Draft Debt Recovery (Mental Health Moratorium) (Scotland) Regulations: consultation - summary report

Consultation Response Results

The following is an executive summary of the responses to the questions in the consultation.

Mental Health Moratorium: eligibility

Question 1. Do you agree with the proposed mental health eligibility criteria as listed?

Response type	Total responses	Organisations only
Agree	28	19
Disagree	14	9
Neither agree nor disagree	5	5
Not answered	3	3
Total	50	36

Of the total respondents to the consultation, 94% answered this particular question. Of those respondents, 60% agree with the proposed eligibility criteria, 30% disagree and 10% neither agree nor disagree.

Reasons provided by respondents who agree with the proposed eligibility criteria included:

• clear definitions are crucial for the effectiveness and efficiency of the scheme
• support for excluding the Debt and Mental Health Evidence Form from the eligibility criteria to avoid misuse or fraudulent claims
• ensuring consistency and parity with the Mental Health Crisis Breathing Space in England and Wales

“The widened mental health eligibility is in line with what our members with experience of mental ill health and debt difficulties wanted to see. While VOX Scotland members did think there could be others with mental health issues who needed help with debt problems caused by their mental health or that were making their mental health worse, it was also acknowledged that there had to be clear eligibility criteria for the moratorium to work well and provide protections for those in the most vulnerable situations.” VOX Scotland

Themes raised by respondents who disagree with the proposed eligibility criteria included:

• the criteria being too narrow and would exclude individuals who need support but do not meet the strict requirements
• concerns about the additional burden on mental health professionals and the complexity of the process

Some stakeholders also reiterated views expressed in the previous consultation in favour of using the Debt and Mental Health Evidence Form as a mechanism for the eligibility criteria.

“While we welcome the widening of the criteria to include people receiving voluntary treatment or care from specialist mental health services, we believe that the eligibility should be expanded further. Specifically, eligibility should also be established through the completion of a Debt and Mental Health Evidence Form.” Money Advice Scotland

Question 2. Do you agree with the proposed debt eligibility criteria as listed?

Response type	Total responses	Organisations only
Agree	23	15
Disagree	8	7
Neither agree nor disagree	16	11
Not answered	3	3
Total	50	36

Of the respondents who answered the question, 49% agree with this proposal, 17% disagree and 34% neither agree nor disagree. Of the total respondents to the consultation, 6% did not answer this particular question.

Reasons provided by respondents who agree with the proposed debt eligibility criteria included:

• this approach is seen as more seamless and less intrusive than involving a money advisor at an early stage
• spending time with a debt advisor could be impossible for individuals with mental distress
• the debt criteria listed appears reasoned and balanced

“We support the proposed approach whereby a mental health professional provides a simple statement confirming debt problems are impacting negatively on the patient’s mental health condition. This has the potential to create an even more seamless application process for the individual applying.” The Money and Mental Health Policy Institute

Themes raised by respondents who disagree with the proposed debt eligibility criteria included:

• mental health professionals may not have the necessary financial expertise, and this places a burden on them
• money advisers should play a clearer role in assessing the financial distress of the individual

“Debt accrued during moratorium period should be included. People in crisis will not be able to manage their finances effectively and can often end up in more debt.” Dumfries & Galloway Citizens Advice Service

Question 3. Do you agree that an individual subject to a statutory debt solution should not be eligible for a Mental Health Moratorium?

Response type	Total responses	Organisations only
Agree	24	17
Disagree	16	10
Neither agree nor disagree	3	2
Not answered	7	7
Total	50	36

Of the respondents who answered this question, 56% of those respondents agree with the proposal. 37% disagree and 7% neither agree nor disagree. Of the total respondents to the consultation, 14% did not answer this particular question.

Reasons provided by respondents who agree with this proposal included:

• creditors already compromised by statutory debt solutions should not be subject to further restrictions
• eligibility for a Mental Health Moratorium should be tied to the completion of all obligations under the statutory debt solution and not just discharge from sequestration
• the circumstances of individuals under statutory debt solutions should be reviewed and revised if necessary

“Social Work Scotland and our members agree with the proposal and appreciate that the purpose of the moratorium is to give someone space to deal with existing debts. If a statutory debt solution is in existence, then debt issues are already being addressed.” Social Work Scotland

Reasons provided by respondents who disagree with this proposal included:

• that people in statutory debt solutions should have access to a Mental Health Moratorium to ensure equitable relief, with those not in a solution, during treatment periods
• excluding individuals from a Mental Health Moratorium could exacerbate their mental health conditions and lead to the failure of their statutory debt solutions during treatment periods

“Whilst there may be some logic behind a person who is an undischarged bankrupt not being able to access a Mental Health Moratorium, such an approach fails to recognise the realities of living with a mental health condition, especially one which can be episodic and fluctuates. It is entirely possible that an individual may be under a statutory debt solution and managing their commitments until their mental health deteriorates to the point this is no longer possible.” Citizens Advice Scotland

Moratorium debts

Question 4. Do you agree with the proposed definition of moratorium debt which would qualify to be protected in a Mental Health Moratorium (see regulation 3 in particular)?

Response type	Total responses	Organisations only
Agree	18	13
Disagree	18	11
Neither agree nor disagree	8	6
Not answered	6	6
Total	50	36

Of the total respondents to the consultation, 88% answered this particular question. Of those respondents 41% agree with the proposed definition, 41% disagree and 18% neither agree nor disagree.

Reasons provided by respondents who agree with this proposal included:

• considering all factors contributing to this situation and not automatically cancelling the moratorium if ongoing liabilities were not addressed seems to be a fair and balanced approach
• including ongoing liabilities in the moratorium would be counterintuitive to the long-term solution for that individual
• protections need to be in place for creditors who have given credit without knowing the individual is within a mental health moratorium

“We believe that the definitions of moratorium debt and debts protected from recovery action are appropriate: ensuring that existing debts do not worsen whilst someone is within a period of treatment for poor mental health.” Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland

Reasons provided by respondents who disagree with this proposal included:

• it is unrealistic and unfair for individuals to continue paying ongoing liabilities during a mental health crisis as it contradicts the purpose of the Mental Health Moratorium
• individuals experiencing a mental health crisis often face significant financial challenges, including reduced income and inability to pay ongoing bills such as rent, council tax, and utilities

“All debts should be included in the Moratorium. It is worth noting that for those who are severely impacted by mental ill-health, they may struggle to pay their ongoing liabilities, especially if their mental ill-health has reduced their income due to not being able to work, so we welcome the proposal that individuals won’t automatically lose moratorium protection if they can’t keep up with liabilities.” Christians Against Poverty

Mental Health Moratorium: review of eligibility criteria

Question 5. Do you agree with the proposed requirement for Accountant in Bankruptcy to confirm the mental health eligibility criteria is continuing to be met?

Response type	Total responses	Organisations only
Agree	30	22
Disagree	7	4
Neither agree nor disagree	8	5
Not answered	5	5
Total	50	36

Of the respondents who answered this question, 66% agree that AiB should confirm the individual’s mental health eligibility is continuing to be met, 16% disagree and 18% neither agree nor disagree. Of the total respondents to the consultation, 90% answered this question.

Reasons provided by respondents who agree with this proposal included:

• as the Mental Health Moratorium will potentially last longer than a statutory moratorium there must be a requirement for the AIB to continue to monitor that the criteria for it is continuing to be met
• supporting a fair review process but it must not create additional barriers for people in crisis or overburden mental health professionals
• the moratorium measures should be reviewed regularly as it would not be appropriate to remain in place indefinitely

“It is important to attempt to support individuals to undertake responsibility for any debt issues when they are able to do so as part of their recovery. Without such a requirement there is a possibility that matters will be allowed to ‘drift’ which is not in the interests of the service user/patient or creditors.” West Lothian Health and Social Care Partnership

Reasons provided by respondents who disagree with this proposal included:

• mental health professionals should be the ones to confirm mental health eligibility and recovery status and not AiB
• there should be minimal evidence requirement to avoid adding unnecessary burdens on the mental health and money advice sectors

“On the surface the proposed requirements for the Accountant in Bankruptcy to confirm the Mental Health eligibility is continuing to be met, appears to be a sensible approach. However, there are concerns within our sector that the Accountant in Bankruptcy may seek evidence when it is not required adding a burden to both the mental health and money advice sectors. CAS would strongly advocate for a soft touch approach where evidence is only requested in limited and extremely exceptional circumstances.” Citizens Advice Scotland

Mental Health Moratorium: application process

Question 6. Do you agree with the proposed application process?

Response type	Total responses	Organisations only
Agree	19	15
Disagree	7	5
Neither agree nor disagree	18	10
Not answered	6	6
Total	50	36

Of the respondents who answered this question, 43% agree with the application process whilst 16% disagree and 41% neither agree nor disagree. Of the total respondents to the consultation, 12% did not answer this question.

Reasons provided by respondents who agree with this proposal included:

• involving mental health professionals at the application stage is practical
• automatically offering protection to anyone receiving mental health crisis treatment could reduce the risk of financial difficulties not being disclosed or identified
• ensuring support through these processes is crucial
• ensuring awareness and promotion of the scheme among individuals and family members is important

“We agree with the two-stage process: that a Mental Health Officer should certify that the mental health and Debt criteria have been met, as Money Advisers are not qualified to do this. We also believe that a Money Adviser is an essential part of the application process, as it clear that the client may still require advice after the application is made to maximise income and deal with rent and mortgage arrears, if evictions and repossessions will still be possible after a Moratorium is applied for.” South Lanarkshire Council

Reasons provided by respondents who disagree with this proposal included:

• concerns about the workload impact on mental health professionals
• concerns about the AiB requesting additional supporting documentation
• need for protection and support for individuals who lack capacity and do not have a guardian or power of attorney

“The process by which psychiatrists are involved in the legislative process must not require any additional clinical time, nor involve additional assessments that are not already carried out. The only thing psychiatrists should be involved in is confirming that criteria (I.E. a patient being subject to legislation) are being met.” Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland

Notification and registration of Mental Health Moratorium

Question 7. Do you agree with the proposed process for the notification of the Mental Health Moratorium?

Response type	Total responses	Organisations only
Agree	33	24
Disagree	5	3
Neither agree nor disagree	7	5
Not answered	5	4
Total	50	36

Of the respondents who answered this question, 73% agree with the proposed notification process whilst 11% disagree. Of the total respondents to the consultation, 10% did not answer this question.

Reasons provided by respondents who agree with this proposal included:

• support for the use of electronic notifications to ensure timely and efficient communication
• creditors should formally accept notifications with a registered read receipt to prevent claims of non-receipt

“The proposed process allows for both the individual or legal representative, mental health professional or money advisor, and every creditor or enforcement agent to be notified. Ensuring every creditor and enforcement agent is notified allows for the intended purpose of the Mental Health Moratorium. However, we do have concerns about the accuracy of the creditors notified.” Association of British Credit Unions Ltd (ABCUL)

Reasons provided by respondents who disagree with this proposal included:

• mandatory acknowledgment of registration from creditors and enforceable time frames are needed
• credit checks alone may not identify all creditors, leaving some creditors uninformed and people at risk of continued enforcement action

“While we support the principle of a private register and timely notifications, the process lacks essential safeguards to protect people and ensure creditor compliance.” Money Advice Scotland

Question 8. Do you agree with the proposed process for the registration of the Mental Health Moratorium?

Response type	Total responses	Organisations only
Agree	29	22
Disagree	6	3
Neither agree nor disagree	8	6
Not answered	7	5
Total	50	36

Of the respondents who answered this question, 67% agree with the proposal presented and 14% disagree. Off the total respondents to the consultation, 14% did not answer this particular question.

Reasons provided by respondents who agree with this proposal included:

• the importance of ensuring that sensitive data is secure and not publicly available
• agreement that only specified individuals should have access to the register
• suggestions for a process to proactively provide details of all creditors and a mechanism to report ongoing creditor contact

“We agree that the Mental Health Moratorium register will not be a public register and will only be accessible to specified people. We believe that a public register would risk stigmatising those accessing a Mental Health Moratorium.” Samaritans Scotland

Reasons provided by respondents who disagree with this proposal included:

• concerns about creditors inadvertently or intentionally initiating enforcement actions without verifying a moratorium's existence
• including creditors that may not be shown on a credit check is necessary

“The exclusion from a public register is problematic. We recommend that mental health moratoria be recorded on a register without identifying the nature of the moratorium.” R3, Association of Business Recovery Professionals

Effect of a Mental Health Moratorium

Question 9. Do you agree with the proposed Mental Health Moratorium protections included in the current draft regulations?

Response type	Total responses	Organisations only
Agree	28	20
Disagree	14	10
Neither agree nor disagree	5	4
Not answered	3	2
Total	50	36

Of the respondents who answered this question, 60% agree with the proposed protections, 30% disagree and 10% neither agree nor disagree with the proposal. Of the total respondents to the consultation, 6% did not answer this particular question.

Reasons provided by respondents who agree with this proposal included:

• general agreement that the proposed protections are proportional, clear, and beneficial to individuals with severe mental health conditions
• strong support for the Scottish Government's proposal to include a pause on fees, charges, and interest during a mental health crisis
• retaining ability to serve an inhibition provides security to creditors while not compelling individuals to pay debts accrued during the moratorium

“A mental health moratorium should enable the individual to have the freedom from being chased or charged to enable them to prioritise their treatment and recovery.” Christians Against Poverty

Reasons provided by respondents who disagree with this proposal included:

• the draft regulations prevent creditors from requiring payments on interest, fees, and charges during the moratorium period, but these costs continue to accrue
• the current protections only cover diligence-based recovery methods but fail to address non-diligent recovery actions
• creditors who breach the moratorium should face direct financial penalties

“The current proposals fail to protect individuals from non-diligence recovery such as benefit deductions, Direct Earnings Attachments, Direct Earnings Orders, and Inhibitions and we know that these are likely to be the most commonly used for this group. MH Moratorium is a health intervention that allows people to focus on getting better before they can deal with their debts. As such, all debts should be subject to the MH Moratorium.” StepChange Debt Charity Scotland

Question 10. What are your views on how best to link the Mental Health Moratorium administrative processes and evictions procedures to ensure these work effectively together in practice?

There were differing views on the approach to the eviction issue in the Mental Health Moratorium. Some responses argued that current tenant protections are sufficient and additional measures are unnecessary. There is a need to balance the interests of tenants and landlords, especially small private landlords who may be financially impacted. Also highlighted was the importance of ensuring key stakeholders (landlords, local authorities, courts) are promptly informed when a Mental Health Moratorium is granted. Allowing mental health professionals to provide evidence to courts about the impact of eviction on health was suggested.

Other responses believed that Regulation 8 should be amended to explicitly prevent evictions and repossessions during the Mental Health Moratorium. The importance of protecting tenants in mental health crises from eviction to prevent homelessness and support recovery was emphasised. Consideration should be given to integrating eviction protections within the Mental Health Moratorium regulations rather than relying on the Housing Bill, which is still in progress.

Question 11. Do you agree that protection against the installation of pre-payment meters and disconnection of gas or electricity supply should be one of the protections available under the Mental Health Moratorium?

Response type	Total responses	Organisations only
Agree	33	23
Disagree	1	0
Neither agree nor disagree	10	7
Not answered	6	6
Total	50	36

Of the respondents who answered this question, 75% agree with the proposal presented, 2% disagree and the remaining 23% neither agree nor disagree. Of the total respondents to the consultation, 12% did not answer this particular question.

Reasons provided by respondents who agree with this proposal included:

• disconnection of utilities and the installation of pre-payment meters are seen as exacerbating financial and mental health issues
• a stable supply of utilities is crucial for maintaining physical and mental health during recovery
• adopting similar provisions in Scotland to those in England and Wales would ensure uniform protection for vulnerable individuals

“Our members provided evidence of difficulties with utilities and being cut off or having to use pre-payment meters. We agree this protection should be available under the mental health moratorium.” VOX Scotland

Reasons provided by respondents who disagree with this proposal included:

• pre-payment meters were viewed as a good way of ensuring ongoing liabilities were met by the individual
• preventing pre-payment installation can lead to post moratorium debt accruing

Period of a Mental Health Moratorium

Question 12. Do you agree with the proposed framework for the Mental Health Moratorium period?

Response type	Total responses	Organisations only
Agree	23	17
Disagree	11	7
Neither agree nor disagree	11	7
Not answered	5	5
Total	50	36

Of the respondents who answered this question, 52% agree with the proposal presented, 24% disagree and the remaining 24% neither agree nor disagree. Of the total respondents to the consultation, 10% did not answer this particular question.

Reasons provided by respondents who agree with this proposal included:

• the proposed time periods were seen as reasonable and balanced
• the time scales are clear and proportional
• the moratorium should not be a ‘one size fits all’ solution but should account for the unique circumstances and recovery journeys of individuals
• allowing longer than a 6-month recovery period for people to deal with their debts may delay people engaging with their money adviser and finding a solution

“We very much support the duration of the mental health moratorium not being time limited. It is important that it lasts as long as required for that individual. We also support the further “recovery period” of six months where the same protections apply, with the exceptions as set out in the paper.” Money Advice Trust

Reasons provided by respondents who disagree with this proposal included:

• there is no flexibility for extending the recovery period based on ongoing mental health and financial needs
• the framework assumes immediate debt management post-treatment which doesn't reflect the non-linear nature of mental health recovery
• the criteria for ending the moratorium are unclear and could be challenged by creditors

“We believe that flexibility is going to be an important part of any recovery-focused moratorium. In particular, the regulations need to account for the circumstance in which an individual in the recovery period becomes ill again and needs to return to the treatment period.” SAMH (Scottish Action for Mental Health)

Mental Health Moratorium: individual's obligations

Question 13. Should an individual in a Mental Health Moratorium be subject to the following proposed obligations? (Please tick all applicable options)

Response type	Total responses	Organisations only
An obligation to pay a continuing liability	21	14
An obligation to not obtain additional credit	18	11
Some other obligation	7	6
No obligation at all	15	10
Not answered	8	8

Of the total respondents to the consultation, 16% did not answer this particular question. Of those who did answer the question:

• 21 respondents believe the individual should be obligated to pay their continuing liabilities
• 18 respondents believe the individual should not be able to obtain additional credit
• 7 respondents believe another obligation should be imposed on the individual
• 15 respondents do not believe there should be any obligations imposed on the individual
• some respondents believe that more than one of the obligations should be imposed

There were various views on each of the possible obligations as well as the individual having no obligations. The following are a summary of the responses received on this topic.

• The obligation should be individualised to meet the needs of the person and the creditors.
• The draft legislation should protect future creditors while also providing relief to individuals in crisis.
• It would be in the best interest of the individual to continue to pay any liabilities. Not doing so may incur increasing debt during the moratorium, making the debt management period more challenging for the individual.
• Individuals in mental health crises may struggle to meet ongoing liabilities such as rent and council tax due to interruptions in income or benefits.
• There is an argument that the restriction on obtaining credit exceeding £2,000 could be punitive and may prevent individuals from making necessary financial decisions, such as remortgaging a property or obtaining credit for essential needs.
• Imposing financial obligations during a mental health crisis could hinder recovery and deter individuals from seeking support.
• Mental health conditions like bipolar disorder can lead to impulsive spending, making it unreasonable to expect individuals to manage their financial obligations during a crisis.

Creditor obligations

Question 14. Do you agree with the proposed process for a creditor’s search?

Response type	Total responses	Organisations only
Agree	34	24
Disagree	3	2
Neither agree nor disagree	7	5
Not answered	6	5
Total	50	36

Of the respondents who answered this question, 77% agree with the proposal presented, 7% disagree and 16% neither agree nor disagree. Of the total respondents to the consultation, 12% did not answer this particular question.

Reasons provided by respondents who agree with this proposal included:

• that it achieves equilibrium
• this is necessary for the system to work
• this will support monitoring and compliance with the directions on creditors when the moratorium is in effect

“We agree with the proposed process for creditors’ search as it strikes the right balance between the AiB in their record keeping and the responsibilities of creditors. Creditors would be in the best position to provide this information especially any information relating to any creditors by assignation.” Propertymark

Reasons provided by respondents who disagree with this proposal included:

• the phrase ‘as soon as reasonably practicable’ should be replaced with a specific timescale
• there should be a mandatory maximum time frame for creditor responses
• all debts, including those assigned to third parties, need to be included in the compliance process

“There should be a mandatory maximum time frame, and creditor accountability for not identifying or reporting all debts. All debts including those assigned to third parties need to be included.” Dumfries & Galloway Citizens Advice Service

Question 15. Do you agree with the proposed consequences for creditors?

Response type	Total responses	Organisations only
Agree	31	22
Disagree	7	5
Neither agree nor disagree	7	4
Not answered	5	5
Total	50	36

Of the respondents who answered this question, 68% agree with the proposal presented, 16% disagree and 16% neither agree nor disagree. Of the total respondents to the consultation, 10% did not answer this particular question.

Reasons provided by respondents who agree with this proposal included:

• a consistent approach across all UK jurisdictions is seen as beneficial, aligning practices with the English breathing space equivalent
• there is a strong emphasis on holding creditors accountable for not complying with their obligations and ensuring protections for individuals
• suggestions that any consequences for creditors should only be initiated if they have been made aware of the moratorium

“We agree with the proposed consequences for creditors who knowingly take action contrary to the protections, with the caveat that these consequences are only triggered when the creditors have been properly notified of the moratorium in the first instance.” The Institute of Revenues, Rating & Valuation

Reasons provided by respondents who disagree with this proposal included:

• large creditors might view compensating losses as a minor inconvenience rather than a deterrent
• the proposal lacks specifics on how AiB will monitor and enforce compliance
• repeat offenders should face escalating penalties, including higher fines and regulatory sanctions

“Fines or penalties should be applicable in addition to reimbursement for losses in an effort to deter against reluctance to abide by the regulations. Compliance should be monitored and acknowledgement required from creditors.” Citizens Advice & Rights Fife

Review of Accountant in Bankruptcy decision

Question 16. Do you agree with the proposed process for an individual to request a review of Accountant in Bankruptcy's decision to either not grant or to cancel a Mental Health Moratorium?

Response type	Total responses	Organisations only
Agree	28	20
Disagree	7	5
Neither agree nor disagree	8	5
Not answered	7	6
Total	50	36

Of the respondents who answered this question, 65% agree with the proposal presented, 16% disagree and the remaining 19% neither agree nor disagree. Of the total respondents to the consultation, 14% did not answer this particular question.

Reasons provided by respondents who agree with this proposal included:

• the proposal is seen as essential for fairness and transparency
• this mirrors other statutory provisions which allow a review of AIB’s decisions
• it is important that the person has the right to a review and that equal account is taken of their case and needs

“We agree and welcome that the proposals provide transparency in this process.” Law Society of Scotland

Reasons provided by respondents who disagree with this proposal included:

• the 14-day period is too short for individuals in a mental health crisis to request a review
• concerns about AiB rejecting applications submitted by qualified mental health professionals
• the process for challenging cancellations must be clear, accessible, and fair

“The 14 day window is too short. People may be hospitalised or unable to engage in the process. This should be extended to at least 28 days. The 21 days for a Sheriff court appeal is impractical. A longer appeal time is needed.” Dumfries & Galloway Citizens Advice Service

Question 17. Do you agree with the proposed process for a creditor to request a review of Accountant in Bankruptcy's decision to grant, or not cancel a Mental Health Moratorium?

Response type	Total responses	Organisations only
Agree	24	16
Disagree	14	11
Neither agree nor disagree	5	3
Not answered	7	6
Total	50	36

Of the respondents who answered this question, 56% agree with the proposed process, 33% disagree and the remaining 11% neither agree nor disagree. Of the total respondents to the consultation, 14% did not answer this particular question.

Reasons provided by respondents who agree with this proposal included:

• creditors should have the option to request a review of AiB’s decisions, particularly if there are concerns about errors or irregularities in the process
• a review process is necessary, especially if the client has sufficient funds but lacks the capacity to manage them without proper support

“Where a decision is made, a quick and inexpensive administrative process should be available to request that decision is reviewed by more senior management in the Accountant in Bankruptcy.” South Lanarkshire Council

Reasons provided by respondents who disagree with this proposal included:

• creditors are not mental health professionals and lack the expertise to assess mental health needs
• creditors might use the review process to pressure individuals into repayment, which could prolong distress and disrupt recovery
• allowing creditors to interfere prioritises financial interests over the individual's wellbeing

“Creditors do not have the knowledge or sufficient understanding to challenge the medical professionals determination of whether someone is eligible or not. Moreover, by allowing the right to challenge, this could delay the much-needed protections put in place by a MH Moratorium at a time of greatest need.” StepChange Debt Charity Scotland

Cancellation of a Mental Health Moratorium

Question 18. Do you agree with the proposed cancellation process?

Response type	Total responses	Organisations only
Agree	26	18
Disagree	8	5
Neither agree nor disagree	9	7
Not answered	7	6
Total	50	36

Of the respondents who answered this question, 60% agree with the proposed process, 19% disagree and the remaining 21% neither agree nor disagree. Of the total respondents to the consultation, 14% did not answer this particular question.

Reasons provided by respondents who agree with this proposal included:

• the approach being fair and reasonable
• an individual should be entitled to cancel their moratorium
• a creditor’s interests being unfairly prejudiced should also be sufficient ground to consider cancellation

“The proposed cancellation process provides a robust and fair approach. The example given where an individual has sufficient funds to pay their creditor but simply refuses to do so.” Association of British Credit Unions Ltd (ABCUL)

Reasons provided by respondents who disagree with this proposal included:

• assessments should be solely based on medical evidence
• stability is crucial for recovery and the fear of cancellation could undermine the purpose of the Mental Health Moratorium
• a standard moratorium cannot be cancelled so this creates an inconsistency between the proposed Mental Health Moratorium and the standard moratorium

“The Accountant in Bankruptcy are not experts in mental health and should trust the judgement of mental health professionals. Cancellation of a Mental Health Moratorium should only be allowable when a mental health professional or the individual has acted fraudulently, which is extremely unlikely given the criteria to be met, or when they no longer meet the criteria. It should have no connection to any income or funds or means of payment.” Citizens Advice Scotland

Interaction with the standard moratorium

Question 19. Do you agree with the proposed interaction between the Mental Health Moratorium and the standard moratorium?

Response type	Total responses	Organisations only
Agree	24	16
Disagree	11	7
Neither agree nor disagree	6	5
Not answered	9	8
Total	50	36

Of the respondents who answered this question, 59% agree with the proposal presented, 27% disagree and the remaining 14% neither agree nor disagree. Of the total respondents to the consultation, 18% did not answer this particular question.

Reasons provided by respondents who agree with this proposal included:

• the interaction being fair and reasonable
• support that a Mental Health Moratorium can be applied for multiple times but a standard moratorium only once within a 12-month period

“We agree with the proposed interaction between the mental health moratorium and the standard moratorium. However, we believe the regulations should be amended to clarify whether the alignment of the six-month timescale is with the current period for the standard moratorium or with whatever the period is from time to time.” R3, Association of Business Recovery Professionals

Reasons provided by respondents who disagree with this proposal included:

• linking the two moratoriums is inappropriate because they serve different purposes
• restricting access to a standard moratorium after exiting a Mental Health Moratorium could leave individuals without crucial financial protections when they still need support

“At present, this regulation presents as needlessly punitive for those whose mental health has improved but their financial situation has not. If this regulation is introduced, we risk further deterioration of mental illness triggered by financial insecurity over this 6-month period where people cannot access support.” SAMH (Scottish Action for Mental Health)

Question 20. We would be grateful for any further comments you have about the Mental Health Moratorium which has not been raised in this consultation.

“Samaritans Scotland welcomes the Scottish Government’s proposal of introducing a bespoke Mental Health Moratorium through powers contained in the Bankruptcy and Diligence (Scotland) Bill. This proposal should ensure that those who are facing difficulties with their mental health are able to prioritise their recovery.” Samaritans Scotland

“MAS welcomes the introduction of the MHM. We see this tool as an opportunity to provide much-needed protections to people experiencing a mental health crisis. However, the current proposals lack a realistic approach to mental health crises, and give too much power to creditors as well as failing to acknowledge and respect the expertise and professionalism of the mental health sector.” Money Advice Scotland

“While we support the principles behind the Mental Health Moratorium, we remain concerned that the overly complex nature of the regulations may limit their effectiveness. We strongly advocate for a streamlined approach that aligns with existing moratorium frameworks and includes more practical safeguards for both debtors and creditors.” R3, Association of Business Recovery Professionals