Write the words of this act the way you think they should read. Solon shows your change as a redline against the published text and pins it to that exact text, so it can never be applied to wording you did not see.
Change 1
As published
50 Review of earnings arrestment.
(1) If the sheriff is satisfied that an earnings arrestment is invalid or has ceased to have effect he shall, on an application by the debtor or the person on whom the earnings arrestment schedule was served, make an order declaring that to be the case, and may make such consequential order as appears to him to be necessary in the circumstances; and the sheriff clerk shall intimate any order under this subsection to the debtor, the creditor and the person on whom the earnings arrestment schedule was served.
(2) An order under subsection (1) above declaring that an arrestment is invalid or has ceased to have effect shall not be subject to appeal.
(3) The sheriff, on an application by the debtor, the creditor or the employer, may make an order determining any dispute as to the operation of an earnings arrestment.
(4) Without prejudice to section 57(5) of this Act, the sheriff, when making an order under subsection (3) above, may order—
(a) the reimbursement of any payment made in the operation of the arrestment which ought not to have been made; or
(b) the payment of any sum which ought to have been paid in the operation of the arrestment but which has not been paid.
(5) An order under subsection (4) above shall require the person against whom it is made to pay interest on the sum to be paid by him under the order at the specified rate from such date as the sheriff shall specify in the order.
Your change, as a redline
50 Review of earnings arrestment.
(1) If the sheriff is satisfied that an earnings arrestment is invalid or has ceased to have effect he shall, on an application by the debtor or the person on whom the earnings arrestment schedule was served, make an order declaring that to be the case, and may make such consequential order as appears to him to be necessary in the circumstances; and the sheriff clerk shall intimate any order under this subsection to the debtor, the creditor and the person on whom the earnings arrestment schedule was served.
(2) An order under subsection (1) above declaring that an arrestment is invalid or has ceased to have effect shall not be subject to appeal.
(3) The sheriff, on an application by the debtor, the creditor or the employer, may make an order determining any dispute as to the operation of an earnings arrestment.
(4) Without prejudice to section 57(5) of this Act, the sheriff, when making an order under subsection (3) above, may order—
(a) the reimbursement of any payment made in the operation of the arrestment which ought not to have been made; or
(b) the payment of any sum which ought to have been paid in the operation of the arrestment but which has not been paid.
(5) An order under subsection (4) above shall require the person against whom it is made to pay interest on the sum to be paid by him under the order at the specified rate from such date as the sheriff shall specify in the order.
One line that says what changes, such as "Halve the dog tax".
Who it helps, what it costs, what it fixes. It is what persuades people to support it.
A proposal here is not law. Support on Solon is evidence that people want the change; the official route says what it takes to make it law.
Sign in to file your proposal. What you have written stays on this page.
Ask what your change would do, who would gain and who would bear a cost, and where something like it is already law. The assistant reads your draft as it stands, cites the law and the studies it finds, and takes no side. What you file stays yours.