Certicicates of non compliance and BR.

tigerfeet2006 · 18 July 2008 at 1:57PM

After some discussion on the boards I decided to do some research so I have rung 15 different courts all over the country today.

It seems that 10 don't ask for the certificate and a lot were suprised I asked, they really weren't bothered at all.

Of the other 5 , they wanted the certificate, but when I said that the IVA company wouldn't give it to me 2 were unsympathetic and told me to get legal advise and wouldn't be moved and 3 after some umming and ahhing said that they would be happy with my IVA number and the name and address of my nominee.

So there we have it folks another flippin' anomoly in the BR system :mad::mad:. Why can't they sort themselves out.and all go by the same rules.

I've spoken to National Debtline about it and the first person I spoke to said it shouldn't be a problem and the courts will except the petition. The second person I spoke to went and checked and said the IVA company should send out the certicate and was at a loss what to suggest except ring the Insolvency Service.

Rang the Insolvency Servive and they advised talking to the nominee's supervisor and insisting that the certificate is sent out. If you still have problems then ask for the name and address of the supervisors governing body and to raise merry hell with them and you should get the certificate.

Hope some of that is useful to some of you

k2nga · 18 July 2008 at 2:01PM

Wow great bit of research and like you say one hell of a difference with each court. I cant see why they need to certificate to be honest as you are going BR and thats it and surely the OR can sort it out from there.

blind-as-a-bat_2 · 18 July 2008 at 2:11PM

tigerfeet2006 wrote: »

After some discussion on the boards I decided to do some research so I have rung 15 different courts all over the country today.

It seems that 10 don't ask for the certificate and a lot were suprised I asked, they really weren't bothered at all.

Of the other 5 , they wanted the certificate, but when I said that the IVA company wouldn't give it to me 2 were unsympathetic and told me to get legal advise and wouldn't be moved and 3 after some umming and ahhing said that they would be happy with my IVA number and the name and address of my nominee.

So there we have it folks another flippin' anomoly in the BR system :mad::mad:. Why can't they sort themselves out.and all go by the same rules.

I've spoken to National Debtline about it and the first person I spoke to said it shouldn't be a problem and the courts will except the petition. The second person I spoke to went and checked and said the IVA company should send out the certicate and was at a loss what to suggest except ring the Insolvency Service.

Rang the Insolvency Servive and they advised talking to the nominee's supervisor and insisting that the certificate is sent out. If you still have problems then ask for the name and address of the supervisors governing body and to raise merry hell with them and you should get the certificate.

Hope some of that is useful to some of you

Isnt BR fun:rolleyes: I remember pegiun i think it was posting that you should, at least in theory be able to get yourself declared BR on demand.

I wonder if thats in a rule book somewhere??? or is it just a guideline the courts can Ignore, hmmm somthing to look up tosee if your research contravines it, if it exists.

Can you send me the list of wich courts said what please tiger for future referance, unless you want to post it that is:D

I have a feeling this one may crop up more and more frequently

dalip · 18 July 2008 at 2:12PM

Well done tiger:T

skylight · 18 July 2008 at 2:15PM

Its too late for most of us, but is there not a regulationary body we can complain to about BR overall? Nothing is the same from OR to OR as it is, but this from the courts surprises me - they are usually much more black or white about stuff.

tigerfeet2006 · 18 July 2008 at 2:26PM

BAAB sorry I didn't make a note of which ones I phoned, I just pulled up the HMCS courts address page.and just went through it randomly pulling up courts from over the country. I will sit down next week and do it again but will note down on here as I go what is said

.

blind-as-a-bat_2 · 18 July 2008 at 2:32PM

skylight wrote: »

Its too late for most of us, but is there not a regulationary body we can complain to about BR overall? Nothing is the same from OR to OR as it is, but this from the courts surprises me - they are usually much more black or white about stuff.

Ive been thinking much the same of late skylight, there have been far to many updates or amendmants to what is in esscence an archaic piece of legislation, so much so it now contradicts itself and confuses anyone who tries to understand it.

You have to remember it was mainly written for failed busnesss and the fact they have tried to incorperate personal insolvancy into that just isnt working

Add to that what appears to be understaffing, underfunding and undertraining those implementing it and the result is no surprise really

zoe2008 · 18 July 2008 at 2:34PM

Tigerfeet
You really are amazing!!!!!!
Armed with this info im going all guns blazing after DFD for my cert!!!
Unfortunatlly im with one of the courts who are are unmovable!!
When i finish work today ( yes i am working ) im going for the jglar!!
Enough is enough and im going to complain to everyone and anyone who will listen about DFD!!!!
Again many thanks
Zx

penguin83 · 18 July 2008 at 4:17PM

The problem isn't so much the court but the judges themselves. I tell my lot to accept petitions, process them and send them to the judge but it some judges just wont do it without the certificate - it is something I will raise though in our next senior managers/judges meeting next month to see what practice directions they are using when refusing to proceed. It may give some definitive answers or at least raise awareness of the issue x xx

tigerfeet2006 · 18 July 2008 at 4:34PM

Thanks for that Penguin. One of the 2 courts actually said it was down to the DJ wanting it.

fermi · 18 July 2008 at 6:30PM

I had always assumed that the refusal of a small proportion of judges to make the bankruptcy order without "proof" of failure was based on Section 276 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

Seems to me that the majority of judges treat the presentation of the bankruptcy petition demonstrating that you can obviously no longer meet the terms of the IVA to be adequate.

From: Other cases for special consideration 276. Default in connection with voluntary arrangement.

276. Default in connection with voluntary arrangement.

— (1) The court shall not make a bankruptcy order on a petition under section 264(1)(c) (supervisor of, or person bound by, voluntary arrangement proposed and approved) unless it is satisfied—

(a) that the debtor has failed to comply with his obligations under the voluntary arrangement, or

(b) that information which was false or misleading in any material particular or which contained material omissions—
(i) was contained in any statement of affairs or other document supplied by the debtor under Part VIII to any person, or
(ii) was otherwise made available by the debtor to his creditors at or in connection with a meeting summoned under that Part, or
(c) that the debtor has failed to do all such things as may for the purposes of the voluntary arrangement have been reasonably required of him by the supervisor of the arrangement.

(2) Where a bankruptcy order is made on a petition under section 264(1)(c), any expenses properly incurred as expenses of the administration of the voluntary arrangement in question shall be a first charge on the bankrupt’s estate.

Certicicates of non compliance and BR.

Comments

Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

🚀 Getting Started

Categories

Is this how you want to be seen?

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free