Issues with particular types of property
Cash
Cash in hand or in a bank account can be disregarded if it is intended to be used to pay for the essential expenditure listed in the income/expenditure section of the application. Regardless of its original source, cash is property unless it represents arrears of disability benefits (ie, attendance allowance (AA), disability living allowance (DLA), personal independence payment (PIP), equivalent benefits paid to armed forces personnel, disability premiums paid with legacy benefits, the severe disability premium paid with pension credit (PC), the disabled child element of UC) and transitional payments paid as a result of not being able to claim the severe disability premium in UC.
Money owed
If the client is owed money, it is regarded as property unless they have unsuccessfully attempted to recover it and these attempts are documented. Arrears of child support and compensation owed to the client through the magistrates’ court are not property for this purpose.
Pensions
Any undrawn ‘approved’ pension entitlement should not be taken into account when assessing the value of the client’s property.1Failed pension schemes that would have been ‘approved’ and which have been taken over by the Payment Protection Fund continue to be ‘approved’ for DRO purposes. Chapter 57 of the Technical Guidance for Official Receivers states that unapproved pensions are rare. The Insolvency Service’s position is that a pension with a recognised national provider or recognised national employer is approved. However, if the client has reached the age where they are entitled to withdraw all or part of their pension as a lump sum (often aged 55), you must assess whether they would be able to withdraw enough to clear their debts in full. This is to determine whether the client can meet the requirement of being unable to pay their debts. Where the pension is already in payment, any regular income from that pension must be taken into account when assessing the client’s available income. Firstly, you will need to establish whether the client has a ‘defined contribution’ or a ‘defined benefit’ pension, as in the case of the latter it may not be possible to access the pension pot as a lump sum. In the case of a defined contribution pension, you must:
•check a recent pension policy statement in order to assess its value; and
•confirm whether the client can take money from the pension to pay off their debts within ‘a reasonable timescale’.
It is usual for the first 25 per cent of a pension lump sum to be accessible tax free. However, you will need to allow for any fees payable (this information can be obtained from the pension provider) and any tax on the remainder that will be deducted at source. There is information on ‘Taking your whole pension pot in one go’ (including a valuation calculator) on the MoneyHelper website at .
Where the realisable value of the client’s pension (together with any other available assets) is less than the client’s total debts, then they are unable to pay their debts. Where the realisable value of the client’s pension (together with any other available assets) is only ‘marginally’ above the client’s total debts, you must make a ‘realistic assessment’ of whether those debts can be paid in full, having regard to how long any realisation will take and the fact that the client’s debts may increase during this time. The DRO Team says that ‘urgent household costs’, such as maintenance or repairs, can be taken into account when making this assessment, but that, if the value of the client’s pension (and other assets) is enough to repay the client’s debts in full, and the client has access to the pension and can get the funds they need to do this, the client will not meet the eligibility criteria. The DRO Team acknowledges there may be an exception where there is a contractual or other legal reason why the client may not be able to access their pension. The DRO Team has to date provided no guidance on the meanings of ‘marginally’, ‘realistic assessment’, ‘reasonable timescale ‘ or the scope of ‘urgent household costs’ (other than maintenance or repairs).
Even if a client has not reached the age where they can access their pension, the DRO Team says that you must still establish whether the client has any pensions and, if so, whether they are ‘approved’ or not – ie, approved for tax purposes by HMRC. If they are not ‘approved’, they are assets and their value must be listed in the assets page of the DRO application and the client may well be over the asset limit, so will not be eligible for a DRO. If they are ‘approved’, DRO Team guidance is that you do not need to value them and you can answer ‘No’ to the question ‘Do you have a pension?’ in the DRO application. DRO Team advice is that you should advise clients who will reach the age that would enable them to access their pension during the moratorium that, if they access it during the moratorium, this would need to be reported as an increase in income. If it increases surplus income to more than £75 a month, this could lead to revocation of the DRO. Any lump sum drawn down during the moratorium will be treated as income and apportioned over a period of 12 months.
Note: the DRO Team is no longer pre-assessing pensions prior to submission of the DRO application. If you have assessed that the realisable value of a client’s pension is above the client’s total debts, but a DRO application is nevertheless submitted, it must be accompanied by a supporting email explaining why you or your client believe the client is still unable to pay their debts. This email should be sent to: DRO.Preorder@insolvency.gov.uk with the subject ‘Pension’ and the application number. The Pre-order Team may get back to you if they have questions or need any further information. The section entitled ‘Undrawn pensions and occupational pensions’ in the Debt Relief Orders: guidance for debt advisers has been removed and replaced with new sections entitled ‘Pensions’, ‘Pensions as income’, ‘Pensions accessible as a lump sum’ and ‘Pensions as an asset’. If you are in any doubt as to how to proceed, you should seek specialist advice.
Right to claim compensation
Alert: Before the practice was banned by the FCA with effect from 28 January 2021, some lenders offering car finance allowed brokers (-ie, the person arranging the loan -eg, car dealers) to adjust the interest rates offered to clients. The higher the interest rate, the more commission the broker received from the lender. This practice was known as a Discretionary Commission Arrangement (DCA) and may have been applied to a client’s car loan without their knowledge. The FCA is investigating whether some car finance customers were charged too much for their loans and may, therefore, be entitled to compensation. The FCA has announced that it now plans to announce its findings in May 2025. You can view more information about DCA complaints on the .
A client with an outstanding DCA complaint may potentially be entitled to compensation, which is a ‘right of action’ that might, therefore, need to be declared on the DRO application as property. However, it is unclear what the outcome is going to be for clients who have made a DCA complaint, but have not yet received a response. Will they receive compensation and, if so, how much will it be? The DRO Team has, therefore, confirmed that a DCA complaint relating to car finance will not be treated as an asset until the client has received confirmation that they are entitled to compensation. However, approved intermediaries have been asked to provide information about any such complaint when they submit the DRO application.
The client’s right to claim compensation from another person or organisation is potentially property, but not if the claim is purely personal to the client – eg, for injuries to the person, feelings or reputation. However, if the claim includes a claim for a ’pecuniary loss’ (eg, lost wages), only that part of the claim is regarded as property.2See Insolvency Service, ‘Personal injury compensation’, ‘DRO A-Z’ (Debt Relief Orders: guidance for debt advisers) Compensation from the Windrush scheme is treated in a similar way to compensation for personal injury claims.3See ‘Windrush compensation and insolvency’, L Charlton, Adviser online, 19 September 2019 Claims for compensation for wrongful arrest or unlawful detention are not regarded as property, but any claim for pecuniary loss is regarded as property (this represents a recent change in DRO Team policy, as previously both elements were treated a property). Claims for compensation to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority are not regarded as property, even if pecuniary losses are included. A claim for compensation for unfair dismissal (a claim that it was unfair to dismiss the employee) is not regarded as property, but a claim for compensation for wrongful dismissal is a claim for breach of contract and is regarded as property. A claim for compensation for injured feelings in a discrimination case is not regarded as property but a claim for financial losses (eg, wages) is regarded as property. You should, therefore, check the nature of any employment-related claims being pursued by the client. If the client is pursuing a claim, their solicitor should be contacted to confirm whether or not the other party has accepted liability and how much compensation the client is likely to receive. Then specialist advice should be sought about whether the client’s right counts as property for DRO purposes.
Note: if a client receives compensation during the 12-month moratorium period (see here), or even afterwards if the right of action existed at the date of the DRO application, this could lead to any DRO being revoked. This also applies to rights to action that are not regarded as property at the pre-order stage. It might be in a client’s best interests to resolve any potential or pending compensation claims before deciding whether or not a DRO is the most appropriate option. This advice also applies to clients who have outstanding claims for refunds of premiums for missold payment protection insurance in connection with any credit agreements (see here). The official receiver says: •refunds are not property until the creditor or insurance company accepts the claim and the amount of any refund has been agreed;
•creditors can exercise any contractual right to set off the refund against any debt owed by the client. If this is done before the DRO application is made, it is not regarded as a preference. If it is done during the 12-month moratorium, it is not regarded as a remedy in respect of the debt;
•any refund paid to the client during the moratorium period could result in the DRO being revoked.
Any funds received before the DRO application can be paid pro rata to qualifying creditors without involving any issue of preference or they could be used to buy any basic household goods (which are disregarded when calculating how much property the client owns) that the client currently needs.