMA role. AiB currently deal with ongoing administration of public sector cases in terms of dealing with creditor and debtor queries (but not those which require money advice, in those instances, the debtor is referred back to their MA). Allowing AiB to provide the PD function would be an extension of this administrative role and would streamline and simplify the DAS process for all stakeholders.

Additionally, if AiB had the ability to deal with payments distribution, this would help mitigate risk and enhance resilience of the PD process should any other PD organisation be unable to discharge their responsibilities. In these circumstances, AiB would be able to step in where an existing PD is unable to act.

For cases where it is appointed to act as PD, AiB will only seek to recover its costs allowing any excess funds to be re-invested in the free advice sector. A further consultation on the mechanics of this process, and the options for re-investing the funds, will be issued shortly.

Question 1(a): Should the CMA role be extended to include payments distribution responsibility?

Number %

Yes 48 74

No 17 26

14


Response breakdown by stakeholder group:

Yes No Total

Money Adviser 21 15 36

Continuing Money Adviser 8 2 10

Payments Distributor and CMA 3 0 3

Creditor 13 0 13

Other Organisations 3 0 3

Almost two-thirds of respondents, including all creditors, believe the CMA role should change to incorporate the PD function. The respondents identified a number of positives to this change, neatly encapsulated by this comment:

The majority of those who disagreed with this proposal were public sector money advisers. Few gave any reasons for this view. Those who did provide comments broadly shared the following view:

The two CMAs who replied ‘No’ to this question agreed with the principle of CMAs being able to do their own payments distribution but believed CMAs should continue to have the option of providing advice only. This view was also shared by six of the

15

“We have no concerns about the CMA role being extended in this manner, and welcome the potential advantages in terms of having one point of contact, more options for the debtor, and a source of income for those not currently able to provide this service”

ABCUL

“We would have concerns around advisers working in the fee charging sector then being able to act as Payment Distributor for their own cases, this creates a conflict of interest which may directly affect the service that the customer receives”

City of Edinburgh Council Advice Shop


CMA organisations which had agreed that the CMA role should be extended. The main concern expressed by these respondents was that it may not be cost-effective for some CMAs to take on the PD function.

Summary

The concerns expressed over the role of CMA being extended to include payments distribution were based on unease that the CMA might recommend DAS when it was not the appropriate solution for the debtor. Here DAS would be used as a vehicle to generate more income for the CMA.

This concern has its roots in a belief, expressed in other responses to the consultation, that alternative debt solutions, particularly protected trust deeds (PTDs), are being mis-sold – to the benefit of those who recommend them, and not in the interests of those who enter them.

Nevertheless, it was noted that “if appropriate scrutiny and regulation was in place in relation to service quality and the customer being presented with all viable options, there are obvious benefits to the consumer of only dealing with one agency throughout the term of the DPP process” [City of Edinburgh Council Advice Shop]

We appreciate the concerns over debtors being directed to DAS when it is not an appropriate solution. The provision and monitoring of money advice is scrutinised by advice agencies, the FCA and recognised professional bodies. AiB as the DAS Administrator would continue to work with these organisations and monitor cases to mitigate any risk. However, whilst it is preferable for a debtor to be directed to the correct debt solution at the outset, it would be possible for a debtor to leave a mis-sold DPP. The implications of a mis-sold PTD are more serious and the decision to end the PTD is the responsibility of the trustee.

We have taken note of the comments on the level of investment of time and money required for the provision of PD services, and recognise this may be prohibitive for smaller CMA organisations. The CMA would have overarching administrative control over the case, but would be able to enter private arrangements with suitably qualified organisations to deliver the payments distribution process.

16

“Our only reservation however is distribution under a DAS is regulated by the FCA. Applying for a requirement to distribute client money will involve a further lengthy and bureaucratic process for most commercial organisations”

Wylie & Bisset

“The provision of PD services requires a level of investment in software and staffing which would render it not cost-effective for CMAs with relatively small numbers of clients”

Individual respondent


As 74% of respondents agreed the CMA role should be extended to include payments distribution responsibility AiB will take forward recommendations to Ministers for legislation to introduce this change.

Question 1(b): Should AiB offer a payments distribution service?

Number

%

Yes 58 89

No 7 11


Yes No Total




Creditor 13 0 13


A large majority of respondents, including all creditors and the CMAs who do not currently act as PDs, agree that AiB should offer a payments distribution service.

Of the seven respondents who disagree only four provided comments to explain their reasons for rejection.

For one, a public sector adviser, there appeared to be a fear they would be held responsible for any perceived failings by the PD:

17

“Payment distributors MUST be allocated to free money adviser cases randomly. We do not know who is best at doing it and could be accused of favouring a certain distributor. The client could also blame us for what they feel is a poor distributor”



Of the other two respondents who explained why they did not agree that AiB should act as PD, one saw it as an additional burden; the other saw a conflict of interest:

Summary

As already noted, AiB manage the ongoing administration of public sector cases in terms of issuing DPP, variation and revocation proposals, relevant decision letters and dealing with creditor and debtor queries (but not those which require money advice). This approach has been welcomed by the money advice sector since it was first introduced in July 2011. Providing the PD function would simply be an extension of this administrative role and would streamline and simplify the DAS process for all stakeholders. It would not affect AiB’s decision-making processes any more than the current PD system does.

Whilst we recognise the concerns expressed in the above quote from a public sector adviser, other respondents have noted the PD function is “on behalf of the debtor”, and that where possible debtor choice should be maximised.

This also tallies with the policy intention of AiB undertaking a PD function. For the avoidance of doubt, AiB would be the PD in public sector cases when proactively nominated, or when no other PD has been nominated. AiB would effectively be the PD of last resort.

As 89% of respondents agreed that AiB should offer a payments distribution service we will take forward recommendations to Ministers for legislation to introduce this change.

Question 1(c): If you answered ‘yes’ to Question 1(b) above, under which circumstances should AiB offer this service?

Response breakdown by options:

18

We do not believe that the AiB should offer a payments distribution service. The AiB already have significant conflicts of interest acting as a service provider, policy advocate, supervisor and management of appeals. We do not believe that it is appropriate for such conflicts of interest to continue and to add further conflicts of interest is inappropriate.”

ICAS


Number %

All public sector/CAB cases 8 14

Where existing PD ceases/is unable to act 7 12

Both 32 55

Other (see summary of comments) 11 19

Almost three-quarters of respondents agree that AiB should offer a payments distributions service, with just over half of the respondents agreeing with the proposals that this should be for all public sector/CAB cases and in all instances where the existing PD ceases or becomes unable to act.

The 11 respondents who chose ‘Other’ did so for a variety of reasons. There were two main, but opposing, points of view:

i) that only AiB should offer a PD service, thus removing any involvement from the private sector in the payments distribution process as this is seen as a way to ensure costs are kept to a minimum:

ii) that AiB should offer a payments distribution service, but clients/money advisers should still have the option to choose another PD:

19

“AiB should be the PD by default for all cases and only where there are appropriate reasons not to do so, should the PD role be taken up by someone other than AiB”

East Kilbride Credit Union

“We see the case for the AiB to perform PD in all cases. This would retain the independence of the scheme, while reinvesting in the sector to ensure that there is a sustainable volume of advisers to deliver the frontline advice”

Money Advice Scotland

“We believe therefore that the AiB should be able to be a PD, but one of many with the debtor having the final say and debtors that go through the local authority, CAB / charity sectors should have the same choice as debtors who do not”


Summary

While we understand the reasons why some respondents believe AiB should act as PD in all cases, this would remove the element of debtor choice and would limit the attractiveness of DAS for advisers in the commercial sector, meaning the current shortfall in availability of DAS approved advisers would continue.

A significant majority believe AiB should offer a payments distribution service, with almost 75% agreeing AiB should be the PD for all public sector/CAB cases. Given the response to this question, AiB will take forward recommendations to Ministers for legislation to empower AiB to exercise the PD function and allow a debtor to nominate their own PD (via their money adviser) where the PD holds the relevant FCA permissions. Where no PD is nominated in a case, AiB will be appointed the PD by default. AiB will also offer the PD function for cases where an existing PD ceases or is unable to act.

4.2 A new fee structure

At present, the maximum fee that may be charged by a PD is 8% of each instalment, inclusive of any applicable VAT. CMAs may also charge for the service provided to their clients and there are no statutory controls over the nature and scale of these fees, some of which may be charged to the debtor in advance, potentially delaying their entry into a debt solution.

The consultation proposed changes to the DAS fee structure, extending the statutory PD fees to cover the full range of services offered by a CMA (by removing all existing CMA fees and instead including initial set up costs, administrative duties and payments distribution services) under one fee. This would allow transparency and clarity in the fee structure for all involved. In the immediate term, there will be no change to the AiB application fee, which will remain at 2%.

AiB will charge the full statutory administration fee for the PD function, if nominated to act as PD, but will only seek to recover its costs, allowing any excess funds realised to be re-invested in the free advice sector. We will shortly issue a further consultation on the mechanics of the reinvestment process.

Question 2(a): In the event of the CMA role being extended to include payments distribution responsibility, at what level should the statutory administration fee be set?

Number %

15% 33 51

20% 13 20

23% 13 20

No answer 6 9

20



15% 20% 23% No Answer

Number Number Number Number Total

Money Adviser 27 6 2 1 36

Continuing Money Adviser 2 0 8 0 10

Payments Distributor and CMA 0 1 2 0 3

Creditor 4 6 1 2 13

Other Organisations 0 0 0 3 3

The majority of money advisers believe the statutory administration fee should be set at 15%. 75% of other organisations believe it should be higher.

Six respondents did not choose a specific percentage and are shown in the table above as having provided ‘No Answer’. This included two of the respondents defined as ‘Other Organisations’. However, all six provided comments for this question. Two of those respondents believe that the fee should be set to cover the actual costs involved, and should perhaps be introduced as a ‘maximum fee’. Another respondent did not support any increase in fees:

One of the ‘Other Organisations’ accepted that CMA fees currently reduce the debtor’s surplus income for the purposes of contribution, thus extending the period of the DPP, but note it does not affect the return to creditors if the DPP ultimately completes successfully.

The other reiterated a view that DAS is effectively an insolvency solution, and the changes would make it even more so. The administration of insolvency solutions, for example, Protected Trust Deeds and Sequestrations, is monitored by RPBs, however, the administration of DAS cases is not. DAS is a voluntary arrangement between a debtor and their creditors, as is a Protected Trust Deed, which often leads to comparisons between the two. AiB disagrees. DAS is not an insolvency solution. A DAS debtor will repay the full amount owed. By contrast, the starting point for a PTD, is that the debtor cannot and will not pay the full amount owed. If the debtor is

21

“There should be economies in amalgamating the roles of CMA and PD… Any increase in fees and consequent reduction in returns to creditors is unwelcome”

HMRC


able to pay the debt in full, the legislation does not allow the trust deed to be protected.

Current DAS fees are less than the amount creditors voluntarily pay from the money recouped from non-statutory repayment plans, under the ‘Fair Share’ method. The proposed amendments to the DAS fees do not go much further than the amounts which creditors already pay voluntarily. Indeed, they are still significantly lower than the fees borne by creditors in insolvency solutions.

Increasing the administrative fees in DAS would shift the financial burden of fees from the debtor to the creditors. The proposed changes will also provide transparency in terms of fees being paid, allowing creditors to make a fully informed decision on DPP proposals. In addition, the proposed return to creditors through DAS will remain significantly higher than the proposed return through other debt solutions such as protected trust deeds. The majority of creditors were in favour of this proposed change.

Creditor representative groups were split on the level of fee to be charged. One was content with an increase to 20%. Another preferred an increase to 15% and compared it to the existing 'Fair Share' model, where creditors pay voluntary contributions to the debt advice provider to cover the cost of debt advice. Published information suggests that these voluntary contributions are typically around 12-15% of the money recouped from repayment plans. However, advice providers have reported that not all creditors pay these contributions, meaning some creditors are effectively cross-subsiding those who will not pay. The model, and the share paid by some creditors, may not therefore be entirely 'fair'.

Although the proposed changes to the DAS fees would see creditors pay a slightly higher amount than they do through 'fair share', the burden would be spread equally among all creditors in a DPP.

Three respondents who already act as CMA and PD believe the fee should be set at 20% or 23%. One noted that they do not currently charge a fee for advice and although they charge the PD fee this does not cover the costs of providing advice to the clients, or for administering the DAS application and ongoing administration of the DPP. This respondent also believes the statutory administration fee should be set as a maximum, to allow different CMAs to determine their own fee subject to their costs.

One money advice organisation highlighted the implications of Local Authorities paying increased fees as a creditor while providing free money advice, saying they may see a net loss:

22

“Inverclyde Council already offers free money advice, including access to the Debt Arrangement Scheme […]. To increase the fee would mean Inverclyde Council would be asked to pay again for a service we are already providing”

Advice Services, Inverclyde Health and Social Care Partnership


Four Councils responded to the consultation as creditors. Two believe that the statutory administration fee should be 20%. None expressed concerns about paying increased fees in DAS.

Six of the creditors who responded to the consultation represented credit unions. One said the fee should be set to cover genuine costs of recovery rather than by a percentage of the debt. Another opted for 23%. The remaining four, including ABCUL, who represent just over half of the 94 credit unions in Scotland, agree with a statutory fee of 20%.

Some CMAs comment that the bulk of work done in relation to a DPP comes at the initial stages of setting it up. They describe a ‘typical’ CMA fee structure of payment of an initial up-front or set-up fee, followed by a smaller monthly fee often based on a percentage of the instalment amount. It was argued that retaining this initial fee need not impact on the creditors, as it is paid from the debtor’s surplus income in the period where the terms of the DPP are agreed. One CMA said some DPPs are never proposed because the debtor does not make payment to the upfront fee, believing this allows them to filter out DPPs which may be unsustainable and which would have ended up being revoked.

Analysis

Although it is perhaps true that upfront fees do not directly affect creditors, they do affect the debtor. The ‘filter’ described is actually a situation where a person (potentially vulnerable) in financial difficulties, is asked to pay to access DAS - a solution which is free to access from other sources. If the debtor fails to pay the up-front fee and is denied access to DAS, they still owe the same amount of debt but have lost any money they may have paid the prospective CMA. They are still in need of debt relief and will have to start looking again at solutions.

During informal discussions, some public sector money advisers explained that in cases where they may be unable to take a client's case themselves they are often unable to signpost the client to a fee-charging CMA as it would be financially unfeasible for the client to pay an advance fee and ongoing CMA fees, in addition to the regular DAS instalment. Some creditors also expressed a similar concern.

23

“we accept the recommendation that this move would remove some of the barriers currently in place for providers wishing to offer DAS, and feel that a 10% increase in creditor contributions would be a reasonable step to achieving this”

ABCUL


The proposed changes to the DAS fee structure would remove these barriers to accessing DAS. A debtor would apply for a DPP through any money adviser without the financial burden of paying extra fees on top of the debt already owed. It would create a level playing field where all debtors could access DAS, if it is the right solution for them, without some having to pay more than others.

The changes are intended to make DAS a financially viable option for more advice organisations, thus opening the gateway for debtor access to the Scheme. And, as the debtor is still repaying their debt in full, it remains a debt management option rather than a debt relief option.

The proposed changes would also give creditors complete transparency over all fees paid in any DPP, and ensure the responsibility for those fees are shared proportionately.

Summary

As shown above, there was a mixed response to this question, including a wide range of comments. 51% of respondents opted for a statutory fee set at 15%. This option was particularly popular with public sector money advisers, 73% of whom agreed with a fee of 15%.

However, 54% of creditors – the sector which will be most affected by any change to the fee structure – agreed the fee should be 20% or more. All of the organisations which currently offer both advice and payments distribution services, and hence have experience of the total costs involved, believe that the fee should be 20% or more.

It is essential that DAS is widely accessible to the people of Scotland in order for it to reach its full potential. To assist in this aim and ensure there is an adequate supply of organisations offering DAS it would seem sensible to introduce provision to make DAS more financially sustainable for these advice organisations by providing a fee structure that will cover the work required in the administration of a DAS DPP. Given the extent of creditor acceptance of fees at a higher level than 15%, AiB will take forward recommendations to Ministers for legislation to set the statutory administration fee for CMAs at 20%.

Question 2(b): If you have answered ‘No’ to Q1(a) “Should the CMA role be extended to include payments distribution responsibility”, should the CMA’s administration-only fee be capped at the agreed administration fee rate detailed at 2(a) above, less 8% (to cover PD costs)?


Yes No Total



24



Creditor 1 0 1


and

Question 2(c): If you answered ‘No’ to 2(b) above, please provide comment below on how you believe this process should operate.

The responses to these two questions are recorded together because the majority of comments in response to Q2(c) were about general principles surrounding CMA fees rather than the specifics of capping them. A number of those comments have already been recorded in this report.

Although only 17 respondents had answered ‘No’ to Q1(a) “Should the CMA role be extended to include payments distribution responsibility”, there were 24 responses to question 2(b):

19 believe the CMA administration-only fee should be capped at the agreed administration fee rate detailed at 2(a) above, less 8% (to cover PD costs)

5 believe that the CMA administration-only fee should not be capped at the agreed administration fee rate detailed at 2(a) above, less 8% (to cover PD costs).

Two respondents also made reference to the fees structure proposed in the UK government’s recent consultation on ‘Breathing Space’, highlighting some differences in approach. However, the suggestions in the ‘Building a Better Debt Arrangement Scheme’ Consultation are based on feedback from stakeholders over the 15 years that DAS has been in existence. We remain supportive of the 'Breathing Space' initiative, and will to continue to work closely with counterparts in

25

“The need to cap the fees charged by CMAs providing an administration-only service is greater if the extension of their role to provide a payments distribution service is optional”

Christians Against Poverty

“Cost is front loaded and a lot of DPPs do not successfully complete, a reasonable set up fee should be permitted”



the UK government to share ideas. That includes building on our learned experiences and making changes to improve DAS even further.

Summary

Given that the majority of respondents answered ‘Yes’ to Q1(a) and Q1(b), AiB will recommend to Ministers that the CMA role should be extended to include payments distribution responsibility, and that AiB should offer a payments distribution service. All comments, including those in respect of the UK Government’s consultation on breathing space, have been noted and will help inform future amendments to DAS.

We have taken note of CMA comments that the work done on a DAS DPP is “front loaded”. However some of the work they describe, such as checking balances, can be done through the current case management system (DASH) and we expect this process will be even more streamlined on the new system, eDEN, which will be available from July 2019.

From AiB’s perspective, many variations early in a DPP are due to errors in the debtor’s income and expenditure (I&E), including payment frequency. Some are due to incorrect balances, as they were not confirmed in accordance with the guidance. However, AiB already has a number of operational processes in place to amend balances at the decision stage wherever possible, and this reduces the number of variations which money advisers have to submit for this purpose.

The extent of variations and requirements for annual reviews including full I&E mean costs should be spread over the life of the Programme, if done properly.

4.3 Reducing bureaucracy – automatic approvals for DPPs

As noted in the consultation document, at present, a DPP can only be automatically approved where there is 100% consent from creditors. This means that in cases where even one creditor with fewer than 1% of the debt in the DPP objects to the proposal, the application must be passed to a decision-maker for a formal adjudication under the ‘fair and reasonable test'.

Feedback to AiB indicates this is perceived by most parties as creating additional bureaucracy with little benefit to the creditors and debtor. It slows down the approval process – meaning creditors have to wait longer for their money and debtors have to wait longer to pay off their debts. The DAS team currently approve over 94% of applications at the fair and reasonable test, hence objections from a very small percentage of creditors are unlikely to see the DPP rejected except in circumstances so extreme that other creditors would have been expected to have objected as well.

The consultation put forward the suggestion that DPP proposals should be approved automatically if the debt due to objecting creditors is less than a specified percentage of the total debt.

Question 3(a): Do you agree that automatic approval should be introduced for cases where the debt due to objecting creditors is less than a specified percentage of the total DPP debt?

26


Number

%

Yes 64 98

No 1 2

The sole creditor who disagreed with this proposal did not provide a comment on their reasons for doing so.

Some respondents who agree with the proposal identified possible concerns for smaller creditors, but saw less harm to the smaller creditors’ interests when weighed up against other options.

Summary

Given that the significant majority agree with this change, AiB will take forward recommendations to Ministers that automatic approval should be introduced for cases where the debt due to objecting creditors is less than a specified percentage of the total DPP debt.

Question 3(b): If you have answered ‘Yes’ to Q3(a) above, what proportion of total debt owed to non-consenting creditors should trigger the requirement for a fair and reasonable test to be conducted?

27

“automatic approvals for DPPs will be of concern to smaller creditors in a DPP who will lose the power to object if the greater creditor body accepts the DPP proposal. However… the same smaller creditor would not be able to stop a protected trust deed being granted if the majority of creditors acceded. Of the two options, the DPP provides a much better return”

Citizens Advice Scotland

“The introduction of a majority consensus of creditors would avoid the incidence of a small number of low value objections from generating unnecessary reviews under the fair and reasonable test and delaying the customer from entering and commencing repayments under their plan. We believe that this pragmatic approach would provide improved efficiency and reduced costs in the operation of the scheme”

UK Finance


Although 98% of respondents agree DPPs should be automatically approved unless a specific percentage of creditors have objected, there is no clear consensus on the level of creditor objection which would prevent a case being approved automatically.

Below is a table highlighting the preferred option of the 64 respondents who agreed with the underlying principle of automatic approvals, and the percentage of creditor objections they believe should be received to trigger the requirement for a fair and reasonable test (F & R Test):

Number %

5% 3 5

10% 10 15

15% 24 37

Other 26 40

No Answer 2 3


5% 10% 15% Other (see below)

No Answer

Total

Money Adviser 2 3 14 16 1 36

Continuing Money Adviser 0 0 3 7 0 10

Payments Distributor and CMA 0 1 0 2 0 3

Creditor 1 4 6 1 1 13

Other Organisations 0 2 1 0 0 3

Total 3 10 24 26 2 65

There was no clear preference for the percentage of non-consent which should trigger the Fair and Reasonable Test. Some two-fifths of respondents (those who chose ‘Other’) believed that the trigger point should be 20% or more. The table below show the range of suggested percentages, broken down by stakeholder group:

20% 25% 30% 33% 40% 51% Match PTDs

Money Adviser 1 2 6 1 1 1 4

28


Continuing Money Adviser - 3 - 1 - - 3Payments Distributor and CMA - - - 2 - - -Creditor - - - 1 - - -Total 1 5 6 5 1 1 7

DAS approves over 94% of cases at the F&R test stage. An analysis of cases in the last quarter showed that for 38% of those cases approved at F&R, the rejecting creditors had less than 10% of the debt. Of the 15 cases which have been rejected since December 2018 only two would have been approved automatically if the trigger for the F&R Test had been rejection by creditors owed 10% or more of the debt.

Summary

There is broad support for the introduction of some level of automatic approval where a minority of creditors vote against the DPP proposal. 93% of respondents agree that a fair and reasonable test should only be triggered if the non-consenting creditors are owed 10% or more of the total debt, and of these, 78% of respondents (including more than half of those creditors who responded) agree that a fair and reasonable test should only be triggered if the non-consenting creditors are owed 15% or more of the total debt.

This is a fundamental change in the nature of DAS, and it is important that we carry as many stakeholders with us as possible. Some of those respondents who supported 10% – such as R3 and UK Finance – represent large numbers of individual organisations with an important role in the DAS process. We therefore propose to put recommendations to Ministers to approve a DPP automatically if the proportion of total debt held by dissenting creditors is less than 10%. We recognise there is already wide support for going further, and as with all the proposed changes, this will be reviewed and adjusted in the light of experience.

4.4 Reducing bureaucracy – automatic approval for variations

The current average duration of a DAS DPP is 7 years. During the repayment period, a debtor’s circumstances are likely to change. Whilst the current variation process has been improved over the years, the consultation sought views on further potential changes aimed at reducing bureaucracy and optimising creditors returns in the longer term by improving the sustainability of DPPs.

The consultation document summarised the areas where the variation process could be further streamlined, and proposed the following potential changes:

where creditors do not respond to a variation proposal within a specified timescale they will be deemed to have consented. This would align the variation process with the initial DPP approval process

29


where a variation proposal will lead to a reduction in the duration of a DPP, it should be approved automatically by the DAS Administrator

where a money adviser is unable to submit a variation application on behalf of a debtor, and the variation will result in a positive outcome for the DPP, AiB should have the power to submit the variation proposals on behalf of the debtor. This would be done with the debtor’s consent.

Question 3(c): Do you agree that deemed creditor consent should be introduced for variations?

Number

%

Yes 63 97

No 2 3


Yes No TotalMoney Adviser 35 1 36Continuing Money Adviser 10 0 10Payments Distributor and CMA 3 0 3Creditor 12 1 13Other Organisations 3 0 3

Two respondents did not agree deemed creditor consent should be introduced for variations, but did not explain why.

The majority of respondents (97%) agree deemed creditor consent should be introduced for variations.

30

“Align the variation process with the initial DPP approval process, where creditors are deemed to have consented to a proposal should they fail to respond within a specified timescale”

Ross and Cromarty CAB

“Deemed creditor consent is important in order to enable creditors to manage individual debts and the overall debt due to them”

The Highland Council (Creditor)


Summary

Given that the significant majority agree with this change, AiB will take forward recommendations to Ministers that deemed creditor consent should be introduced for variations.

Question 3(d): Where variation proposals will lead to a reduction in the duration of the DPP, do you agree these should be approved automatically by the DAS Administrator?

Number

%

Yes 63 97

No 2 3



97% of respondents agree that variations which reduce the term of the DPP should be approved automatically. Two respondents disagreed:

Some of the 97% of respondents in favour of automatic approval of this type of variation noted the importance of ensuring that all parties were made aware of the changes. This is already part of the current process for approving variations and there is no proposal to change this. The new eDEN case management system will also improve and streamline the way such changes are notified to all parties in a DPP.

31

“Whilst in principle, the reduction of the duration of a DPP is beneficial for creditors, the underlying reasons for the change should be understood… the details of the variation application are made available to creditors, who would be able to review and question the variation”

UK Finance

“Q3(d) - … this makes perfect sense. The commitment to notify creditors, clients, and money advisers of any changes via the new eDEN system is also welcome.”

Money Advice Scotland


Summary

The two rejections appear to be due to a misunderstanding of the proposal being made and the processes already in place to scrutinise variation applications.

For example, many variations which reduce the term of a DPP are due to individual debt balances being adjusted because they were wrongly assessed at the start of the Programme, or have changed due to creditor decisions for example. The evidence to support these changes is scrutinised by AiB staff before the variation proposal is issued.

Where the reduction in the term of the DPP is due to an increase in the instalment amount, this is based on the money adviser’s scrutiny and assessment of the debtor’s financial circumstances.

Given that the significant majority agree with this change, AiB will take forward recommendations to Ministers that variation proposals which will lead to a reduction in the duration of the DPP should be approved automatically by the DAS Administrator.

Question 3(e): Should AiB be able to submit variations on behalf of the debtor in the circumstances outlined above?

Number

%

Yes 59 91

No 6 9

91% of respondents agree AiB should be able to submit variations which reduce the term of the DPP, in exceptional circumstances, if the money adviser is unavailable to do this.



32


Those who did not agree with this proposal believed any variation to a DPP should be agreed by the debtor following advice from a money adviser. Some also expressed a view that it was not appropriate for AiB, given its role as the DAS Administrator and as a Government Agency, to be taking decisions on behalf of a debtor:

For the avoidance of doubt, the policy intention behind this suggestion is that any variations submitted by AiB would be for purely administrative purposes – such as removing a debt which has been cleared – and would not involve any variation based on a change in the debtor’s financial circumstances.

The majority of respondents agree AiB should be able to submit variations which reduce the term of the DPP.

Summary

Given that the significant majority agree with this change, and the objections appear to be based on a misunderstanding of the proposal being made, AiB will take forward recommendations to Ministers that AiB should be able to submit variations on behalf of the debtor in specific circumstances, if the money adviser is unavailable to do this and where the variation will reduce the term of the DPP.

4.5 Increasing flexibility

The consultation sought views on the potential introduction of a new type of variation to address situations where debtors experience a short-term financial crisis.

33

“In view of their role as the DAS Administrator, AIB should avoid straying into what could be an advice giving role”

KPMG

“This sounds reasonable and time efficient as well as being of benefit to creditors”

Johnston Carmichael

“The AiB already has the power to submit variations in a way because the debtor can ask them to do it. Where a debt is being reduced or removed [AiB] should do this automatically without needing prior approval from the debtor”



We proposed that money advisers would be responsible for approving these short-term crisis payment breaks [‘short-term breaks’], as they are best-placed to appraise their client’s circumstances. There would be no requirement to seek creditor assent. However, creditors would be notified, through eDEN (the new DAS case management hub), of any such breaks.

We suggested the number of these breaks would be limited on a rolling-year basis and that a single break will last no longer than the equivalent of one month’s payment(s).

By adopting this new approach, money advisers will be afforded time to consider whether any further support or changes are needed to assist their client and ensure the DPP remains sustainable.

This proposal will allow short-term crisis periods to be tackled without the need to invoke bureaucratic process, saving time for money advisers and creditors. It is highly likely that the “missed month” would simply be added onto the end of the current DPP.

Question 4(a): Should short-term crisis payment breaks be introduced to address periods of crisis?

Number

%

Yes 65 100

No 0 -

All respondents agree that short-term breaks should be introduced to address periods of crisis.

Summary

Given the unanimous agreement to this proposed change, AiB will take forward recommendations to Ministers that short-term crisis payment breaks be introduced to address periods of crisis.

Question 4(b): If you have answered “yes” to question 4(a) above, do you agree money advisers should be responsible for authorising the proposed short-term crisis payment breaks without having to consult creditors?

Number

%

34


Yes 61 94

No 4 6

94% of respondents agree that money advisers should be responsible for authorising the proposed short-term breaks without having to consult creditors.



Those who did not agree that money advisers should be responsible for authorising these breaks expressed concerns about this being a burden on the advice sector:

The majority of respondents believe that it would be appropriate for money advisers to be responsible for authorising these breaks:

35

“I agree short-term crisis payments [break] should be approved without the need to consult creditors. However … I believe the debtor should approach the AiB or their payment distributor to request a short term crises payment [break] to reduce the onus and workload on money and debt advisers particularly in the free advice sector”

Shelter Scotland

“ To provide the intended relief, the proposed short-term payment breaks need to be put in place quickly. As such, it is reasonable for money advisers to be responsible for authorising these breaks, especially as the missed payments are added to the end of the DPP and there is no overall loss to the creditors”


“Money Advisers also have the knowledge, skills and experience to assess and decide whether a short-term crisis payment break is appropriate. The Highland Council fully supports this recommendation as such action is more likely to result in individual arrangements succeeding to completion rather than failing as a result of crisis”

The Highland Council


Summary

A number of the changes proposed in the consultation document are underpinned by the recognition that the relationship between the debtor and the money adviser throughout the life of the DPP is critical. In recognition of this key relationship and taking the views of the advice community into account, we believe the money adviser is best-placed to assume responsibility for authorising these payment breaks.

Given that the significant majority agree with the introduction of short-term crisis payment breaks, AiB will take forward recommendations to Ministers that money advisers should be responsible for authorising these breaks without having to consult creditors.

Question 4(c): How many short-term crisis payment breaks should be available per rolling-year?

Number %

One 23 35

Two 27 42

Three 13 20

No answer 2 3


One Two Three No Answer

Total

Money Adviser 10 16 10 0 36

Continuing Money Adviser 5 3 0 2 10

Payments Distributor and CMA 0 2 1 0 3

Creditor 7 5 1 0 13

Other Organisations 1 1 1 0 3

36


The majority of respondents said there should be no more than two short-term breaks per rolling year. There was a slight preference for a maximum of two breaks. A number of respondents noted how individuals may have more than one crisis, or that a single month may not be enough time to address the crisis. Some also suggested that consideration be given to money advisers being able to apply the short-term break retrospectively. They highlighted the fact that debtors may not always be able to apply for a short-term break in advance, due to adviser appointment waiting periods and given the nature of some crises.

A number of respondents asked how a ‘crisis’ would be defined, and what evidence would be required. AiB will work with stakeholders to develop suitable guidance on these areas.

Overall, the response to this section of the consultation can be summed up by this quote:

Summary

Given that all respondents agree with the introduction of short-term payment breaks to address periods of crisis, AiB will take forward recommendations to Ministers to this effect. The recommendations will also reflect the majority of respondents believing money advisers should be responsible for authorising such breaks. Finally, taking account of the comments made about the number of breaks in each rolling year, AiB will recommend that there should be no more than two breaks, each lasting one month. This can be comprised of two separate months or two consecutive

37

“It is realistic to accept that debtors could face more than one reasonable need for a short-term payment break per rolling-year”


“2 separate months per rolling year or 2 consecutive months per rolling year as a crisis may last 2 months”

North Lanarkshire Council Money Advice Practitioners Group

“We would definitely support these proposals which appear to be very sensible and helpful for clients”

Money Advice Trust


months in any rolling-year period, and applications may be submitted retrospectively, as long as the application is made before the next payment is due.

5. Next Steps

As noted in the individual summaries for each question in the Consultation Response Results Section we have carefully considered all points made by stakeholders in their responses to the consultation on building a better Debt Arrangement Scheme, particularly in those areas where there was no clear majority or consensus, and this will be reflected in the proposals put forward to the Minister.

AiB is committed to ensuring that our statutory debt management and debt relief mechanisms are as effective as possible. In addition to the work being done to improve access to DAS we have recently published a consultation on Protected Trust Deeds (PTDs) and would encourage all stakeholders to all respond to that consultation.

38

https://consult.gov.scot/accountant-in-bankruptcy/proposals-for-changes-to-protected-trust-deeds/


Annex A

As part of the consultation, all respondents were asked to indicate using the appropriate tick box whether they wished their full or partial details to be made available to the public. Respondents who either chose for their details to remain private or whether no tick box was marked to indicate choice of disclosure have been recorded as either ‘Private Individual’ or Private Organisation’. Below is a list of all respondents to the consultation who have given their permission for their names to be shown.

No Respondent Name1 Private Individual2 Kenny Bowie3 West Lothian Council Advice Shop4 Citizens Advice & Rights Fife5 Citizens Advice & Rights Fife6 Citizens Advice & Rights Fife7 Citizens Advice & Rights Fife8 Kelly Swan9 Moray Council - Financial Inclusion Service10 Anna McLeod11 Hacking and Paterson Management Services12 Private Individual13 Private Individual14 George Lochrie15 Private Individual16 Falkirk Council Debt Advice Team17 West Dunbartonshire Council, Working 4 U Money18 City of Edinburgh Council Advice Shop19 East Kilbride Credit Union20 Ross and Cromarty Citizens Advice Bureau21 Carrington Dean22 Private Individual23 Stirling Council Advice Services24 North Lanarkshire Council Money Advice Practitioners Group25 Private Individual26 Private Individual27 Angus Council - Revenues Service28 Dumfries & Galloway Citizens Advice Service29 Aberdeenshire Council30 Scotwest Credit Union Limited31 Jamie Lester32 Private Organisation33 Christians Against Poverty34 Citizens Advice Bureau West Lothian35 PayPlan36 Johnston Carmichael LLP37 Murray Stewart Fraser Limited38 Private Individual

39


39 Private Individual40 Private Individual41 Private Individual42 Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS)43 The Highland Council44 Private Individual45 KPMG LLP46 Private Organisation47 South Lanarkshire Council - Money Matters Advice Service48 North Ayrshire Council - Welfare Reform Advice Team49 Private Individual50 Association of British Credit Unions Limited (ABCUL)51 StepChange Debt Charity52 Citizens Advice Scotland53 Capital Credit Union54 HM Revenue and Customs55 Private Organisation56 Private Organisation57 Money Advice Scotland58 Private Organisation59 Private Individual60 Private Individual61 Stephen Hearns62 UK Finance63 R3, Association of Business Recovery Professionals64 Advice Services, Inverclyde Health and Social Care Partnership65 Money Advice Trust

40


Annex B

Fee Charging CMAs who generated more than 10 cases in 2018:

Fee Charging CMA Organisation No. of DAS DPPs by year Total DPPs 2015 - 20182015 2016 2017 2018

Begbies Traynor Central LLP 41 71 50 44 206Campbell Dallas (Debt Solutions) Ltd. 28 35 53 51 167Carrington Dean Group Limited 156 136 92 223 607Gregory Pennington (Wilson Andrews) 45 28 45 74 192KPMG LLP 28 63 99 144 334Murray Stewart Fraser Limited 1 2 40 88 131Thomson Cooper 21 13 11 14 59Total 2656

Non-fee charging MAs/CMAs who generated more than 10 cases in 2018:

Non-Fee Charging MA/CMA Organisation

Number of DAS DPPs by year Total DPPs 2015 - 20182015 2016 2017 2018

Aberdeen City Council 9 10 9 14 42Advice Works (Renfrewshire Council) 1 1 3 13 18Citizens Advice & Rights Fife 119 132 101 101 453Dumfries & Galloway CAS 36 23 20 40 119East Renfrewshire Council 11 10 6 15 42FALKIRK CAB 19 14 24 10 67Gordon Rural Action 9 14 19 17 59Hamilton CAB 26 28 32 34 120Money Matters 23 15 29 25 92Motherwell & Wishaw CAB 17 10 8 10 45North Lanarkshire Council 54 51 70 94 269Perth CAB 8 15 22 36 81Renfrewshire Citizens Advice Bureau 5 15 11 18 49South Lanarkshire Council - Money Matters Advice Service

64 66 48 42 220

StepChange Debt Charity Scotland 321 733 1154 1124 3332The Moray Council 33 50 26 35 144West Dunbartonshire CAB 11 15 10 15 51West Lothian Council 10 21 15 18 64Total 3679

41

Documents

Accountant in Bankruptcy | Scotland's Insolvency …€¦ · Web viewSince DAS first came into force in late 2004, there has been a consistent view that one of the greatest constraints