|
|||||||
|
The
Insolvency Practitioners Regulations 2005 (Draft)
Summary of Responses to the Consultation The following is a
summary of the responses received following the Insolvency Service’s
recent consultation on the proposed legislation which ran between 5
November 2004 and 14 January 2005.
We would like to thank all those who responded to the
consultation. Replies were received from;
Summary
of Responses on the Policy Behind Specific Regulations
The
following
responses are presented by reference to the regulation to which they
relate. Note that the comments refer to the draft regulations as
originally published with the remainder of the consultation documents,
which can be viewed here: Insolvency Practitioners Regulations 2005 (draft) Regulation 4 -
Matters for Determining Whether an applicant is fit and proper One
respondent queried how the fitness and propriety relating to the
operation of an insolvency practice would be judged, where the applicant
had yet to commence such a practice. Regulation
5
– Requirements as to Education and Training One
respondent queried how a good use of English language would be judged. Regulation 6 -
Continuing Professional Development One
respondent felt this regulation needed to clarify that CPD related to
all practitioners regardless of whether or not they were office holders. One
respondent queried the Secretary of State’s discretionary powers in
this area. Two
respondents commented on the range of accepted CPD activities and hourly
requirements; one felt the requirement to be onerous in comparison with
another Recognised Professional Body; one felt the CPD categories were
narrower than those accepted by another Recognised Professional Body. Regulation
9
– Returns by Insolvency Practitioners authorised by the secretary of
state Four respondents to
the section concerning complaints commented that ‘complaint’ was too
widely drafted therefore potentially onerous, that complaint was not
adequately defined or that it was an unnecessary administrative burden. Two
respondents queried or did not support the time recording aspect of the
proposed return. Regulation
11
– Records to be kept by Insolvency Practitioners Two respondents
considered it unnecessary to keep time records where a case was
undertaken on a fixed fee basis. One
respondent commented that it was not clear whether the case record was
personal to the practitioner or just linked to the case. One
respondent felt the case record requirements were too prescriptive. Two
respondents felt the case record served no useful purpose. Regulation
14
– Inspection of Practice records One
respondent felt that the Secretary of State should only be able to
inspect and copy records within two years of vacation of office by a
practitioner. Regulation
15
– Inspection of Records in Administrations and Administrative
Receiverships One respondent felt
the restriction of this regulation, to the Secretary of State’s
supervisory and monitoring functions, was not sufficiently clear. Schedule
2 Part 2 – Requirement for Bonding
One
respondent commented that the bonding requirements still needed
clarification particularly in the areas, Income Payment Orders, Income
Payment Arrangements and third party contributions. Four
respondents sought clarification in respect of floating charges. One
respondent commented on the timescale within which the cover schedule
should be provided to the surety. Two
respondents commented that the specific exceptions to bonding did not
include an administrator becoming a supervisor, nor did it specifically
cover partnerships and the individual partners. One
respondent commented that bonding is given in terms of bands which was
not reflected in the legislation. Ten
respondents sought further clarification on bonding levels. One
respondent sought clarification on the time limits within which a claim
could be made and the level of the claim. One
respondent sought clarification where practitioners cease to act but
have not been released. General Points
Four
respondents expressed concern over time records; two of whom felt they
were not relevant in fixed fee cases. Two
respondents sought clarification of the regulations and their
application to partnerships. One
respondent felt the removal of the educational requirements puts the
Secretary of State’s role further away from that of the Recognised
Professional Bodies. Draft provision for insertion into the
Insolvency Regulations 1994
5A –
Information about time spent on a case to be provided by insolvency
practitioners to creditors Two respondents
considered that this was adequately covered by non-statutory guidance. Three
respondents felt this could be potentially onerous. A
full schedule of responses received can be viewed here:
|
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
