Issues and questions that come up during your bankruptcy period

Moderators: TalbotWoods, JaneClack

Bysmiales
#194887 To be brief my OR is trying to impose an IPO and we can't afford to pay it. So, although this will sound weird I am considering reducing my hours at work so that I am out of pocket even more to avoid this being imposed. To put it bluntly we would rather be skint for the next few months than for the next three years (if IPA imposed) and being monitored etc.

My question is has anyone done this and how did the OR react? Can they prevent you from getting automatic discharge? Mine is due end of Aug. My plan would be to reduce hours for this time then increase again after discharge as we will be seriously skint by then.

I hope this doesn't come across really badly but we are not in the position to pay an IPO for the next three years, it would be hard enough to cope for a few months but not three years. To be honest I feel we have been so bullied by the OR that I am willing to do anything to f**k them now.
User avatar
ByTalbotWoods
#194891 Very simply if the OR believes that you have done this deliberately, they can suspend your discharge (effectively keeping you bankrupt).

They also have the power to go to court and impose an IPO which once set by the courts can only be varied by the courts, and these are becoming more and more common, simply because so many people are challenging IPAs. If the OR opts for the court route, you will have your chance to defend against it, but be aware that the judges tend not to take kindly to those that try to get out of it.

IPAs are not draconian, they are overall quite fair, when other options available are draconian, should you fail to pay on an IPO, then options open to the courts include wage asstestments, bailiff action and if absolutely necessary prison

However, this course of action by ORs is very rare, and IPA are set at a limit that ensures you remain solvent after bankrupt whilst paying back what is affordable to the creditors.

Many people initially think they are not in the position to pay, simply because thanks to credit many have 'learnt' to live beyond their means, bankruptcy is the ultimate route for dealing with debt and with that comes the responsibilities of adjusting to a new way of life.

Tim
Bysmiales
#194920 Tim,

Thanks for your response, I had heard that discharge can be postponed. I am worried about that. However, I am not sure how the OR could say I am reducing my hours just to prevent IPA. To fill you in briefly I have been suffering with depression for quite a while, personal reasons regarding bereavement, family illness and finally debt. I have been on antidepressants for 7 months and have been seeing a clinical pyschologist as well. I work in a very 'negative' job which in itself could make someone depressed let alone when you already are! But a job is a job, I needed it so there you go! But I have been struggling big time and have quite a lot of time off sick due to depression, having discussed the situation with my boss we both agree that it would be better for me to be in 3 days a week and be healthy, less stressed than in 5 days and off sick alot and struggling when I am in.

So how do you think the OR could view this? Do you think I could still be seen as being difficult? God I couldn't bear discharge being postponed but we can't afford the IPA they have stated and already have a court date set for next month.

:?
User avatar
Bymoaner
#194938 Just tell the OR you have reduced your hours on health grounds :)
Bysmiales
#194956 Thats the plan but I'm stressing that they will still postpone AD. Nothing else I can do really is there?
ByPoolie
#195019 I am not being judgemental but why write that your reducing hours to avoid an IPA then explain about your health?

If your ill your ill and any clinician/doctor would support your case if genuine.

If you have nothing to hide and as you have stated professional support/advice then you have nothing to worry about.

Poolie
Bybluesky
#195022 if you can't afford to pay an IPA then there shouldn't be one.
The only person that can get one started when there shouldn't be one is you.
If you have accounted correctly for your expenses then if you dont have a £100 surplus then there can't be an IPA.
I f there is something such as ciggies stopping you then it is upo to your budget and your priorities but you are in control in genuine cases.
The examiner and clerk has the mandate that only viable IPA's should be set up and if a genuione case went to an IPO it is highly unlikley that an IPO would be granted by the court.

If you cna't afford it don't sign the agreement

just to check, are you getting an IPA confused with an NTCIPA?
ByIphigenia
#195033 If all my expense categories had been allowed, I wouldn't have had an IPA. I couldn't really blame the OR for disallowing the pet expense category though - 5 dogs (6 at the time, the 6th one died at the end of the year at the beginning of which I went bankrupt, now that was a good year) is not a necessity to life.
So I got an IPA which, at the time, was about 10% of my net income. More than half way through it now. At first I thought I wouldn't be able to cope: after all, if I couldn't budget on 100% salary, how the blank was I supposed to budget on 90%?
However, my budgetting system has become absolutely second nature, I manage fine, I've cut corners and worn cast-offs - and I've kept the dogs going too. Come September 2009, my first IPA-free month, I'm going to blow the tutti on something outrageous, then carry on not spending it but saving it for a car/retirement/whatever.
Long term posters will know that I am singularly snotty about avoidance of one's dues. I put it down to 49% sour grapes, because I can either do my job and get paid or not do it and not get paid, I can't go down a reduction route; and 51% genuine belief that we are morally obliged to pay If We Can.
However, steering away from that high ground, life with an IPA is perfectly possible and, if it's not, you need a Civil conversation with the OR to review your i and e.
Bysmiales
#195059
Poolie wrote:I am not being judgemental but why write that your reducing hours to avoid an IPA then explain about your health?

If your ill your ill and any clinician/doctor would support your case if genuine.

If you have nothing to hide and as you have stated professional support/advice then you have nothing to worry about.

Poolie


Fair enough point, I've badly titled it really. I suppose that although my case is totally genuine I feel that the OR has pushed me into reducing my hours if that makes sense? If they hadn't kept pushing me/us regarding an IPA that is unaffordable I would have been less stressed/depressed and may not have reduced my hours. However, this is not the case, they have been terrible and they have massivley contributed to what I have now done.

We went BR last Aug and have been threatening court for months yet they have only just decided to do it. I honestly feel that if they really believed we could afford it they would not have made threats that they have not followed through. This seems like a last ditch attempt to me now. Its been very underhand and I am yet to see the figures they are working off.
Bysmiales
#195060
bluesky wrote:if you can't afford to pay an IPA then there shouldn't be one.
The only person that can get one started when there shouldn't be one is you.
If you have accounted correctly for your expenses then if you dont have a £100 surplus then there can't be an IPA.
I f there is something such as ciggies stopping you then it is upo to your budget and your priorities but you are in control in genuine cases.
The examiner and clerk has the mandate that only viable IPA's should be set up and if a genuione case went to an IPO it is highly unlikley that an IPO would be granted by the court.

If you cna't afford it don't sign the agreement

just to check, are you getting an IPA confused with an NTCIPA?


God there are no ciggies - disgusting! No defo not the nil tax IPA, already done that and its finished.

We haven't signed the aggreement but court is now set.....
Bysmiales
#195061
Iphigenia wrote:If all my expense categories had been allowed, I wouldn't have had an IPA. I couldn't really blame the OR for disallowing the pet expense category though - 5 dogs (6 at the time, the 6th one died at the end of the year at the beginning of which I went bankrupt, now that was a good year) is not a necessity to life.
So I got an IPA which, at the time, was about 10% of my net income. More than half way through it now. At first I thought I wouldn't be able to cope: after all, if I couldn't budget on 100% salary, how the blank was I supposed to budget on 90%?
However, my budgetting system has become absolutely second nature, I manage fine, I've cut corners and worn cast-offs - and I've kept the dogs going too. Come September 2009, my first IPA-free month, I'm going to blow the tutti on something outrageous, then carry on not spending it but saving it for a car/retirement/whatever.
Long term posters will know that I am singularly snotty about avoidance of one's dues. I put it down to 49% sour grapes, because I can either do my job and get paid or not do it and not get paid, I can't go down a reduction route; and 51% genuine belief that we are morally obliged to pay If We Can.
However, steering away from that high ground, life with an IPA is perfectly possible and, if it's not, you need a Civil conversation with the OR to review your i and e.


There is nothing extreme on our SOA, what is bizarre is that I have been through and through the letters from the OR and tried to sort out the snippets of figures I come across and they aren't much different to what we have. Our SOA and the OR SOA only differ by a tiny amount. Both with no surplus so I am totally confused about what they are talking about when I see they want an IPA of £210pm between us! Its not there however you look at it.

I am not trying to shirk any responsibilty, I've paid a huge amount of money back already by selling my old property, renovation that caused the most of the prob but paid creditors £49k back on completion of sale, then went BR 6 months later. We didn't want to let the house repossessed as the secured loan company wouldn't get as much cash back, the way we did it they had a huge amount back. So I have absolutely no guilt about the current situation. Messed up, done what I can, gone through the pain of BR (like everyone else on here) and I think the OR is now being incredibly unreasonable in trying to find money that is not available.
User avatar
Bymoaner
#195068 I'll stick my oar now, if I may :lol:

I felt we were being unfairly treated, our disposable income is £20, the OR told us at the beginning of the bankruptcy that he wanted an IPA off us! He told me to go and try and claim some benefits so he could take the IPA from hubby's wage. I tried to claim every benefit under the sun (Housing benefit, JSA, Council tax benefit) but my husband's wage is just over the limits so I cannot have anything. Things seemed to settle down and then about 5 months later, we got a IPQ from through and Early Discharge was mentioned, I filled it in exactly the same as I had at the start of the bankruptcy and then we got an IPA agreement to sign for £52 per month :shock: I really could not see where they got the figures from, hubby rang up, was told on the phone how they had got the figures but did not take it in (men :roll: ) OR told him to sign the agreement :shock:

I told him to ring up and ask for the breakdown in WRITING. We had to badger the OR office for this as they were not very forthcoming, but eventually we got a computerised printout and they had cut the housekeeping bill and left some other items off, (opticians, household ins, etc) We were not allowed holidays, xmas, contingency)

We wrote to them AGAIN with receipts and proof of bills, etc. FINALLY they accepted there was not enough surplus for the IPA and we both got early discharge.

I think they thought, "oh, he'll just accept the IPA and sign it" and he probably would if I had not questioned it and told him I thought it was unfair.

I agree, in cases where there is plenty of surplus, an IPA should be sought but I do think some ORs are really trying it on. We have had so much stress because of this, first we were told "no IPA, then yes, we want an IPA", then it was quiet for months, then they started up again, with trying for the IPA. Letters have gone missing in the post, so we have not been kept informed of what has been happening, I only looked at hubby's name on Insolvency Register and he had been ED'd, thats the only reason I know there will not be an IPA as we are both discharged

We were prepared to take it to court for IPO if it came to it, as we really could not see how we could live for 3 years on such a low income, but thankfully it did not come to that :)
Bysmiales
#195084 Moaner,

Thanks for input, I totally agree with everything you say as we have been through an unbelievably similar experience with our OR. We were declared BR last August and in our phone interview were told we would have the NTCIPA but no IPA was mentioned. Few weeks later we had phonecall asking us to agree IPA of £110 over the phone as the 'never put it in writing', blackmailed that if we refused to agree they would take our car and would want an even higher IPA. We refused to agree to anything as figures said there was no room for IPA in initial call and certainly would want it all in writing.

We then heard NOTHING until Christmas Eve! This is when they started suggesting different IPA figures with no breakdown of calculations. We have been sending letters since then really, although in total there have only been about 3, the final one being a court date for £220 IPA and still no calculations.

From what I have read some people have been very lucky to have dealt with good OR's but some others like myself and Moaner have had the opposite. I feel that as we are a working couple without children the OR thinks we should therefore be easy bait for an IPA. I feel like we have been targeted because of this and that is just not fair. If people have plenty of cash to spare, equity in their property, more earnings through benefits than a salary etc then fair enough, although I'm sure there aren't many BR's in this position! So pursue them but when you are dealing with people who are not in that situation, people with whom the OR is having to try and weedle out an extra £50 from their budget to try and get an IPA I think its just wrong. If the money was there the OR would not be ignoring requests to see the the figures neither would they have waited until 3 months before discharge to progress the case.

Sorry if that turned into a rant but I'm sick of trying to cope with all this and not stand up and say what I reckon a lot of people on here feel but are intimidated to say. The OR's can be totally unfair and just because we are BR does not mean we can never stand up for whats right, it doesn't mean we have to feel that we can be totally walked over. BR is hard enough without being put into debt again for an unfair IPA!

Anyway, thanks to everyone contributing to this thread, I think I titled it wrong really as its not avoidance as in, stamp my feet "I don't want an IPA" I meant it as in I need to avoid it because I can't afford it or cope with court again.

:cry:
ByIphigenia
#195093 I've probably missed you saying it but it's too hot to go back and re-read: have you had a copy of what the OR is basing the IPA on? i.e. do you know which of your e's s/he's disallowed?
Bysmiales
#195195
Iphigenia wrote:I've probably missed you saying it but it's too hot to go back and re-read: have you had a copy of what the OR is basing the IPA on? i.e. do you know which of your e's s/he's disallowed?


Well I have an idea purely because I have been through all the letters we have rec'd and tried to sort the figures out. Problem is that we have had so many different people write to us, one agrees the next disagrees.
Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest