Bankruptcy review summaries 2024-25

Review 1

Scenario

The debtor asked for a review of the trustee's decision to vary his DCO and increase the amount to be paid. He provided several reasons why he felt that the DCO amount was too much and provided documentation in support of his review. The trustee didn’t provide any representations.

Decision

The reviewing officer amended the original decision and reduced the amount of the DCO.

Review 2

Scenario

The debtor asked for a review of the trustee's decision to vary her DCO and increase the amount to be paid. She provided several reasons why she felt that the DCO amount was too much and provided documentation in support of her review. The trustee didn’t provide any representations.

Decision

The reviewing officer amended the original decision and reduced the amount of the DCO.

Review 3

Scenario

The debtor asked for a review of the trustee's decision to vary his DCO from nil to £384 per month. He claims that the trustee’s decision letter did not explain the reason for the change.

Decision

The reviewing officer contacted the trustee who provided an email chain in which the trustee explained to the debtor that because he was no longer receiving child benefit for his daughter that she was no longer regarded as a dependant with regards to the household composition while using the CFT.

The debtor provided evidence that his daughter was attending a full-time college course. Section 1(1)(c) of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985 sets out that an obligation of ailment shall be owed by a father to his child over the age of 18 but under the age of 25 who is undergoing instruction at an educational establishment. The reviewing officer was satisfied that the daughter should be regarded as a dependant within the household.

They recalculated the CFT and the DCO was amended to nil.

Review 4

Scenario

The debtors representative asked for a review of the trustee's decision to vary his DCO from £566.10 per month to £215.51 per month. She claimed that he could not afford to pay this amount.

She provided copies of the debtors’ wage slips and bank statements in support of his review.

Decision

The reviewing officer noted that the debtor’s wages and expenditure provided did not match what had been declared to the trustee. The reviewing officer carried out their own CFT calculation using an average of the figures provided.

It was noted that the debtor’s advisor had vastly inflated several areas of the debtor’s claimed expenditure. The reviewing officer amended the DCO from £215.51 to £370.34.

The debtor was encouraged to engage with his trustee and provide vouching for his expenditure.

Review 5

Scenario

A creditor asked for a review of the decision to quash the DCO of the debtor. They cited that they were awarded a substantial sum from an employment tribunal and wanted this to be paid.

Decision

The reviewing officer considered the particulars of the request but noted that the debtor had been assessed for a contribution using the CFT. They were not in a position to make a contribution, and this had been the case for some time.

The trustee notified creditors some months before of their intention to quash the DCO.

The original decision was confirmed and the DCO was quashed.

Review 6

Scenario

The debtor asked for a review of the trustee's decision to vary her DCO from £153.08 every 4 weeks to £748.38 every 4 weeks. She stated that the DCO was unaffordable and provided evidence in support of her review.

Decision

The reviewing officer carefully looked at the CFT calculation carried out by the trustee. The income and expenditure figures provided matched the figures on the trustee's CFT.

The trigger figures had been breached in a couple of areas and no documentation was provided to support the additional expenditure. In addition, there was a large declared monthly payment to a family member which should have formed a claim within the sequestration.

The original decision was confirmed and the DCO was made at £748.38 every 4 weeks.

Review 7

Scenario

A creditor asked for a review of the decision to reduce the debtors DCO from £1,045.68 per month to £785.88 per month. They claimed that:

•  the debtor had not fully cooperated with the trustee
• the trustee had not carried out due diligence
• they had not seen the debtor’s income and expenditure information

Decision

The reviewing officer considered that the trustee had appropriately used the CFT and that the debtor’s information relating to their income and expenditure was private. The other matters were of no relevance to the decision to vary the DCO.

The original decision was confirmed and the DCO was set at £785.88 per month.

Review 8

Scenario

The debtor asked for a review of the trustees’ decision to set his DCO at £138.92 per fortnight. He claimed that there were other areas of expenditure that had not been included in the CFT calculation.

Decision

The reviewing officer noted the trustees’ statement that the debtor had failed to cooperate, and they had to set the DCO based on bank statements requested from the bank.

The debtor was encouraged to engage with his trustee and provide details of his income and expenditure to allow the trustee to fully ass a DCO.

The original decision was confirmed and the DCO was set at £138.92 every fortnight.

Review 9

Scenario

The debtor asked for a review of the trustees’ decision to set his DCO at £232 per month. He claimed that this amount was unaffordable. He provided a list of what he considered to be essential expenditure in support of his review.

Decision

The reviewing officer noted that the debtors DCO had been set considerably higher but had recently been lowered based on the vouching evidence provided.

Some of the requested expenditure requested this time could not be allowed because it either breached trigger figures or was in relation to savings over the amount allowed.

The original decision was confirmed and the DCO set at £232 per month.