Despite the platitudes announced at the R3 SPG Conference and the IPA Personal Insolvency Conference by representatives of the Insolvency Service about how much they value their relationship with IPs and respect IPs for their contribution to the economy, the most recent Dear IP shows, once again, that the exact opposite is true.
Dear IP 74, has just been issued on the last working day before Christmas, we suspect so that it would get overlooked in the excitement, and ignored after, for many, a well-earned break. It contains the following piece of astonishing arrogance:
“Estate Accounts and Scanning (EAS) would like to inform insolvency practitioners that we will no longer be posting receipts without applying the Secretary of State fee when the ‘non SoS fee’ box is ticked on the bank giro credit slip. The funds will be posted to the general fund where the fee will be applied. EAS will then contact the remitter by e-mail asking for a full explanation as to why the funds should not attract the fee. Once a response has been received and the origin or nature of the funds has been determined, the receipt will be moved to the relevant fund and the fee will be rebated if appropriate.”
That means that even when an IP tells the EAS that money should not attract the SoS fee, they will take it anyway. Furthermore, they will only rebate it after a question and answer session about why the money does not attract a fee. Is this the action of a Government Agency that trusts those it works with, or another example of the pitifully anti-IP stance taken by certain departments within the Insolvency Service? Unfortunately, as we think was intended, this will probably get lost in the Christmas break, but we would be delighted if even one IP’s New Year’s resolution was to fight the Insolvency Service on this. We think that if the Insolvency Service takes SoS fees when it has been told not to and they are subsequently forced to repay them, they should pay punitive damages from their fruitless payments budget. We also think that they should pay appropriate compensation for the IP's time spent answering detailed queries about why the funds should not have attracted the SoS fee in the first place.
Here is the sort of approach that the Service could have taken if it really trusted IPs, but had concerns about how IPs were interpreting the requirements:
1) Educate IPs about when fees are due, referring to the uncertainty caused by their recent and ongoing legal challenges to the interpretation of “third party monies” in bankruptcy.
2) Amend the remittance form to ask for more details about why the funds should not attract SoS fees, so that IPs can justify themselves in advance in many cases.
3) Use that information to challenge the instructions received in only those cases where the fee is clearly due, i.e. those where the outcome of the ongoing legal action would have no impact.
Dear IP 74, has just been issued on the last working day before Christmas, we suspect so that it would get overlooked in the excitement, and ignored after, for many, a well-earned break. It contains the following piece of astonishing arrogance:
“Estate Accounts and Scanning (EAS) would like to inform insolvency practitioners that we will no longer be posting receipts without applying the Secretary of State fee when the ‘non SoS fee’ box is ticked on the bank giro credit slip. The funds will be posted to the general fund where the fee will be applied. EAS will then contact the remitter by e-mail asking for a full explanation as to why the funds should not attract the fee. Once a response has been received and the origin or nature of the funds has been determined, the receipt will be moved to the relevant fund and the fee will be rebated if appropriate.”
That means that even when an IP tells the EAS that money should not attract the SoS fee, they will take it anyway. Furthermore, they will only rebate it after a question and answer session about why the money does not attract a fee. Is this the action of a Government Agency that trusts those it works with, or another example of the pitifully anti-IP stance taken by certain departments within the Insolvency Service? Unfortunately, as we think was intended, this will probably get lost in the Christmas break, but we would be delighted if even one IP’s New Year’s resolution was to fight the Insolvency Service on this. We think that if the Insolvency Service takes SoS fees when it has been told not to and they are subsequently forced to repay them, they should pay punitive damages from their fruitless payments budget. We also think that they should pay appropriate compensation for the IP's time spent answering detailed queries about why the funds should not have attracted the SoS fee in the first place.
Here is the sort of approach that the Service could have taken if it really trusted IPs, but had concerns about how IPs were interpreting the requirements:
1) Educate IPs about when fees are due, referring to the uncertainty caused by their recent and ongoing legal challenges to the interpretation of “third party monies” in bankruptcy.
2) Amend the remittance form to ask for more details about why the funds should not attract SoS fees, so that IPs can justify themselves in advance in many cases.
3) Use that information to challenge the instructions received in only those cases where the fee is clearly due, i.e. those where the outcome of the ongoing legal action would have no impact.
4) In cases where the current legal action would have an impact, notify the IP and reserve funds for the SoS fee in case it becomes due.
Surely, if the Insolvency Service really had any faith in IPs, they would challenge only the exceptions. Instead, in one last example, for this year at least, of their poor opinion of the profession that they administer, they impose an extra layer of cost on every potentially exempt remittance.
Typical!
Bah Humbug!
Surely, if the Insolvency Service really had any faith in IPs, they would challenge only the exceptions. Instead, in one last example, for this year at least, of their poor opinion of the profession that they administer, they impose an extra layer of cost on every potentially exempt remittance.
Typical!
Bah Humbug!
