24.06.2021 Views

Insolvency Made Clear: A Guide for Debtors

Plain English, practical guidance for anyone facing demands over a debt they are struggling to pay.

Plain English, practical guidance for anyone facing demands over a debt they are struggling to pay.

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Alternatives To Bankruptcy<br />

Box 3:<br />

WHAT IF THE DEBTOR NEARLY QUALIFIES<br />

FOR A DRO?<br />

A debtor with £1,001 of assets cannot apply <strong>for</strong> a DRO. From the debtor’s<br />

perspective, this is highly regrettable. If they qualified <strong>for</strong> the DRO,<br />

they would keep up to £1,000. If they do not qualify then they may<br />

be made bankrupt and so lose their £1,001 in the various legal fees<br />

concerned. What can the debtor do?<br />

It is a criminal offence to make a false representation in the application<br />

(s251O of the Act). It is a criminal offence to make a gift or transfer<br />

of property within two years of making an application (s251Q). A<br />

person is not guilty if they had no intention to defraud or conceal the<br />

state of affairs (s251Q(3)). It is likely to be a criminal offence to give the<br />

£1 to a friend be<strong>for</strong>e applying <strong>for</strong> a DRO. It is not a criminal offence to<br />

spend the £1, provided it is not done to defraud the creditors. If the<br />

money was spent on something of lasting value, this would remain<br />

the property of the debtor and count towards their assets. However,<br />

if the purchase was on food or at the cinema, nothing of value would<br />

remain afterwards.<br />

The intention of the debtor is critical. It would be a criminal offence<br />

to deliberately go to a restaurant so that their creditors do not receive<br />

the money. It is not a criminal offence if an individual feels hungry and<br />

decides to spend a few extra pounds at a restaurant. The key difference<br />

is whether or not the debtor has the motive of defrauding their<br />

creditors. The criminal offences applicable to DROs are similar as <strong>for</strong><br />

bankruptcy, and so see Chapter 7 <strong>for</strong> more detail.<br />

If a debtor has assets of over £1,000, and debts of over £20,000, it may<br />

be possible to repay the debts until the debts fall below the critical<br />

level of £20,000. This is a sensible strategy <strong>for</strong> the debt since it allows<br />

them to keep at least £1,000. Care should be taken when repaying<br />

debts to ensure it does not constitute a preference. In practice, this<br />

means the primary motivation should not be to allow a particular<br />

creditor to be in a better position (and certainly not a connected creditor,<br />

such as a family member). A debtor who repays their landlord<br />

because they are concerned about being evicted would not be giving<br />

a preference.<br />

If a debtor increases their assets or income to above the minimum set out above,<br />

the Official Receiver can revoke the DRO. This commonly happens because the<br />

debtor receives a windfall (say, they receive an inheritance which takes them<br />

over the £1,000 limit) or because the debtor starts a new job which increases<br />

their disposable monthly income. This creates a perverse incentive not to be<br />

9

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!