I have written quite a few pieces were I am critical of the “debt consulting” industry and persons presenting themselves as credit counsellors when they have little or no formal education or credentials. It’s not that I begrudge any of these people a livelihood – I just wish they’d pick a career that doesn’t involve gouging an already desperate portion of the population.
Ted Michalos, Bankruptcy Trustee
If you are unfamiliar with the term debt settlement it generally means some sort of negotiated deal to repay a portion of your debt. The service is real – most creditors will accept a partial repayment, particularly in a lump sum, once your debt has gone into collections. The trick here is one of timing. The debt settlement companies charge an upfront fee plus a percentage of the settled debt. They pay themselves first before they actually settle with your creditors and they can’t settle with your creditors until they have “saved up” enough of your payments to offer a deal.
That’s a bit confusing, so an example might help. Let’s say you owe $50,000 on your credit cards. The debt settlement company tells you they can settle with your creditors for $25,000. The upfront fee is $2,000 and they’ll charge another 20% of the settled amount – $5,000. Let’s say you agree to $1,000 a month. So the first 7 months will go to pay them and then your payments will go into a savings account until they accumulate enough to offer one of your creditors the 50% deal. During this time you have no legal protection and in many cases the creditors simply proceed to collections and then take legal action against you. To stop the legal action you end up filing a consumer proposal or perhaps bankruptcy (of course you won’t get any of the money back from the debt settlement company).
An alternative might be a consumer proposal whereby you offer the same settlement (50%), but it would play out quite differently. A consumer proposal can be spread over five years which would give you a much lower payment. Just to keep the comparison similar though, we’ll say you can pay the $1,000 per month. Your proposal will run for 25 months (the debt settlement plan would run for 32 assuming the creditors don’t cut it short). By law, the fees for the trustee are taken directly from the settlement; they are not added on top. In addition, after the preparation fee has been paid, $1,500, a trustee only receives payment when the creditors are paid – not in advance. Further, all of the creditors receive payments at the same time – you don’t settle with one, then save up and settle with the next. Most importantly, if you file a proposal you have legal protection from wage garnishees, collection agents and other legal actions.
If you’ve responded to a debt settlement ad and/or are actively considering this solution for your financial difficulties please make certain you understand the process that the company you will be dealing with is going to follow. As long as you understand the risks and the pitfalls of a debt settlement plan then you can add itn to the list of options to deal with your debts. Most people don’t take the time to “read the fine print” and as such go into these plans with high expectations only to have their creditors continue to pursue them, including collection actions and wage garnishees.
Be careful and consider all of your options before you sign.
In addition to our usual commentary on bankruptcy in Canada, we occasionally review books that may be of interest to our readers. You can see all book reviews in our book review section.
Gail Vaz-Oxlade's Debt Free Forever: Take Control Of Your Money And Your Life
I must confess that I am biased, because I have appeared twice on Till Debt Do Us Part as an “expert”. My first appearance was back on Episode #36, that first aired in 2007, called Single Mom Shake Up. My job was to explain the bankruptcy option to Tammy, the person featured on that episode. She was able to cut her expenses, and with the support of her family she avoided bankruptcy.
I also appeared in Season 8, on episode number 103; you can watch the entire episode on the Till Debt Do Us Part section of the Slice web site. (Warning: This is a very emotional episode; I had to give some difficult advice, as did Ms. Vaz-Oxlade; sometimes our advice is not taken, and that’s a difficult reality when you are a professional advisor).
As anyone who was watched Till Debt Do Us Part will know, Gail Vaz-Oxlade has a very “no nonsense” approach to money problems. She strongly believes that ultimately you are responsible for your behavior, so only you can change your behavior to eliminate money problems. I like that approach.
That no-nonsense approach is easy to see in Debt Free Forever: Take Control Of Your Money And Your Life as Gail Vaz-Oxlade starts at the same place I start in every meeting I have with someone in financial trouble: Figure Out Where You Stand. She gives practical tips on how to analyze your spending, and, most importantly, how to face up to your debt.
In my experience facing up to your debt is the hardest step to take in your journey to financial freedom. It’s hard to make a list of all of the money you owe, but it’s absolutely essential if you want to go on the next step, which is Part Two of the book: Make a Plan.
Doug Hoyes, Bankruptcy Trustee, Appearing on 'Til Debt Do Us Part
Her advice is always practical; you don’t need a math degree to follow her advice. She keeps it simple, using her trademark “jar” method of saving, where you put cash in your food jar, gas money jar, and so on to keep budgeting simple.
Speaking of budgeting, that’s Chapter 4, Create a Budget That Balances. Again, Gail gives practical advice on how to create a household budget, and how to cut expenses to make your budget balance. She illustrates the concept with what she calls the “Life Pie”, where money is allocated to life’s expenses, and you have to learn to divide the pie up to keep your spending in check.
While Debt Free Forever: Take Control Of Your Money And Your Life focuses on budgeting, spending control, and setting goals, Chapter 11 does deal with subject matter near and dear to my heart: Cope When the Caca Hits the Fan. She starts the chapter off by telling it like it is:
One of life’s hard truths is that it doesn’t matter how carefully you plan, how hard you work, or how diligent you are in taking care of the details, crap happens!….It’s nice to think that life is predictable, but it’s not ………Having made a budget, made a debt repayment plan, made up your mind to live your life consciously and take care of your money, you may dream that it’ll be smooth sailing from here on in, but it is only a dream. Sometimes life sucks.
Yes, I couldn’t agree more. Every day I meet with Canadians who were doing well, but then they got sick, lost their job, got divorced, or had some other tragedy derail their dream of financial independence. Sometimes, stuff happens. Fortunately, Gail Vaz-Oxlade carries her “no-nonsense” approach to the discussion of bankruptcy in Canada as well. Here’s what she has to say:
Bankruptcy isn’t the worst thing in the world. Living in the hell you’ve created is….
For many people, the decision to go bankrupt isn’t an easy one to make. It’s a thorny path. But if that’s what it’ll take to get you out of hell, then do it.
Wow. No-one will ever accuse Ms. Vaz-Oxlade of “sugar coating” her opinions. She’s right: in my experience it takes the average person six months of soul-searching before deciding to file bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is a last resort for dealing with your debts, but sometimes it is necessary.
If you are looking for a book that contains practical, easy to understand advice, Debt Free Forever: Take Control Of Your Money And Your Life is just what you are looking for. The advice is easy to understand, but it’s not easy to implement. Making change is hard, and it takes sacrifice, but if you are up the challenge, this book can help.
The consumer proposal is probably the least known of the processes to deal with overwhelming debt, but it is the mechanism that has the greatest capacity for good given our current economic environment. Let’s face it, right now the number one biggest risk to the Canadian economy isn’t the high dollar, it isn’t our level of productivity, it isn’t the strength of our largest trading partner – it is the state of our personal finances.
Barton Goth, Bankruptcy Trustee
After that bold statement I must insert my disclosure. My name is Barton Goth, I am a licensed Trustee in Bankruptcy and Consumer Proposal Administrator here in Edmonton. So I definitely have a bias. However, this statement is not made based solely on observations made in my daily practice, but based on the current state of our overall economy. Let us review:
• During the 2000s, the average Canadian’s asset growth was less than half the pace of the 1990’s and the growth in debt was twice as rapid (Roger Suave, The Current State of Family Finances 2009)
• In recent years household debt has surged three time faster than income and now stands at a record high of more than $1-trillion (Canada’s Brewing Debt Storm, The Globe and Mail Apr. 16, 2010, by Paul Waldie and Steve Ladurantaye)
• The average Canadian owes about $1.47 for every dollar of disposable income (Certified General Accountants Association of Canada, CIBC Economics, National Bank economics and Statistics Canada)
• For many years, debt was rising about 2.5 percentage points faster per year than income, this gap had widened to 4 to 5 percentage points by 2005 and rising by approximately 9 per cent in 2008. (Defusing Canada’s debt bomb, Globe and Mail Apr. 17, 2010, by Don Drummond, Chief economist, TD Bank Financial Group)
As a result of these alarming trends I think the traditional focus of our finances is going to have to move away from the saving and investment side of things, and toward dealing with the debt that more and more people are becoming burdened by. This is why a consumer proposal currently is one of the most important financial tools available to Canadian families. It is a tool that gives Canadians the ability to regain control of their finances before they are forced to consider a bankruptcy. As a result, I predict that we will continue to see a major increase in the number of proposals filed as people begin to realize the gravity of their financial position and begin to investigate what can been done to resolve these difficulties.
For those of you unfamiliar with consumer proposals, you are not alone. The idea of a consumer proposal is relatively new (first introduced into the Canadian insolvency legislation in 1992), but has provided a way for many Canadians over the years with a middle of the road option that contains many of the advantages associated with a bankruptcy, while avoiding some of the more significant disadvantages. A consumer proposal is especially advantageous for those people who cannot afford to pay their debts in full but have enough money coming in each month that realistically they should not be forced into the filing of a bankruptcy, a reality that an increasing number of Canadians are faced with each day.
The consumer proposal is one of the options available through the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act that provides a court sanctioned way to negotiate a settlement with your unsecured creditors (i.e. credit cards, personal loans, taxes etc.). There are many advantages to filing a consumer proposal. For instance, in a proposal you do not automatically lose any of your assets as you would in a bankruptcy. You are able to have a reduced impact on your credit over the long term than filing bankruptcy, and most importantly, you are able to bring the payments on your existing debt to a manageable level that will fit in your budget. At the same time, because the consumer proposal is a court sanctioned settlement, you only need a majority of your creditors to cooperate with the proposal and you benefit from court protection which mandates that all your unsecured creditors must participate in the proposal and can no longer collect on or charge any interest on these debts.
At a time when the average family is faced with waning savings, growing debt, aggressive lending practices and an uncertain economy, the consumer proposal may prove to be one of the most needed of all financial tools, and one that will assist many families in an effort to regain control of their finances and truly put their house in order.
If your one of the many Canadians who are currently struggling with your finances I have one word of advice, act now and schedule a time to review your finances with a consumer proposal administrator . If you are proactive, rather than reactive, you will be able to catch things early. The earlier you recognize the difficulties you face and the earlier you act, the more likely you will be able to qualify to file a consumer proposals and the quicker you will be able to regain control of your finances.
The Office of Superintendent of Bankruptcy is a special operating agency associated with Industry Canada, part of the federal government. The “OSB” regulates bankruptcy trustees (the people who administer bankruptcies and proposals, and ensure they comply with all aspects of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act). As the regulator, the OSB will often seek the input of various stakeholders to determine if changes to their regulations of trustees are required, and they have just announced a “Trustee Licensing Consultation” to review various aspects of insolvency regulation in Canada.
One of the items being considered is whether or not to allow non-trustees to serve as administrators of consumer proposals. As our regular readers will be aware, a consumer proposal is a legally binding settlement negotiated between a debtor and their creditors, with the assistance of a consumer proposal administrator. With the exception of the province of Nova Scotia, where provincial representatives may administer consumer proposals, all consumer proposal administrators in Canada are licensed bankruptcy trustees.
The issue being considered is this: should the OSB allow non-trustees to serve as administrators of consumer proposals?
Ms. Ross presented the argument that accredited credit counsellors (in addition to licensed trustees) should also be permitted to administer consumer proposals. She gave three main reasons:
To eliminate the “monopolistic approach that limits access to the consumer proposal”, since only licensed trustees can act as administrators;
To “provide Canadians with equality of access”; and
To increase OACCS member agencies revenue to allow them to provide their other services.
What’s my opinion?
First, let me start by stating my bias: I am a licensed bankruptcy trustee, and my firm files many thousands of bankruptcies and consumer proposals each year, so obviously I have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo; it’s what I do for a living.
Second, let me also say that I have personally met Ms. Ross on a number of occasions, and I have a great deal of respect and admiration for her, and for her organization. On a daily basis I interact with many credit counsellors who work at OACCS member agencies. I refer debtors to credit counsellors when I believe a credit counsellor can best solve their problems, and I refer debtors to OACCS member agencies for the counselling required when they file a bankruptcy or a consumer proposal.
In my twenty plus years in the insolvency business, I can honestly state that the accredited, not for profit credit counsellors I have worked with have all worked very hard in the best interests of their clients, and I would never question their competence or integrity.
I agree that these are difficult times to be a not for profit credit counsellor. As Ms. Ross correctly points out, many years ago the government provided funding directly to not for profit credit counselling agencies. When that funding stopped, as Ms. Ross eloquently stated:
Some agencies were forced to close, others narrowed their service operation and the larger agencies continued to operate by finding alternative revenue streams. Revenue came from voluntary fair-share contributions from creditors, educational seminars for employee groups, the sale of educational material and the bankruptcy counselling that we do.
Over the years not for profit credit counsellors began to offer Debt Management Plans, or DMPs, where creditors (like the banks and credit card companies) would agree to make a “fair share” contribution to the work of the counselling agency to fund their efforts. In a DMP the creditors are paid in full, without interest, so a successful DMP is good for the banks, because they get back all of their money, and it’s good for the debtor, since they don’t have to pay interest, and they are given time to pay.
Unfortunately a DMP is generally not as good a solution for most people as is a consumer proposal. Again, to quote Ms. Ross:
The debt management plans, DMPs, available through credit counselling provide consumers with a workable option to repay debt. Most people who undertake DMPs are technically insolvent, or close to it, but are determined to honour their credit obligations and repay their debt. DMPs are negotiated with creditors to provide full debt repayment over an extended time frame. Upon acceptance by the creditors, member agencies manage and administer these DMPs and are authorized to operate trust accounts to facilitate payments to creditors.
Voluntary DMPs do not provide court protection for consumers, nor mandate creditors to stop charging interest on the debt, nor mandate a specified time frame for creditors to respond to debt repayment proposals. They do not mandate that creditors accept a pro-rated share of the debtor’s ability to repay, nor do they address complex entitlement issues that may require a more formal plan.
On the other hand, consumer proposals are a court-supervised option to repay debt. A consumer proposal is an offer made by a debtor to their creditors to modify their payments in an effort to settle the debt. Under a proposal, a debtor may offer to pay a lower amount each month over a longer period of time or to pay a percentage of what they owe. A significant benefit to consumers of a consumer proposal is protection by the courts from unsecured creditors. This is important because it prevents creditors from taking legal steps, such as seizing property or garnishing wages, to recover debts.
I agree with Ms. Ross. A DMP is not binding on the creditors. If you have five creditors, and only three of them accept the DMP, the other two can still attempt to sue you and garnishee your wages. In a consumer proposal, if the majority of the dollar value of creditors agree, all creditors must accept the proposal. It is legally binding.
It is easy to see the problem faced by not for profit credit counsellors. The government withdrew their financial support many years ago, forcing the closure of many agencies. Debtors who need the services of not for profit credit counsellors generally don’t have the money to pay for those services, so it is difficult for agencies to cover their operating costs. DMPs were a great way for not for profit credit counselling agencies to generate revenue to cover their costs (through the “fair share” contributions made by creditors), but as debtors realize that a consumer proposal is often a superior alternative, the percentage of debtors filing a DMP has fallen, resulting in reduced revenue for credit counselling agencies.
Realizing that consumer proposals are the superior alternative, many not for profit credit counselling agencies began working with trustees to offer consumer proposals to their clients. They would meet the debtor, asses their situation, gather the necessary financial information, determine their debt load, and then prepare the files for the trustee. The trustee then only had to “show up” at the credit counsellors office to witness the debtor signing the paperwork. The trustee would pay the credit counsellor for their work, and it was a “win-win” for everyone. The credit counselling agency earned some revenue, and the trustee had access to a steady stream of clients without having to do very much work.
Unfortunately, the OSB has rules against this approach. Federal law requires a licensed trustee to personally assess the debtor before they file a bankruptcy or proposal. Directive No. 6R3 Assessment of an Individual Debtor, requires the trustee to personally meet with the debtor and review their assets, liabilities and income, and to review all of the options available for dealing with their debt problems.
Section 49 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Rules states that:
49. Trustees shall not, directly or indirectly, pay to a third party a commission, compensation or other benefit in order to obtain a professional engagement or accept, directly or indirectly from a third party, a commission, compensation or other benefit for referring work relating to a professional engagement.
Trustees therefore cannot pay a referral fee to a credit counsellor for assessing a debtor, or helping to prepare the file, as described in more detail in the OSB position paper on Referral Agreements between Trustees and a Third Party.
Unfortunately once the OSB realized what was happening, they had no choice but to enforce the rules and stop these practices, as noted by Ms. Ross:
For some time, the larger of the credit counselling services had prepared files for consumer proposals on behalf of certain trustees. This included statutory counselling, interviewing and assessing the debtor, and confirming the debt load. The Superintendent of Bankruptcy has recently determined that it is incompatible with the trustee’s responsibility to outsource this work. This decision has affected our agency’s revenue to the detriment of its ability to provide broader services as well as BIA proposals.
I both sympathize and empathize with the plight of accredited not for profit credit counselling agencies. They are trying to help people deal with their debts. Who else is there to fight for the little guy (which is the reason Ted Michalos and me, Doug Hoyes, went to Ottawa to testify in the first place, as I noted in my opening remarks):
Mr. Michalos and I and our bankruptcy trustees spend each day meeting with people in financial distress. These are real people who, in many cases, have lost their jobs, gone through a marriage breakup or suffered through an illness; and after these personal tragedies, they are faced with insurmountable debt.
These are not bad people. We believe it is important that when parliamentarians draft bankruptcy legislation, they remember that real people are affected.
About 100,000 Canadians file bankruptcy or a proposal each year.
Unfortunately, that group is not organized and so probably will not have anyone to speak on their behalf before this committee. We hope that our testimony will highlight some of the concerns of the average bankrupt.
Banks want you to borrow money on their high interest rate credit cards. Finance companies want you to get a high interest rate loan. Payday loan companies want you to get a very high interest payday loan. They all spend millions of dollars in advertising each year to encourage you to borrow and consume.
Not for profit credit counsellors fight against this onslaught of debt. They spend many hours each day helping people work out a budget. They provide education programs to help the average Canadian understand the world of debt, and how to avoid it. They are the only voice in the wilderness telling you to spend less, not more.
But they can’t pay the rent in their offices, and pay their staff salaries, and pay for the supplies to help you make a budget if they have no revenue.
And that’s one of the reasons why, as Ms. Ross freely admitted, that not for profit credit counsellors want to be given permission to administer consumer proposals. It would give them a source of revenue so that they can continue their good work. Who could argue with that?
I certainly don’t argue with doing good work. I agree that someone has to tell Canadians to spend within their means, and to stop borrowing to consume.
Unfortunately I can’t agree with the notion that credit counsellors should be permitted to act as consumer proposal administrators as a way to increase their revenue.
My main objection to allowing non-licensed trustees to administer consumer proposals is that it is a government requirement that the trustee, as stated in Directive No. 6R3 Assessment of an Individual Debtor, must advise the debtor of all of their options, and the implications of all of their options. That means that as a trustee I must explain to all debtors the ramifications of doing nothing, do a debt settlement, getting a debt consolidation loan, doing a debt management plan through a not for profit or for profit credit counsellor, and doing a consumer proposal or personal bankruptcy. I can explain the implications of a bankruptcy, because I am a licensed bankruptcy trustee. I fully understand the process, so I can explain it. How can a non-trustee have the same level of knowledge as a trustee?
The Directive requires me to explain: “transfers, preferences and settlements of real or personal property of the debtor.” Is that something all credit counsellors understand? Do all credit counsellors understand the new surplus income rules, and how they are calculated in practice? Do credit counsellors understand the discharge process, and the court process, in a consumer proposal or a bankruptcy?
Credit counsellors would argue that they can learn all of those things, and I agree. The best way to become knowledgeable about the entire process is to become a trustee. Currently the average trustee has a university degree, many years of practical experience, and they have passed a series of very complicated courses that take on average five or more years to complete. It takes a long time to become a trustee. But, if a credit counsellor wants to become a trustee, they can find a sponsor, enroll in the program, and become a trustee, and then they can administer consumer proposals.
I believe this discussion is missing the real issue. As Ms. Ross correctly stated, not for profit credit counselling agencies are suffering from declining revenue, which is why they want to administer consumer proposals. The solution is not to make credit counsellors into consumer proposal administrators; the solution is to find a way to increase their revenue, doing what they do best.
What credit counsellors do best is credit counselling. They are highly skilled in providing advice on budgeting and money management. They are excellent educators. They should concentrate on what they do best. But how do they generate the revenue to cover their costs to provide this un-biased money management education?
The most obvious answer is through the revenue they receive from the credit counselling that they provide to individuals that have filed a bankruptcy or consumer proposal in Canada. Every individual that files bankruptcy or a consumer proposal is required to attend two credit counselling sessions, as described in Directive No. 1R2, Counselling in Insolvency Matters. Many trustees in Canada, including my firm, Hoyes, Michalos & Associates, outsource the majority of our credit counselling sessions to external counsellors. We do this because we want our debtors to get the best possible counselling so that they learn proper money management skills, so that they don’t have any future money problems.
Rule 131 of the Bankruptcy & Insolvency Act Rules prescribes the rate that is to be paid for the two required counselling sessions: $85 for each individual session, or $25 per person if the counselling is provided in a group session. In other words, a trustee may “outsource” the counselling requirement to a licensed credit counsellor, and the trustee may pay the credit counsellor, from the funds in the estate, $85 for each individual credit counselling session.
While $85 may sound like a lot of money, it isn’t. Many counselling sessions can take an hour or more, and that $85 must cover the counsellor’s wages, and all other overheads (like rent, administrative costs to book the appointment, training costs, etc.). Even worse, that $85 amount has remained unchanged for many years. $85 in 1994 is the equivalent of more than $115 in equivalent dollars today.
So the first, and most obvious solution, is to increase the amount that is paid for credit counselling sessions. Increasing the rate to $115 per session would bring the tariff back to where it was in 1994. I would go one step further: I would increase the rate to $125, or even $150 per session. Those increased resources would provide greater revenue to not for profit credit counselling agencies, since trustees would have more resources to pay them.
In addition to increasing the rate, I would increase the number of credit counselling sessions required.
Currently the first session must be done in the first 60 days of the bankruptcy or proposal, with the second session completed before the 210th day. That timing makes sense for a bankruptcy that lasts for nine months, but it may not be sufficient for a bankruptcy that lasts for 21, 24, or 36 months, as they often now do under the new bankruptcy rules. It’s also not sufficient for a consumer proposal that can last for up to five years.
So, my second suggestion is that for all bankruptcies that are automatically extended past nine months, a third counselling session should be added, to occur at some point in the second year. In addition, for all consumer proposals that last for greater than twelve months, a third counselling session should be added.
This new third session could focus on a review of the techniques learned in the first two sessions, and could include a review of the budget the debtor should be keeping during their insolvency process. This extra counselling session could be used to review different methods of saving (like the new Tax Free Savings Account), and could cover more advanced budgeting techniques. Perhaps this new counselling session could include an interactive web based component, allowing debtors to track their budget information on line. There are many tools that already do this, such as Calendar Budget, so it would not be that difficult to develop the content for the new third credit counselling session. Credit Canada, a not for profit credit counselling agency, has created a Financial Coaching Series that costs $120 per session for six sessions, so the expertise and content already exists for this extra counselling session. In fact, I would seek the input of the not for profit credit counsellors, including the OACCS, to help design this third session.
By raising the counselling rate from $85 to $125, and by adding a third session, the revenue generated by each personal bankruptcy or consumer proposal would increase from $170 to up to $375. That increase in revenue would go a long way towards helping not for profit credit counsellors help the people they want to help.
Is this the perfect solution? Probably not. I’m sure with further consultation even better strategies can be developed. But with this approach the real problem of reduced revenue for not for profit credit counsellors can be solved, without creating a new problem of having non trustees administering consumer proposals.
posted by Ted Michalos @ 
as Gail Vaz-Oxlade starts at the same place I start in every meeting I have with someone in financial trouble: Figure Out Where You Stand. She gives practical tips on how to analyze your spending, and, most importantly, how to face up to your debt.
