Clearly the government wants to encourage risk-taking by reducing the ignominy associated with personal bankruptcy and permitting the unhappy 'victim' to engage in a fresh start as quickly as possible after throwing himself on the mercy of an official receiver (see [2004] Gazette, 29 April, 14).

However, even under the newly enacted Enterprise Act there is no requirement for the trustee (who may be the official receiver) to give the bankrupt a clean slate even where there has been full disclosure and realisation of assets.

It is still widely believed that once a certificate of discharge is obtained the bankrupt is free to raise further credit, subject only to the condition that the creditor is informed of his prior status.

Yet the trustee will often refuse to remove the pending action and writ/order that are registered at the Land Charges Registry to protect each of the applications for the bankruptcy petition and the bankruptcy order.

The rationale for this refusal is that the former bankrupt may have other assets that were not originally disclosed to the Official Receiver and by leaving these entries in place - apparently ad infinitum - the creditors can obtain ongoing protection against any dealings with them.

For example, if an endowment policy is surrendered or matures even a decade after the claimant's discharge, the trustee will be informed (following a search by the insurance company) and negotiations will have to be initiated with him to secure payment of any entitlement.

The continuation of the register entries will also serve to prevent the one-time bankrupt from ever obtaining credit from reputable sources as there will be a refusal to lend while such patent evidence of past errors remains open for all to see.

The two major reforms highlighted by David Pomeroy in his comment article are certainly welcome.

But the bankrupt should also ensure that the two land charges entries are also removed when seeking effective discharge from his civically hobbled status.

Bill Jackson, Nelsons, Nottingham