Should we favour non-judicial debt settlement over court based proceedings?

[Brendan Burgess]

1.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Do you agree that the creation of a consumer insolvency system should involve both non-judicial debt settlement and judicial insolvency procedures? Do you agree that this should involve both the creation of a non-judicial debt settlement system and the amendment of the Bankruptcy Act 1988? [Paragraph 5.83]

2.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Do you agree that Irish law should favour non-judicial debt settlement over court-based personal insolvency proceedings? [Paragraph 5.78]

3.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]What would be the most appropriate means of encouraging (or compelling) the use of non-judicial debt settlement procedures over judicial bankruptcy procedures? [Paragraph 5.89]

4.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Do you agree that the law should provide a means of giving binding effect to debt settlements which have been accepted by a majority of creditors and to which some creditors have unreasonably objected? [Paragraph 5.91]

5.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Do you agree that non-judicial debt settlement procedures should take place under conditions specified in legislation rather than allowing the conditions of a settlement (e.g. protected income amounts, duration of repayment plan etc.) to be agreed on an entirely voluntary basis? [Paragraph 5.97]

 

[Bronte]

I find this hard to read/understand.

I would like a simple straightforward non court based debt settlement scheme that will cost relatively nothing, be easy for normal people to understand and operate without recourse to professionals.

 

[Caveat]

The biggest problem IMO is that apparently the courts make no distinction between inability to pay debts and unwillingness to pay debts. At the very least this needs addressing I would think.

 

[Latrade]

It could be done but would require the creation of a new body. Something that is a cross between the Labour Courts and the Injuries Board.

It could still involve the judiciary but around table rather than using a court room.

An informal, non-adversarial, though still binding, system would encourage greater uptake than the stigma, fear and expense of court appearances.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

An informal, non-adversarial, though still binding, system would encourage greater uptake than the stigma, fear and expense of court appearances.

Hi LATrade

This is exactly what is proposed and why they are proposing it.

Non-judicial does not mean voluntary, which is what I thought that they meant initially.

The key is that it would be non-adversarial and confidential. Most of us are intimidated by appearing in court for driving offences. It must be much worse for debts.

So I agree with all the proposals in this section.

If a debtor does not participate or if they participate but don't adhere to the settlement agreement in good faith, then there will be a judicial bankruptcy option available to the creditors.