Thanks TDA much appreciated.... I did some digging and have found the actual AIB letter to trustees dated 8th August 13 (freely available on the AIB website), regarding debtors expenditure and its relevance, it is pretty clear in its wording and seems to suggest that the Accountant may refuse to protect the deed if the rules are not followed! As this is a very recent guidance note and given its content I assume that future TDs will need to be prepared and submitted in a different manner moving forward ? (I hope it is acceptable for me to show the wording below, if not I am happy to remove it). Cheers.

The key statement is :

" 1. Statement of the debtor's affairs.

The Accountant in Bankruptcy (the Accountant) has become aware of a number of trustees
who are presenting trust deeds for protection, where the trustee has prepared and presented
a debtor's statement of affairs which is based on the joint: assets; liabilities; income and expenditure, of the debtor and their partner.

Regulation 8 (c) of The Protected Trust Deeds (Scotland) Regulations 2008, as amended (the Regs), clearly states that it is a statement of ÔÇ£the debtor's affairsÔÇØ which is to be prepared and
ÔÇ£a list of the debtor's assets and liabilitiesÔÇØ and ÔÇ£income and expenditureÔÇØ is to be presented to creditors.

Sections 2.1 and 3.2 of the Accountant's, PTD Notes for Guidance clearly state that a trust deed may only be granted for a single estate and creditors are to be provided with information about only the debtor's estate. "

P.S. I am not suggesting all trustees are submitting incorrect TDs!! No offence intended ! [:)]

I guess as its guidance rather than specific rules the method of implementation will to some extent depend upon the judgment of an individual trustee. This kind of decision without specific rules to follow is probably why insolvency practitioners all drive nicer cars than we do!

So... a statement of affairs must include only the debtors expenditure information. But there's nothing there determining the method by which the trustee arrives at the debtors share of joint household bills?

In which case apportioning according to income, prior to producing the debtors statement of affairs, may remain perfectly acceptable?

Indeed TDA , I agree there has to be a figure of what the Debtor is paying towards the household bills, and this would appear in the Statement of the Debtor's Affairs presented to the AIB, so I guess we are back to square one as to how this is acertained in reality lol!

I apreciate that the Trustee has to act in the best interests of the creditors also to achieve the best dividend realistically possible, whilst making it affordable to the debtor and the household - a circle that is sometimes difficult to square I'm sure !

In cases where the couple have been together for some time and and "are in it together" then maybe things are simpler?...for those who have partners yet to meet or join the household it may be somewhat more complex....all good fun !! Of course in the good old days the gentleman paid for everything !!![:D]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Buz

..
Of course in the good old days the gentleman paid for everything !!![:D]

---

Which would mean that the gentleman's partner had no expenses. Leading to a huge disposable income. Easily converted to a massive TD payment. Part-funded by 'the gentleman'.

Call me old-fashioned, but that seems unfair on the gentleman and the gentleman's creditors.

Although it's very advantageous to the partner's creditors. And the partner's trustee.

I think the problem is that its so unspecific. In effect we will now be altering statement of affairs based on our perception of what's required, whereas DAS, DMP etc will continue as normal.

My biggest concern is that you propose a trust deed, the inc/exp is agreed by all creditors and the AIB advise they won't register it protected as it doesn't fit with their criteria. Watch this space!

Mark

Hi Mark.

Isn't it just a case of presenting the same statement of affairs outcome in a slightly different format?

Hi TDA

Yes, but how do benefits show on the new income and expenditure. If they are included are the all allocated in a single line to the child/children or spread over food, clothing etc.

My concern is that they are replacing vague guidance with specific guidance, but then then throw in some more vague stuff. Recent correspondence advised me in terms of PTD regs, the submission for protection required to be within 4 weeks ( which is nonsense) when challenged I was then advised it was the notes for guidance which states this. In theory then their guidance will trump legislation!

Mark

Looks like we're getting back to my earlier "nicer cars than us" comment Mark!

Good luck figuring it all out!!

There is no right or wrong answer to any of this I feel. Relationships are complicated enough, but throw in finances and it becomes a minefield.

Consider the very common scenario where one partner is working and the other stays at home to care for children, maybe working part-time. Splitting household bills 50-50 is completely unworkable. If the in-work partner is made bankrupt and their contribution calculated on a 50-50 split then the family is consigned to destitution.

The important point to note is that it is not that the housewife/househusband does not contribute as much to the household, it is that they contribute in a different but equally important way. They enable the other partner to go out and work full-time without incurring huge childcare bills. It could be argued that in a very real sense both partners are earning the wage between them, even though only one name is on the payslip.

To separate the finances of two partners fairly is a very difficult task, especially where there are children involved. It may well be impossible to do so without prejudicing the interests of one side or another, or both. It is up to fair-minded Insolvency Practitioners to use their discretion appropriately. I think the new guidance is probably a good thing. It might help to restrict bad practice to some extent but the element of vagueness does still allow a bit of room for interpretation which is needed to ensure fairness depending upon the particular circumstances of the case.

Thanks for all the comments,discussion and advices on this, very interesting and helpful, much appreciated. [:)]