They were certainly talking about both insolvency procedures becoming 4 years as standard.

I think the majority of these proposals are generally accepted by all stakeholders. However, the proposal which surprised me when I first heard it was that regarding acquirenda.

What they are suggesting is that if someone receives a windfall (eg inheritance/lottery win etc) after year 1 of a trust deed then those funds will not have to be paid across to the trust deed for the benefit of creditors. Surely creditors must be kicking up a huge fuss about this?! It seems to run contrary to what a trust deed is all about.

It also strikes me that in this situation the creditors' interests would instead be best served by petitioning for sequestration instead. Given that the trustees job is meant to be protecting creditors' interests, will they not feel obliged to do so - rendering the change in legislation completely counter-productive?

I find it interesting that a trustee in a Trust Deed has a requirement to show that it is the best option despite no such requirement for DAS or Sequestration. One of which is generally viewed as more severe than a Trust Deed.

Really suprised about the acquirenda, doesn't make sense to me that someone could win the lotto and not be required to pay back debts in full using the money.

For Deeds and sequestrations already in process, will 3 years stand unless extensions are relevant for change in circs or non-compliance?

Hi RBSB

Yes, any changes will only apply to TD's or Sequestrations which happen after the law comes into force, probably around November 2013.

Mark

Very interesting. Especially the acquirenda amendment.

It's also an interesting point re any pre appointment outlays or fees being excluded.

So if a trustee instructs a valuation in line with the provision on equity being frozen on day one & pays for the valuation, then this becomes a claim in the trust deed. The trustee then sends himself a claim with supporting documentation and later adjudicates on his own claim!!

Mmmmm!

Mark

Jesus!

There were a few interesting comments at the meeting and one concern was that people approaching third party companies or indeed companies approaching individuals for advice will probably go back to the bad old day, keep them in a Debt Management Plan for 3-4 months and then advise them a Trust Deed may be the best option!

Mark

It makes for interesting reading and various points especially equity being frozen on day one is good news.

As for showing the Trust Deed as the ÔÇ£bestÔÇØ option, I thought as advisors it's our job to outline the possible solutions, pros v cons and then allow the client to decide. A lot of clients fall into the category of being suitable for all three options, Trust Deed, DAS and Sequestration. It's clients individual preference and choice that leads them to pick what they feel is the best option for them.

It is a concern as you say Mark about people speaking with a third party, being put on a DMP and after some time being passed for a Trust Deed. Hopefully with the way people are able to access the available information now on debt solutions the amount of people this happens to won't be anywhere near as much as it was in the past!

It will be interesting to see what changes come into force.

I'm not sure if it's related or not, but we've recently received correspondence from TIX who act for Lloyds outlining the maximum fees allowable for a Trust Deed over a 3,4 & 5 year period. Anything over the stated figures will be challenged.

I wonder if this is setting the rules re the restricted fees in the future.

Mark

We're attending a 'Call for Evidence' meeting on 23rd August following an announcement by The Economy, Energy & Tourism committee re the proposed changes. The Committee issued a call for evidence on 24 June 2013 to discuss the propsed changed & to take evidence in October and November and to report to the Parliament in December 2013.

I wonder then if any changes will be delayed till next year.

Mark