Led down the garden path…

This is the third article in my rant over the bad – in fact downright dangerous – advice my fellow insolvency practitioners are regularly giving out…

The first was about the bad advice being given to company owners, selling them a liquidation they didn’t want, need nor could easily pay for…

The second was about the failure to advise individuals that income based individual voluntary arrangements are a massive gamble…

This, my third, rant is again about the bad advice given to individuals, but on a more general level.

Let me explain…

Have you seen how debt advisers of all sorts, but particularly the IVA specialists, send husbands and wives, or couples, down the same debt solution at exactly the same time?  They argue that it makes perfect sense, that doing so is cost effective… yet that, at least for me, is manure, and I’m going to show you why…

First of all, a few key principles for you to take on board…

You, me, your kids, your parents, Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all are separate individuals in the eyes of the law.  We’re each our own entirely distinct legal entity.  It matters not that we are married, part of a family, related in any way – we are all our own separate legal being, with our own little package of assets and liabilities, and thus our own individual options for dealing with our financial problems. 

And, importantly, those options are often not mutually exclusive.   An option taken now doesn’t always stop another being taken later on.

Sure, there are a few complications when their are joint assets or joint debts, but the principle remains – we each have our own separate options, which we can take as and when we choose.

Let’s take a typical situation…. Husband (Basil) and wife (Sybil); Basil is a landscape gardener who chooses to run his little business through a limited company, in which he owns all the shares.  His normal work is maintaining your and my garden, doing a little building work from time to time, pathways, rockeries, decking, BBQs, that sort of thing.  A nice little business, but not enough to keep house and home, the family has to rely on his wife’s income too, especially as he had an accident a year or so ago – he twisted his back beating up his Morris 1100 and couldn’t work for 6 months.  Couple this with a foray into the buy to let market where a void period and some unexpected repairs as a result of the actions of a dodgy tenant and supporting one of his kids through university saw his debts built up.  He now has £50,000 in personal credit card and loan bills, each at their max, he’s now not even paying the minimum payments – the business isn’t doing as well as he’d hope as people aren’t spending like they used to on their gardens, and his bad back plays up from time to time, middle age is taking its toll.  There’s nothing but a few items of small plant and an inexpensive van in the company: it”ll generate £1,500 per month on a good month, more often than not a lot less, particularly in the winter months.  The buy to let is in negative equity – they’d taken out the maximum mortgage they could when they bought it, and have remortgaged a few times, using the money raised to buy Basil’s van and tools.  The buy to let is making a profit of £120 per month, after paying the mortgage, assuming everything goes hunky dory….

Feisty Sybil is a part time shop assistant and home maker.  When the debts started piling up she took on a few debts too – but at a far lower level, after all, she earns a lot less than Basil.  She’s got £20,000 of credit card debt, of which £15,000 is in her own name, £5,000 is a joint debt with Basil.

The family, Basil, Sybil and their three kids – Martha, 20, going through Wolverhampton Uni; Steve 16 and at Bilston Academy; and Sarah, 13 at Coseley School – all live in a cramped three bed semi on the Coseley/Bilston border.  A few years back, with the walls moving in, Basil, a dab hand at building, started on an extension above the garage.  But then he hurt his back, he couldn’t work and now he hasn’t got the money to finish it and doesn’t know when he will ever have.  The house is virtually unsaleable in its present condition, at best a buyer would pay a knock down price, leaving nothing in the kitty to set up home elsewhere after settling the mortgage.  Basil is hoping Sybil’s mother, Ethel, will leave them something in her will, but they’d be lucky to get £45,000 when she turns her toes up.  And that’s assuming it doesn’t all go in care home fees.  He/they have been holding on for that legacy – it might just provide the lifeline they so desperately need – but cantakerous old Ethel, whos’ yoyo’ed in and out of hospital over the last 18 months, seems to have 9 lives.

So you’ve got the picture – The Fawltys are a hard working, average, working class family who are trying to work their way through life, but have been hurt by a few things that all came together to put them into quite a difficult position.

So they go to see an insolvency practitioner.

This ‘expert’ recommends an IVA – a ‘joint IVA’ – the great thing is they’ll be able to substitute the need to pay the minimum payments on their debts with ‘one affordable payment’ of just £400 per month into the IVA – it will mean paying less and bring some certainty to the situation, they’ll be able to slep at night.  They’ll even keep their home; Basil will still be able to act as a director of his little limited company; they could keep the buy to let; and in 5 years time, they’ll be debt free – what they’ve not paid to their £65k of unsecured debt will simply be written off.  What’s more, them both going into an IVA right now would not only keep the IVA experts’ costs down, it would make things far simpler for them as they’d both come out of it at the same time, ten years before retirement.

Sounds reasonable?  Sure it does… but as I said, it’s appalling advice.

Let me tell you what taking that advice would lead to…Ethel’s legacy going into the IVA to pay the insolvency practitioner’s fees and Basil and Sybil’s creditors – that’s to say, the Fawlty family would see nothing of it; Basil and Sybil still having to pay £400 per month into the IVA for 5 years – these monies also going to the creditors to pay off the ‘capital sum’ and interest (with interest being charged at 20% to 30% pa); the IP getting about £20k in fees in total; etc… there are other implications too.  All in all a poor deal for the family.

So let’s pull the advice to bits…

The following is a key principle – please remember it…  ‘Just because one solution might be the best option right now for one person, doesn’t mean to say the other has to follow the same course at this exact point in time, even if ultimately it might be the best option for them too.’

Here’s another – both Basil and Sybil have their own full tool box of options each – these include (i) Best manage their cash, keeping themselves out of any formal insolvency; (ii) Keeping creditors at bay using the ‘token/no payment’ option; (iii) Debt Management Plan; (iv) IVA; and (v) Bankruptcy.

It’s vital they should assess their own individual options first, asking themselves ‘What’s the best for me at this particular point in time?’.  Then when they know what that option is, assess what that means for the other member of the couple.

So the steps are:

1)  What’s the best option for me?  Write down the pros and the cons for me.

2) If I take that option, what impact does that have on my partner?  Write down the pros and the cons for them.

3)  Are we prepared to live with the cons?  Could those cons be reduced, if not eliminated, by something either I or my partner could do?  If I’m not happy with the cons, and neither I nor my partner could reduce them, what’s my second best option and what are its pros and cons – the cons on both me and my partner?

4) Repeat steps 1) to 3) for your partner, assessing the pros and cons on both them and you.

5)  Put together a plan that you’re both ‘happy’ with.  Ask yourself, whether overall, this plan works and fits with what you both want to achieve.

6) Run with it…

Here’s what I would have advised in Basil and Sybil’s case…as you’ll see it’s a country mile away from what the other IP advised…

Basil should go into bankruptcy soon, and first – cost of doing so £700, debts written off £50,000 – it would be like picking a 70 to 1 certain  winner at Epsom, a great return on his money; he’d come out of bankruptcy in 12 months time. Sybil should keep her creditors at bay for that 12 months, using the token payment option; before Basil goes bankrupt, Sybil should become the shareholder and director of the company, taking responsibility for running it, with Basil becoming a mere paid employee – for just 12 months.  Then when he’s out of bankruptcty the roles would reverse – she’d go bankrupt, but before she did so, he’d take buy back her shares in the company and get appointed as its director.  Cost to her, £700, debts written off £20,000. Get Ethel to change her will, so the beneficiaries are Martha, Steve and Sarah, missing out the Basil/Sybil generation (she could always change it back in 24 months time if she’s still around!) – that way the legacy would not fall into the bankruptcy as ‘after acquired property’, it could be used to pay down the mortgage on their home or the BTL giving them a far better chance of a prosperous retirement.

An alternative to think about in 12 months time would be, if Ethel dies in the meantime and leaves her £45k to the kids, for some of that to be used, say 40%, £8k, to offer to her creditors in full and final settlement, if she really wanted to avoid bankruptcy.  The point is, she doesn’t necessarily have to follow Basil’s route – having ringfenced the legacy, she could take another solution then.  Watch, wait and see!

Result if plan A, of them both going bankrupt, him first, her later: No disruption to the business; total process 24 months when one or the other was in bankruptcy compared to 5+ years in an IVA; no assets lost – not even the home or BTL (unless they actually wanted to lose the BTL – they have the choice);  legacy kept within the family, doing it, rather than the creditors some good; no IP fees, whole process cost £1,400 (plus the cost of my advice), a little inconvenience and form filling, and the cost of writing one/two wills, compared to an IVA which would see over £69,000 spent, I’d argue wasted.

The Fawltys’ name may be made up but the facts are real,but in recent weeks I’ve seen 2 families, both where they’d been led down the garden path by so called experts with plausible yet downright dangerous advice, costing them money they couldn’t really afford.  You see, they suffered the outcome I ‘anticipated’ above, they will probably now never manage to rebuild their lives.

And that is inexcusable.  The IPs took them to the cleaners, their entire family, not just the ones in debt, but them all.

You see nothing will ever be a substitute for experience, professionalism and a single minded focus on getting the best outcome for the client … and with almost 30 years in the insolvency game, you can be sure anyone who comes to me for support will be getting these in abundance.  They will not be sailing into unchartered territory, they’ll get advice and support that will stand the test of time.

If you’re accustomed to using another insolvency practitioner and the story I’ve painted above is ringing true for you, I’ve a question for you…why?

BEWARE! – What you’re not being told could be more important than what you’ve been told (2)

This is the second in what is likely to be a series of articles over the poor advice that my fellow insolvency practitioners are giving out.

In my last article – click here to read it – I talked about how owners of small companies that had no, or very few assets, were being talked into paying for liquidations they neither needed nor were obliged to carry out.  Today, I’m going to be talking about personal insolvencies, specifically a process called an ‘individual voluntary arrangement’ or IVA.

Take a look on the web and you’ll see numerous references to how easy IVAs are to both get into and live through; how they’re great because they’ll write off most of your unsecured debts; how you’ll protect your home; how they will leave you with money in your pocket every month; how they are somehow better and softer than bankruptcy.  It all sounds too good to be true…

And it often is.

You see, what they don’t tell you is that one third of all IVAs fail.  This is not anecdotal evidence, it’s hard evidence gathered by the government – click here to see the figures.  Look at figure 2.

OK, so one third of IVAs fail. Big deal, that’s not so bad, is it?

Well yes, it is.  You see not all IVAs are the same – some are income based, some are ‘one-off’ settlements.  Under a ‘one-off’ settlement type of IVA, money from an inheritance, windfall, gift from family or friends, or the sale of assets is paid into the IVA in a lump and then paid out to the unsecured creditors in full and final settlement of their debts.  The point is this money is certain – it’s probably already sitting there in a solicitor’s or the Insolvency Practitioner’s bank account held on trust pending the creditors’ agreement to the IVA – the success of the IVA is assured.  So if we knock out of the equation the one-off settlement IVAs, the true failure rate for income based IVAs must be higher than a third… let’s be conservative and say it’s 40%-45%.

Do you hear IPs telling people coming to them looking for an income based IVA that the process they are about to go into is about as likely to fail as it is to succeed?  No, I don’t.  Do they warn people of the impact on them of the IVA failing?  If you’re lucky, it’s skated over, after all it’s never going to happen is it? – you have every intention of fulfilling your part of the bargain.

So now we know the IVA has about 50-50 chance of failing as succeeding, but what is the impact of it doing so?

Let’s go back to some basics.  Back in 1986, IVAs were invented as a softer alternative to bankruptcy for sole traders, i.e. business owners.  They weren’t invented to deal with what they have turned out to be used mainly for – hundreds of thousands of consumers who have unsecured credit card and loan debts they could never pay.  So with something like 50,000 a year IVAs being put in place, rather than the handful expected, the insolvency governing bodies got together with the banks and agreed a standard form of IVA for such consumer debtors.

It’s called the ‘IVA Protocol’ – here’s a link to the government’s website linking to its various versions over time – and in a number of ways every version of it is truly horrible.  It’s clear the banks had the whip hand in the negotiations as it’s very much written in the banks’ favour.

So what does it say about failure?  Well, if you miss just 3 income contributions into the IVA over the 5 year period of the IVA – 5 years is the standard duration – the Insolvency Practitioner can petition for your bankruptcy.  It’s at his discretion, you cannot stop him. With many IVAs failing in years 2,3, even 4 or 5 of the IVA, all you’ve done while you’ve been paying into the IVA is throw good money after bad.  And what’s worse, the longer you stay in the IVA, the bigger a chance you’re giving a trustee in bankruptcy of taking your home off you! (house prices tend to go up, your mortgage will have either stayed the same or gone down, so after a time you’ve probably got equity you didn’t have previously that the trustee can get his hands on).

I have a good number of other issues with the IVA Protocol, but what really concerns me is that not once have I ever had someone who’s subject to one of these things come to me ever fully understand what they had got themselves into.  They simply got sold a story that it was the panacea to all their financial woes.  Not once has any Insolvency Practitioner fully explain the ‘what ifs’ satisfactorily so the person fully understood everything they needed to know before taking the plunge.  And that’s inexcusable.

I recognise that no one has a crystal ball that tells them what’s going to happen over the 5 year period of an IVA covered by the IVA Protocol … that people tend to be optimistic as to the future and hate taking a pessimistic view of what might happen … that people who are desperate will cling to any lifeline… but there is never any excuse from any insolvency practitioner for not being entirely honest with the facts and open as to the implications of a 50-50 gamble going the wrong way.  And that’s why I have a problem with my fellow IP’s advice.

BEWARE! – What you're not being told could be more important than what you've been told (2)

This is the second in what is likely to be a series of articles over the poor advice that my fellow insolvency practitioners are giving out.

In my last article – click here to read it – I talked about how owners of small companies that had no, or very few assets, were being talked into paying for liquidations they neither needed nor were obliged to carry out.  Today, I’m going to be talking about personal insolvencies, specifically a process called an ‘individual voluntary arrangement’ or IVA.

Take a look on the web and you’ll see numerous references to how easy IVAs are to both get into and live through; how they’re great because they’ll write off most of your unsecured debts; how you’ll protect your home; how they will leave you with money in your pocket every month; how they are somehow better and softer than bankruptcy.  It all sounds too good to be true…

And it often is.

You see, what they don’t tell you is that one third of all IVAs fail.  This is not anecdotal evidence, it’s hard evidence gathered by the government – click here to see the figures.  Look at figure 2.

OK, so one third of IVAs fail. Big deal, that’s not so bad, is it?

Well yes, it is.  You see not all IVAs are the same – some are income based, some are ‘one-off’ settlements.  Under a ‘one-off’ settlement type of IVA, money from an inheritance, windfall, gift from family or friends, or the sale of assets is paid into the IVA in a lump and then paid out to the unsecured creditors in full and final settlement of their debts.  The point is this money is certain – it’s probably already sitting there in a solicitor’s or the Insolvency Practitioner’s bank account held on trust pending the creditors’ agreement to the IVA – the success of the IVA is assured.  So if we knock out of the equation the one-off settlement IVAs, the true failure rate for income based IVAs must be higher than a third… let’s be conservative and say it’s 40%-45%.

Do you hear IPs telling people coming to them looking for an income based IVA that the process they are about to go into is about as likely to fail as it is to succeed?  No, I don’t.  Do they warn people of the impact on them of the IVA failing?  If you’re lucky, it’s skated over, after all it’s never going to happen is it? – you have every intention of fulfilling your part of the bargain.

So now we know the IVA has about 50-50 chance of failing as succeeding, but what is the impact of it doing so?

Let’s go back to some basics.  Back in 1986, IVAs were invented as a softer alternative to bankruptcy for sole traders, i.e. business owners.  They weren’t invented to deal with what they have turned out to be used mainly for – hundreds of thousands of consumers who have unsecured credit card and loan debts they could never pay.  So with something like 50,000 a year IVAs being put in place, rather than the handful expected, the insolvency governing bodies got together with the banks and agreed a standard form of IVA for such consumer debtors.

It’s called the ‘IVA Protocol’ – here’s a link to the government’s website linking to its various versions over time – and in a number of ways every version of it is truly horrible.  It’s clear the banks had the whip hand in the negotiations as it’s very much written in the banks’ favour.

So what does it say about failure?  Well, if you miss just 3 income contributions into the IVA over the 5 year period of the IVA – 5 years is the standard duration – the Insolvency Practitioner can petition for your bankruptcy.  It’s at his discretion, you cannot stop him. With many IVAs failing in years 2,3, even 4 or 5 of the IVA, all you’ve done while you’ve been paying into the IVA is throw good money after bad.  And what’s worse, the longer you stay in the IVA, the bigger a chance you’re giving a trustee in bankruptcy of taking your home off you! (house prices tend to go up, your mortgage will have either stayed the same or gone down, so after a time you’ve probably got equity you didn’t have previously that the trustee can get his hands on).

I have a good number of other issues with the IVA Protocol, but what really concerns me is that not once have I ever had someone who’s subject to one of these things come to me ever fully understand what they had got themselves into.  They simply got sold a story that it was the panacea to all their financial woes.  Not once has any Insolvency Practitioner fully explain the ‘what ifs’ satisfactorily so the person fully understood everything they needed to know before taking the plunge.  And that’s inexcusable.

I recognise that no one has a crystal ball that tells them what’s going to happen over the 5 year period of an IVA covered by the IVA Protocol … that people tend to be optimistic as to the future and hate taking a pessimistic view of what might happen … that people who are desperate will cling to any lifeline… but there is never any excuse from any insolvency practitioner for not being entirely honest with the facts and open as to the implications of a 50-50 gamble going the wrong way.  And that’s why I have a problem with my fellow IP’s advice.

Why do a third of all IVAs fail?

Here’s a copy of a press release from the Insolvency Service, lifting the lid on IVA failure rates.

Take a little time to read it…

 

STATISTICS RELEASE:

 

INDIVIDUAL VOLUNTARY ARRANGEMENTS: OUTCOME STATUS OF NEW CASES REGISTERED BETWEEN 1990 AND 2012, ENGLAND AND WALES

 

Statistics showing the outcome status of Individual Voluntary Arrangements (IVAs) registered between 1990 and 2012 in England and Wales are published today (11 December) by the Insolvency Service. These statistics, recording the status as at September 2013, are shown in Figure 1 below and Table 1 at the end of the main Release. 

 

Figure 1. Individual Voluntary Arrangements by year of registration and outcome status as at September 2013, England & Wales

 


 

                                                                                                                                         Number of registrations

 

 


 

Source: Insolvency Service, September 2013.
1
Numbers are exclusive of IVA registrations that are subsequently revoked or suspended (see Note 7).

 

 

The number of new IVAs registered each year has increased substantially over the period covered, from fewer than 10,000 annually up to 2003, to a peak of over 50,000 in 2010. The upward trend in registrations was particularly steep between the years 2004 and 2006, where there was a more than four-fold increase from 10,725 registrations in 2004 to 44,084 in 2006. The numbers dipped in 2007 and again in 2008, then increased to reach a level of 44,000 to 50,000 per year between 2009 and 2012.

 

The trend in IVA registrations during the period from 2004 onwards is broadly in line with the pattern for total individual insolvencies (although bankruptcy orders continued to rise to a peak in 2009, and the introduction of debt relief orders has impacted total numbers from 2009 onwards). The rapid increases in new individual insolvency cases from 2004, in particular, are considered to be related to households taking on higher levels of debt from the early 2000s, as well as more general economic factors. Figure 4 at the end of this release shows trends in each type of individual insolvency since 1990.

 

For IVAs themselves, the rapid increase from 2004 to 2006 coincided with a number of firms setting up as volume providers of IVAs, with attendant advertising of the service on offer.  Commentators have suggested that the subsequent reduction in new registrations for 2007 and 2008 may be related to fewer cases being approved by creditors where the dividend on offer was below a specified level.  In response to concerns raised, the Insolvency Service led the development of a voluntary agreement aimed at encouraging best practice and streamlining the process for straightforward consumer IVAs. This “IVA Protocol” has been in effect since February 2008 and was updated in January 2013 (see Note 2).

 

The number of IVAs registered each year that have failed and resulted in the arrangement being terminated (by September 2013) has broadly followed the trend in overall registrations described above. It should be noted, however, that the final numbers for the most recent years are not yet known, as a large proportion of IVAs are still ongoing (see Note 8).

 

In percentage terms, the trend in IVAs which have failed is shown at Figure 2 below.

 

Figure 2. Percentage of Individual Voluntary Arrangements resulting in termination as at September 2013, by year of registration, England and Wales1

 


 

                                                                                                                  Percentage of registrations terminated

 

 


 

Source: Insolvency Service, September 2013
1
The lighter shaded bars, from 2005 onwards, represent years where the number of IVAs still ongoing exceeds 5% of registrations for that year. The percentage of terminations is expected to increase for the shaded period, particularly for the most recent years, as ongoing IVAs either terminate or complete going forward; therefore trends should be interpreted with caution

 

 

Between the years 1990 and 2002, inclusive, the percentage of IVAs registered each year that eventually resulted in termination remained fairly steady at around 30% (the lowest figure in this period being 28% for 2001 registrations and the highest 33% for 1995 registrations). The percentage of terminations has since followed a generally upward trend from 30% for 2002 to the level for 2007 registrations, which currently stands at 38%. As at September 2013, nearly one third (33%) of IVAs registered in 2007 were still ongoing (Table 1 below), so the percentage of terminations is likely to increase going forward.  It is not possible to make direct comparisons between termination rates for IVAs registered after 2008, and those registered before, as over half of IVAs are still ongoing for more recent registrations.

 

Looking instead at, for instance, the percentage of IVAs that failed within a year of registration, comparisons can be made on a more consistent basis between registration years.

 

The overall percentage of IVAs registered between 2002 and 2006, which eventually resulted in termination, was 36%.  Around 6% of IVAs registered in these years were terminated within one year, 17% within two years. Almost half, therefore, of all eventual terminations took place within the first two years (though many IVAs for 2005 and 2006 are still ongoing).

 

 

 

Figure 3. Percentage of Individual Voluntary Arrangements resulting in termination as at September 2013, by year of registration and time elapsed between registration and termination, England and Wales1

 


 

Percentage of registrations terminated within time period

 

 


 

Source: Insolvency Service, September 2013
1 Data for 2009 and 2010 registrations are not available because of unreliable data (see Note 6).

 

For IVAs registered in 2007, 21% terminated within the first two years, higher than for the 2002-2006 average. For IVAs registered in 2008, the percentage terminating within a year was higher than for 2007 registrations, but the high percentage of IVAs still ongoing as at September 2013, and policy changes since their registration, means that it is still too early to predict whether the overall termination rate will be higher for 2008 registrations than for 2007 registrations.

 

A discontinuity in the data means that data for 2009 and 2010 are unavailable (see Note 6).  For IVAs registered in 2011, around 4% and 11% had terminated within the first one and two years respectively; much lower rates than for 2008 and earlier years. A similar pattern can be seen for IVAs registered in 2012, though data are only available for one year.

 

 

 

Table 1: Individual Voluntary Arrangements by year of registration and outcome status as at September 2013, England & Wales1 2

 


 

 


 

Source: Insolvency Service, September 2013
1
For years where there are still cases ongoing, the percentages of completed and terminated cases will change and trends should, therefore, be interpreted with caution (see Note 8).
2 Registrations in 2013 will be included after the year end.
3 Numbers are exclusive of IVA registrations that are subsequently revoked or suspended (see Note 7).

 

 

Figure 4. Individual insolvencies, 1990 to 2012, England & Wales

 


 

                                                                                                              Number of new cases

 

There are several key points:

  1. More people are going into IVA;
  2. More people are failing to complete their IVA in accordance with its terms, meaning all they’ve done by going into IVA is waste money, time and effort;
  3. The figures for more recent years haven’t really improved even though the graphs suggest they have – there are large number of IVAs in limbo, where the debtor isn’t complying with the IVA terms but the Supervisor isn’t under any obligation to terminate the IVA, at least not yet.  This will come out when we see the next lot of figures from the Insolvency Service.

So why do IVAs fail?

There are a good many reasons:

  1. Most IVAs are for 5 years, a long time, an awful lot can happen in that time family, job and health-wise;
  2. The choice of debt solution was wrong in the first place.  Many people go into IVA because they see it as the honourable thing, not because it’s the best thing for them and their family.  Pride and emotion get in the way of them taking the best solution;
  3. Creditors impose some pretty testing requirements on debtors – an IVA is not an easy option, it’s going to hurt, and for a good while. There’ll be nothing left in the pot to deal with life’s emergencies or vagaries;
  4. People tend to be over-optimistic as to what they can do to get themselves out of their difficulties, it’s a human trait.  They prefer optimistism to realism.
  5. Many will have received bad advice from their chosen debt adviser, after all they could be driven by their own personal financial interest – they’ll often receive a bonus from signing you up

If you’re contemplating an IVA it’s vital that you take advice from a professional who’s going to give you it straight.  Beware ‘IVA salesmen’, they peddle misery.   And once you have taken the right advice, sit with your family and explain exactly why you are following the route you propose and how it compares with all other routes.

Doing that is tough, but vital.

New eBook on bankruptcy!

I’ve written a new eBook on Bankruptcy.  You’ll find it very helpful indeed.

It’s called ‘The little book of Bankruptcy’.

I’ve called it that because it’s very short and very focussed, it’s just 5 pages!

It tells you why bankruptcy is the best solution for 99 people out of a 100 by setting out 9 clear advantages of bankruptcy over other potential debt solutions.

It compares bankruptcy with IVAs and Debt Management Plans.

It explains why you should only go into an IVA or DMPs if in doing so you are protecting assets or income.  It shows how bankruptcy does the same in three quarters of cases – yes, in 3 out of every 4 bankruptcies, the bankrupt loses nothing except his/her unsecured debts.

It explodes some commonly held myths about bankruptcy – myths that often hold people back from doing the right thing, the thing that best protects their family.

And I do this in just 5 pages… in an easy to read format.

And what’s more, the book is free, I make no charge for it.

To get a copy just e-mail me – copy my email address into your email programme, with the title ‘please send me your little book of bankruptcy, free of charge’ – paul@midlandsbusinessrecovery.co.uk

Thanks for reading.

Paul Brindley

Licensed to act as an Insolvency Practitioner in the UK by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales