Why is it that the rules on PIAs DSAs etc were not eased in line with the changes to bankruptcy duration and the duration of income payment orders?
A PIA is not nearly as attractive now as when the rules were originally drawn up.
The restriction on bankruptcy applications whereby PIPs can effectively "veto" a bankruptcy application if they believe a PIA can be achieved instead (as outlined here in another thread) has taken on a very negative implication for would-be bankrupts that I assume was not an intention when the rules were first established.
How is it that this has not been a topic of discussion. (Or has it?)
Not to mention that giving PIPs these powers in the first place is pretty bizarre seeing as how PIPs waving bankruptcy applications through is akin to turkeys voting for Christmas.
A PIA is not nearly as attractive now as when the rules were originally drawn up.
The restriction on bankruptcy applications whereby PIPs can effectively "veto" a bankruptcy application if they believe a PIA can be achieved instead (as outlined here in another thread) has taken on a very negative implication for would-be bankrupts that I assume was not an intention when the rules were first established.
How is it that this has not been a topic of discussion. (Or has it?)
Not to mention that giving PIPs these powers in the first place is pretty bizarre seeing as how PIPs waving bankruptcy applications through is akin to turkeys voting for Christmas.
Last edited: