WIXLIB

restriction extending the conditions of the DRO. This includes requiringcreditors to be informed of the DRO when obtaining credit of 500 or more, andpreventing the person acting as a company director during the restrictionwithout the court’s permission.3Pension Change2.18 When first introduced DROs were criticised for treating pensions as an asset,even when the pension was of low value and not receivable for many years,with the consequence that some people who would otherwise have qualifiedfound themselves unable to apply for a DRO because they had pension rights.2.19 This was changed in April 2011 in order to allow those with HMRC approvedpension schemes to have access to a DRO. In practice this means that if thedebtor has not retired, but has a private or occupational pension fund, in mostcases the value of the pension fund will not count towards the 300 assets limit.Social Fund Change2.20 In 2012, the Government legislated to exclude social fund debt from the list ofdebts that could be included and discharged through either a DRO orbankruptcy. Social fund loans – and its successor ‘Payment on Accounts’ - wasa finite pot of money which is loaned to people in financial difficulty. Writing offthe debt would reduce the amount available to other people in difficulty, andtherefore it was decided due to social policy concerns to add social fund loansto the existing list of government debts that could not be discharged.Basic Statistics on DROs2.21 Table 2 shows the number of DRO applications, the number of orders madeand the number of applications declined each financial year since DROs beganin 2009.4 Having stabilised around 30,000 per year in 11/12 and 12/13 – theyexperienced a 12% fall in orders made in 2013/14. Orders made were 98% ofapplications submitted in FY 2013/14.3If the DRO mortarium has ended then a debtor needs to disclose the existence of a DRRO/U.4Numbers do not tally as some applications are withdrawn before they reach determination by the DRO Team.For instance the fee may not have been paid or simply because the debtor has withdrawn their application.7

Table 2: DRO applications, orders and declined casesYearApplicationsOrders 83050126876178174170131962.22 Table 3 shows the level of debt across DRO applications since inception – thelimit being 15,000. This shows that consistently around 20% of casesassessed had debts below 5,000, whilst just over 40% of individuals had debtlevels between 5,000 and 10,000, whilst just under 40% had debt levelsbetween 10,000 and 15,000.5Table 3: Levels of DebtBelow 5,0002009-102010-112011-122012-132013-143230 (18%)5453 (21%)6247 (21%)6640 (22%)5541 (21%) 5,000 10,000 10,000 15,0007511 (42%)11373 (43%)12813 (42%)12930 (42%)11377 (42%)6966 (39%)9674 (37%)11232 (37%)11062 (36%)10053 (37%)GRANDTOTAL17707265003029230632269712.23 Table 4 shows the level of assets across DRO applications since inception –the limit being 300 for qualifying assets. This shows just under 90% have 0qualifying assets.5The numbers shown are slightly above the orders made, meaning that some cases where orders were notmade have also been assessed.8

Table 4: Level of Assets 02009-102010-112011-122012-132013-14 1- 10015197 (86%)23311 (88%)26932 (89%)27512 (90%)24018 (89%) 101- 2002169 (12%)2699 (10%)2812 (9%)2602 (8%)2305 (9%) 201- 300240 (1%)363 (1%)353 (1%)297 (1%)421 (2%)Grand Total116 (1%)143 (1%)210 (1%)263 (1%)311 (1%)17722265163030730674270552.24 Table 5 gives the breakdown level of disposable income across DROapplications – the limit being 50 per month to gain entry. Around 20% ofindividuals have negative surplus income – their expenditure is greater thantheir income, whilst between 11-15% have a surplus income of between 26 50.Table 5: Level of Disposable Income 02009-102010-112011-122012-132013-143451 (19%)5295 (20%)6370 (21%)6605 (22%)5433 (20%) 0- 2511661 (66%)17901 (67%)20556 (68%)20769 (68%)18592 (69%) 26- 50 Grand Total2613 (15%)3331 (13%)3389 (11%)3303 (11%)3037 (11%)17725265273031530677270622.25 Next turn to look at DROs from the creditors’ angle.2.26 Table 6 shows the average size of a debt owed to a creditor in a DRO. This hasdeclined from around 1,400 in 2009/10 to just above 1,100 in 2013/14.Table 6: Average level of debt per creditor in a DROFY2009/102010/112011/122012/132013/14Average Debt per creditor 1,3821,2711,2041,1621,1372.27 Table 7 looks at the amount owed to creditors for the financial year 2013/14.Over 54% ( 125million) is recorded as miscellaneous. This includes debtsowed to mobile phone companies, retailers and debt recovery firms. Theproportions may not be wholly accurate as the “Miscellaneous” category maybe overstated. Of the other categories, 29.4% is owed to banks, 8.8% to utility9

companies and 5.7% to local authorities although these are likely to beunderstatements given the mis-categorisation.Table 7: Amount and proportion of debt owed to different categories ofcreditors within DROs for the FY 2013/14Sum of Estimated AmountBK - BanksBS - Building SocietiesFI - Other Financial InstitutionsGO - Government DepartmentsLA - Local AuthoritiesLD - LandlordsMI - MiscellaneousPL - Private LendersUT - Public Utility CompaniesOtherGrand TotalProportion 67,846,256 1,143,490 1,875,571 39,033 13,149,951 22,567 124,615,195 1,807,755 20,360,086 30,883 00.0%2.28 Table 8 looks at the employment status of DRO users since inception.Unemployed is the largest category at around 50%. Those employed has risenfrom 19% in 2009/2010 to 28% in 2013/14, whilst the number self-employedremains small at around 2% - 669 individuals. Meanwhile housewife/husband(including caring for dependents) and retired account for around 10% eachrespectively.Table 8: Employment status of DRO usersYearHousewife/husband EmployedOtherincl; caring 012/132013/142RetiredSelfEmployed 12,87326,9410%28%8%5%8%2%1%48%100%10

2.29 The remainder of this chapter splits the call for evidence into three parts tofocus on the questions we believe need to be assessed in evaluating thesuccess of the DRO system and what future changes may be needed. Theseare: Access to the DRO procedure Design and integrity of the DRO system Impact on financial rehabilitationAccess to the DRO procedureEntry Parameters2.30 The entry parameters have been unchanged since DROs were introduced inApril 2009.2.31 The debt limit in DROs was designed to limit the scheme to those with lowlevels of unsecured debt rather than allowing debtors to discharge ‘excessive’sums. Those with mortgaged property were excluded by the asset limit being agross value, not a net value.2.32 If you applied an inflationary change since introduction, this would lead to thefollowing levels for April 2014 shown in Table 9. For this we use two measuresof inflation - the consumer price index and the gross domestic product (GDP)deflator.62.33 The limits were first proposed in a consultation in March 2005, so the table alsolooks at inflationary changes applied from this date. It can be argued that thismore accurately reflects the impact of inflation.Table 9: Inflation adjusted limit values for April 2014Inflation AdjustmentCurrent LimitsGDP deflator (2009)CPI (2009)GDP deflator (2005)CPI (2005)6AssetLimitDebt Limit 15,000 16,200 17,100 18,100 18,900 300 325 340 360 380GDP deflator is used for measuring national income in real terms.11Disposable incomesurplus limit 50 54 57 60 63

2.34 Scotland has recently received Royal Assent (April 2014) for a Bill whichincludes a proposal for a Minimal Assets Process (MAP) which replaces theprevious Low Income Low Asset route into bankruptcy. This is a similar productto the DRO product aimed at those with low levels of debt but who are unableto pay their debts. This is due to come into effect on 1 April 2015.MAP has the following features: Debt Limit – Minimum 1,500 – Maximum 17,000 Asset Limit - 2,000 (for relevant assets - no single asset 1,000) Entry fee – 90 Discharge – Six month discharge from debts albeit with a post-bankruptcyrestriction on credit for a further six months7 after their discharge with anoption to extend this restriction for a further six months Entry restriction – Once in 10 years (compared to 5 years for bankruptcy) Income restriction – 0 disposable income or income entirely from benefits.2.35 The maximum debt limit of 17,000 came out of discussions between theAccountant in Bankruptcy and Citizens Advice (CAB) and StepChange as itrepresented the average debt level of debt advisors’ clients, with a lower figurebeing seen as excluding too many debtors from applying.2.36 Table 10 looks at the impact raising the debt limit in isolation might have on thenumber of people using bankruptcy if they were to switch to a DRO.7A person seeking 2,000 of credit is obliged to tell the creditor about the post-bankruptcy restriction. In caseswhere 1,000 credit has already been obtained there is an obligation to tell the creditor of that existing debt.12

Table 10: Estimated value of debts held in bankruptcy cases in FY 2013/14Estimated ValueRange 0 - 15000 15001 - 16000 16001 - 17000 17001 - 18000 18001 - 19000 19001 - 20000 20001 - 22500 22501 - 25000 25001 - 27500 27501 - 30000 30001 BlankGRAND TOTALNumber in rangeProportion (nonblank 787%1%2%2%2%2%5%4%4%3%69%100%2.37 This shows that of the 23,529 bankruptcy cases in which we had data on thelevel of debt8, 1,534 could qualify for the DRO route based solely on the level ofdebt (but they might of course not meet the other criteria). Beyond the 15,000debt level and up to 30,000 the table then breaks down the additional numberof cases in each debt range. If the ceiling was raised to 20,000 an additional9% of bankruptcies would qualify for a DRO on this basis; 25,000 anadditional 18% of bankruptcies; and 30,000 would lead to 25% qualifying.2.38 A similar exercise has been carried out for the asset limit:8There were 23,578 bankruptcies in the FY 2013/14. 49 of these did not show the level of debt.13

Table 11: Estimated levels of assets held in bankruptcy cases FY 2013/14AssetValue 0-300 301-500 501-1000 1001-1500 1501-2000 2001-2500 2501-3000 3001-3500 3501-4000 4001-4500 4501-5000 5001 BlankTotalNumber in rangeProportion in range (ofthose entering a 357854%7%16%5%4%2%2%1%1%1%1%8%2.39 Ignoring the blank entries where no asset record was entered for the debtor,54% of bankruptcy cases in FY 2013/14 had an asset value within the DROrange of 0- 300. Increasing the asset limit to 2,000 would add a further 31%of bankruptcies (if they met the other criteria).2.40 Finally we have combined the asset and debtor data in bankruptcy to considerthe upper bounds of how many cases could be included if you changed thelimits simultaneously.99We have not combined with the surplus income data because the vast majority of cases are missing a surplusincome value.14

Table 12: Number of bankruptcy cases FY 2013/14 below both a debt andasset limit (but not necessarily meeting the income test for a DRO)ChangeCurrent LimitsGDP deflator(2009)CPI (2009)GDP deflator(2005)CPI (2005)EstimatedDebts 15,000 16,200AssetsNumber of casesNumber of% of cases(17,929 casescases (Ratioed(out of 17,929show both anto 23,578cases)asset debt)bankruptcies) 3004803%6224%7754% 17,100 325 340 18,100 3609325% 18,900 20,000 25,000 30,000 380 500 1,000 61,3911,7453,5845,3992.41 Table 12 looks at various permutations – including the impact of changing thelimits in line with the two inflation measures. We have 17,929 bankruptcy caseswhere values for both the asset and debt levels have been recorded. The fourthcolumn shows the number of cases out of these valid cases falling below thevarious limit, whilst the 5th column shows these as a percentage of the validcases. For example, 480 cases representing 3% of the 17,929 cases, inbankruptcy, sit below the current DRO limit of 15,000 debt and 300 eligibleassets. The final column shows how many cases this implies for the full 23,578bankruptcy cases from 2013/14 and assumes missing data matches the patternof data we have collected.10 This is provided to give a real indication of theactual effect of any change.Q2What level do you think the maximum debt amount should be set to andwhy?Q3Do you think there should be a minimum limit of debts?Q4What level do you think the maximum asset amount should be set at andwhy?2.42 Next we turn to look at the maximum level of surplus income which is currentlyset at 50 per month for DROs. Where the debtor is not subject to an IncomesPayment Order/Income Payments Agreement, surplus income data is not10This is thought to be a reasonable assumption.15

routinely collected for bankruptcy cases, and hence we have data on only 1,500of the total bankruptcy cases.2.43 If we assume that the missing cases are equally distributed in line with thecases for which we have surplus income data, 25% of bankruptcy cases lastyear fitted within the 50 maximum limit under a DRO.Table 13: Level of monthly surplus income in bankruptcy cases FY 2013/14Proportion(non blankcases)Cases 0-50 51-100 101-150 151-200 200 BlanksGRAND TOTAL388321219143463220442357825%21%14%9%30%2.44 Since 2004, the Insolvency Service has used the Living Costs and Food Surveyfor calculating surplus income. This survey is produced by the Office forNational for Statistics and sets out reasonable expenditure for differenthousehold sizes and types. Meanwhile two other calculators are exclusivelyused within the debt management and personal insolvency industry: theCommon Financial Statement (CFS); and StepChange’s debt remedycalculator. A consultation is ongoing to produce a Common Income andExpenditure Calculator to use as an industry standard.2.45 The case for making an upward revision to the DRO surplus income level isarguably weaker than other possible changes to the limits. Under bankruptcy,an Income Payments Order will be put in place taking the whole surplus incomeif a bankrupt has a surplus income of more than 20 per month, subject to anallowance for emergencies and contingencies of 10 a month for each familymember. Therefore given that DRO users will potentially get to keep moresurplus income than bankruptcy, the case for increasing the limit to make thedisparity larger still is weaker.Q5What level do you think the surplus income amount should be set at andwhy?For Q2-Q5 about the limits in addition to your views any case studyevidence would be very useful.2.46 In addition to any switching from bankruptcy that may occur if any of theselimits are raised, there may be additional people who are unable to currently16

afford the entry fee for bankruptcy ( 705) who would then be able to qualify fora DRO.Cost of DROs2.47 The cost of the DRO is 90, 80 of which covers the Insolvency Service’s costsfor administrating the scheme with 10 going to the Competent Authority. Thecharging by the Insolvency Service is on a cost recovery basis.2.48 The payment of 10 per DRO application to the competent authorities is apayment to defray against their costs and expenses, for example training ofintermediaries through a course provided by the Money Advice Trust. Thispayment is not meant to cover all costs however, because it was recognised atthe time DROs were introduced, that DROs had the potential to save debtadvisors significant time in the work they undertook on debtors’ behalf.2.49 A DRO drew a line in the sand preventing creditor action, and meant that debtadvisors did not need to negotiate any repayment or defray any action onbehalf of debtors with their creditors. In addition, it also removes the timedevoted to assisting debtors to apply for grants in order to be able to petition forbankruptcy and any queries arising out of any subsequent bankruptcyproceedings.2.50 The current cost of DROs is the same as the 90 fee the new Minimal AssetProcess is expected to charge for entry in Scotland.Q6Do you think additional costs of the competent authorities should becovered by the application fee? If so, how much and why?Payment system2.51 Debtors are able to pay the 90 fee either through using Payzone – a paymentsacceptance network available in many local shops – or through payment at thePost Office. In addition payment can also be made using a charity cheque. Inaddition to being able to pay the 90 fee as a one-off payment, the fee can alsobe paid in 5 per week instalments. We believe there may be some instanceswhere payment via either Payzone or the Post Office may not begeographically convenient.Q7Do existing payment systems provide sufficient coverage to enabledebtors to pay the fee? If not, what other payment systems should beadded?Restriction on entering the DRO process2.52 A debtor is able to obtain a DRO once every six years – a period that was partlychosen because it matched the time period that entries remain on the credit17

reference agency registers. As part of the original DRO consultation, anadditional barrier of limiting DROs to two per individual also attracted somesupport, although it was rejected on the grounds that having two separate limitson access (six years and only two applications) would make the checkingsystem unnecessarily complicated and would add to costs.2.53 Eighteen DROs have been rejected since the scheme’s inception either atapplication stage or through a subsequent revocation on the basis of theperson having had a previous DRO.2.54 As reported previously, Scotland’s Minimal Asset Process restricts access toonce every ten years. Meanwhile entry to the New Zealand No AssetsProcedure is a once only entry scheme, which is also unavailable to anyonewho has previously been bankrupt.Q8Do you consider the six year restriction is appropriate? If not, pleaseprovide reasoning for an alternative.Design and integrity of the DRO systemThe Competent Authority/Intermediary Model2.55 The model in operation was chosen for a number of reasons: The intermediaries are experienced debt advisers who are effective atextracting and interrogating the information provided by debtors, andknowing when a DRO is the most appropriate solution. This ability tointerrogate the information was seen as an important safeguard forcreditors. Some applicants could have low levels of numeracy and literacy and theintermediary either through face to face or telephone conversation, couldhelp ensure these people could access the system. Intermediaries’ filling out the forms on behalf of debtors helps reduce thecost to debtors of wasted applications where they were not suitablecandidates. The DRO system is electronic with the intermediary filling out andsubmitting the DRO application which is sent to the DRO Team within theInsolvency Service for pr

Debt relief orders give those with very few assets or income and relatively small level of debts a simple process to obtain debt relief. The debtor has support from an advice agency which ensures it is the best solution for them and helps them to make the application. In the five years since debt relief orders were introduced, over 140,000 .