Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • debt doctor
    • By debt doctor 15th Apr 17, 5:07 PM
    • 4,035Posts
    • 5,694Thanks
    debt doctor
    IPAs are changing
    • #1
    • 15th Apr 17, 5:07 PM
    IPAs are changing 15th Apr 17 at 5:07 PM
    Hi all,
    The way IPAs are assessed is changing - or actually did change on the 3rd April 2017.
    The Household Expenditure Survey (HES) with its guidance allowances for expenditure is no longer used. Instead, the Money Advice Services Standard Financial Statement (SFS) is now used to assess what reasonable expenditure may be.
    Unlike the HES 'allowances' that are released on the Technical Manual - the SFS allowances are not released to the public and will not be published on the Technical Manual.
    The SFS is the new financial statement used by the debt advice industry (CAB, National Debtline, Stepchange etc) Compared to the CFS we previously used, its allowances are far less generous, which results in higher repayments to creditors and will make eligibility for entering in to a DRO tougher.
    There will, presumably, be an update on the technical manual in due course.
    DD
    Debt Doctor, Debt caseworker, Citizens' Advice Bureau .
    Impartial debt advice services: Citizens Advice Bureau Find your local CAB *** National Debtline - Tel: 0808 808 4000*** BSC No. 100 ***
Page 1
    • debt doctor
    • By debt doctor 15th Apr 17, 7:31 PM
    • 4,035 Posts
    • 5,694 Thanks
    debt doctor
    • #2
    • 15th Apr 17, 7:31 PM
    • #2
    • 15th Apr 17, 7:31 PM
    I haven't fully assessed yet as to whether this is a good thing or a bad thing for bankrupts.
    It's certainly a backward step for those entering DMPs and trying to obtain DROs but we are comparing wholly different criteria with bankruptcy.


    CFS V SFS - bad (DMPs / DROs)
    HES v SFS - (bankruptcy) not sure at the moment.


    DD
    Debt Doctor, Debt caseworker, Citizens' Advice Bureau .
    Impartial debt advice services: Citizens Advice Bureau Find your local CAB *** National Debtline - Tel: 0808 808 4000*** BSC No. 100 ***
    • CP1306
    • By CP1306 19th Apr 17, 2:58 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    CP1306
    • #3
    • 19th Apr 17, 2:58 PM
    • #3
    • 19th Apr 17, 2:58 PM
    Will this affect those who have gone bankrupt recently, meaning can the OR go back and ask for higher payments on the IPA?
    • debt doctor
    • By debt doctor 19th Apr 17, 6:16 PM
    • 4,035 Posts
    • 5,694 Thanks
    debt doctor
    • #4
    • 19th Apr 17, 6:16 PM
    • #4
    • 19th Apr 17, 6:16 PM
    Will this affect those who have gone bankrupt recently, meaning can the OR go back and ask for higher payments on the IPA?
    Originally posted by CP1306
    It's all new and up in the air, but my view would be that if there were a change in circumstances of a bankrupt who had an IPA under HES 'rules' then it would likely be that the new circumstances via the SFS would be used at that point.
    Time will tell.


    DD
    Debt Doctor, Debt caseworker, Citizens' Advice Bureau .
    Impartial debt advice services: Citizens Advice Bureau Find your local CAB *** National Debtline - Tel: 0808 808 4000*** BSC No. 100 ***
    • pauledowa
    • By pauledowa 2nd Jun 17, 10:18 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    pauledowa
    • #5
    • 2nd Jun 17, 10:18 PM
    • #5
    • 2nd Jun 17, 10:18 PM
    I haven't fully assessed yet as to whether this is a good thing or a bad thing for bankrupts.
    It's certainly a backward step for those entering DMPs and trying to obtain DROs but we are comparing wholly different criteria with bankruptcy.

    CFS V SFS - bad (DMPs / DROs)
    HES v SFS - (bankruptcy) not sure at the moment.
    Originally posted by debt doctor
    Have you had a chance to assess how the new rules impact bankrupts?
    • Depth Charge
    • By Depth Charge 2nd Jun 17, 11:42 PM
    • 964 Posts
    • 608 Thanks
    Depth Charge
    • #6
    • 2nd Jun 17, 11:42 PM
    • #6
    • 2nd Jun 17, 11:42 PM
    I haven't fully assessed yet as to whether this is a good thing or a bad thing for bankrupts.
    It's certainly a backward step for those entering DMPs and trying to obtain DROs but we are comparing wholly different criteria with bankruptcy.


    CFS V SFS - bad (DMPs / DROs)
    HES v SFS - (bankruptcy) not sure at the moment.


    DD
    Originally posted by debt doctor
    You have to laugh on the CFS V SFS

    About as Independent & impartial as it doesn't get

    Just my take of course

    Shhh

    DC
    • StopIt
    • By StopIt 5th Jun 17, 11:23 AM
    • 686 Posts
    • 624 Thanks
    StopIt
    • #7
    • 5th Jun 17, 11:23 AM
    • #7
    • 5th Jun 17, 11:23 AM
    You have to laugh on the CFS V SFS

    About as Independent & impartial as it doesn't get

    Just my take of course

    Shhh

    DC
    Originally posted by Depth Charge

    What is your take? You're not exactly saying anything in this post.


    Anyway, as unfair as it will likely end up, I can see the rationale behind some of the changes.


    Not publishing the allowances means that people wont be able and therefore accused of "playing to the targets" by making their I&E use their allowances based on the targets, rather than actual spending.


    That said, I don't see the merits of making the allowances tougher "just because" and the merits of doing so is debatable at best.
    • Depth Charge
    • By Depth Charge 5th Jun 17, 3:51 PM
    • 964 Posts
    • 608 Thanks
    Depth Charge
    • #8
    • 5th Jun 17, 3:51 PM
    • #8
    • 5th Jun 17, 3:51 PM
    Hi Stop it

    Cheers for the question - much appreciated & I have answered best I can below

    Its a long story with many of us and I cant put everything up on her

    The CFS have also never been made public

    I have used the CFS for years - it is / has been updated on a regular basis (upwards) - having to work with new lower figures obviously has its issues for advisers, agencies and those in debt

    Making it tougher for people to access DROs or pay more into DMPs is hardly a step forward in my opinion.

    Reducing the upper trigger ceiling on figures is hardly a step forward especially after all the headlines over the last 2 or three years about how we need to help and get people out of debt and the rest.

    Just exactly who benefits by the above

    We are supposed to be making it easier for people in debt

    That's my take

    Best Wishes

    DC
    • ToxtethO'Grady
    • By ToxtethO'Grady 6th Jun 17, 12:30 AM
    • 45 Posts
    • 20 Thanks
    ToxtethO'Grady
    • #9
    • 6th Jun 17, 12:30 AM
    SFS website
    • #9
    • 6th Jun 17, 12:30 AM
    https://sfs.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/

    It has been coming for a few years and there is some talk of it being rolled out to all financial institutions even debt collection agencies.

    As Debt Doctor said it's effects might not be felt for a while however it does mean that all organisations will be expecting the same figures. It has a part for savings and planning ahead that has to be put in.

    As with all changes it's swings and roundabouts
    • StopIt
    • By StopIt 6th Jun 17, 8:08 AM
    • 686 Posts
    • 624 Thanks
    StopIt
    Hi Stop it

    Cheers for the question - much appreciated & I have answered best I can below

    Its a long story with many of us and I cant put everything up on her

    The CFS have also never been made public

    I have used the CFS for years - it is / has been updated on a regular basis (upwards) - having to work with new lower figures obviously has its issues for advisers, agencies and those in debt

    Making it tougher for people to access DROs or pay more into DMPs is hardly a step forward in my opinion.

    Reducing the upper trigger ceiling on figures is hardly a step forward especially after all the headlines over the last 2 or three years about how we need to help and get people out of debt and the rest.

    Just exactly who benefits by the above

    We are supposed to be making it easier for people in debt

    That's my take

    Best Wishes

    DC
    Originally posted by Depth Charge

    Thank you.


    I wasn't having a go, honest! It's just that usually people have very valid reasons for dissent against policy, yet I couldn't deduce from your post what side of the argument you were coming from!


    For the record, I fully agree with your post. Insolvency should be a way to deal with debt in the most efficient way, and I thought we were moving past being punitive or punishing towards people who need help.
    • Depth Charge
    • By Depth Charge 6th Jun 17, 11:00 AM
    • 964 Posts
    • 608 Thanks
    Depth Charge
    Hi

    No problem, I did not take it as having a go, not at all

    You gave me the opportunity to explain further and I thank you for that.

    There is more to be said to be honest its just that I have to be careful at times what I put up or the letters, messages and phone calls start

    It wont stop me though

    Nice talking with you BTW

    DC
    • Depth Charge
    • By Depth Charge 6th Jun 17, 11:24 AM
    • 964 Posts
    • 608 Thanks
    Depth Charge
    https://sfs.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/

    It has been coming for a few years and there is some talk of it being rolled out to all financial institutions even debt collection agencies.

    As Debt Doctor said it's effects might not be felt for a while however it does mean that all organisations will be expecting the same figures. It has a part for savings and planning ahead that has to be put in.

    As with all changes it's swings and roundabouts
    Originally posted by ToxtethO'Grady
    Hi Toxteth

    I know & respect what you are saying

    It has been coming a few years and over this time I have been close to it & involved in a many discussions and debates with the people 'putting it together' so to speak

    The CFS basically does and did the same job

    The savings element has been much touted and in theory is a good idea, course it is, but if the real world bottom line numbers stay the same or are actually worse then it can just be basically juggled figure nonsense for many.

    The idea of having a universal set of figures is absolutely sound but reducing the allowance trigger figures as compared the CFS is hardly a positive step in my opinion and as I have already asked who benefits from this? - not people in debt - the debt collectors yes & others with financial interest maybe

    If this means people are going to struggle in debt plans or not be able to access solutions as they could previously then that speaks for itself.

    Many of the past headlines and articles of concern were just the usual script read propaganda & smokescreens. The silence from certain of these quarters is deafening once again

    My take as always

    DC
    • ToxtethO'Grady
    • By ToxtethO'Grady 7th Jun 17, 8:45 PM
    • 45 Posts
    • 20 Thanks
    ToxtethO'Grady
    Totally agree and I think the FCA want a 'one-size-fits-all' scenario and trying to reduce the bad debt financial institutions are carrying. By consumers going through insolvency it means those institutions can write off the bad debt. By having a standardised budget it means the advice given will be streamlined and if advice with the free debt advice agencies is not for someone, any other institution they talk to will be looking at the same figures.

    Hobsons choice then isn't it? "you have x amount available so you should pay x amount"...if it goes to CCJ same again.

    However with everything the 'just-getting-bys' will feel it most as their options become more limited. The FCA is hoping they'll be no more balancing priority bills and unsecured lending payments

    As with everything my very simplified version of why this is coming about and someone else will obviously have more a of an idea of it.
    • Depth Charge
    • By Depth Charge 10th Jun 17, 5:04 PM
    • 964 Posts
    • 608 Thanks
    Depth Charge
    Hi Toxteth

    Yes, fair comment

    Again & just out the box so to speak I did hear earlier in the week that a certain debt advice company where finding the SFS a bit of a challenge with regard to its introduction.

    We will no doubt hear more as the SFS is gradually 'phased' in.

    Many of us have been and still are asking what was really wrong with adopting the CFS? - on looking at the SFS trig figs 'some of us' think we know the answer to that one

    As always with these things.. time will only tell

    Best Wishes

    DC
    • firsttimebankrupt
    • By firsttimebankrupt 11th Jun 17, 6:33 PM
    • 2 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    firsttimebankrupt
    is it worth taking a job
    i have been declared bankrupt after my business went into liquidation, we were not paid for a large contract we were carrying out and unfortunately signed a personal guarantee with a supplier, they in turn decided to pursue this debt which we could not pay.
    since i have been made bankrupt i have been offered a permanent job which would leave me with a large surplus of income. mainly due to the mortgage being in the wifes name along with other credit we have for the cars .
    as i understand it with the new IPA arrangements they would take all of the surplus income and leave me with £20 a month after i have paid debts. at the moment we have not been asked to enter an IPA but if we do get asked then i would be paying a large amount of money for the next 3 years . if i am not working i would unlikely be asked to go into a IPA
    • luvchocolate
    • By luvchocolate 11th Jun 17, 6:49 PM
    • 1,375 Posts
    • 1,205 Thanks
    luvchocolate
    Hi, if you have a surplus of £20 or over they could take the whole of the £20 in an I.P.A not over the £20.
    • firsttimebankrupt
    • By firsttimebankrupt 11th Jun 17, 6:52 PM
    • 2 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    firsttimebankrupt
    ipa
    i would have surplus of £3,000.
    • Brandnewstart79
    • By Brandnewstart79 12th Jun 17, 12:56 PM
    • 118 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Brandnewstart79
    Where do former BR's stand with this? I've got an IPA in place til November 18 but I'm not paying anything at the moment as my IP deemed I didn't have any surplus income and my creditors no longer have an interest in me.
    • fatbelly
    • By fatbelly 22nd Jun 17, 5:54 AM
    • 10,951 Posts
    • 8,158 Thanks
    fatbelly
    Where do former BR's stand with this? I've got an IPA in place til November 18 but I'm not paying anything at the moment as my IP deemed I didn't have any surplus income and my creditors no longer have an interest in me.
    Originally posted by Brandnewstart79
    AFAIK, there's no re-assessment going on.

    If DC is still subscribed, I'd be interested to know what was behind 'The silence from certain of these quarters is deafening once again'
    • Depth Charge
    • By Depth Charge 24th Jun 17, 8:31 PM
    • 964 Posts
    • 608 Thanks
    Depth Charge
    AFAIK, there's no re-assessment going on.

    If DC is still subscribed, I'd be interested to know what was behind 'The silence from certain of these quarters is deafening once again'
    Originally posted by fatbelly
    Hi

    Yes I'm still subscribed

    The clue is in CFS versus SFS

    DC
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,787Posts Today

8,800Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Byebye! I'm about to stop work & twitter, to instead spend glorious time with Mrs & mini MSE. Wishing u a lovely summer. See u in 10 days.

  • WARNING Did you start Uni in or after 2012? The interest's rising to 6.1%; yet it doesnt work like you think. See https://t.co/IQ8f0Vyetu RT

  • RT @JanaBeee: @MartinSLewis Boris is the anomaly (coffee), the others are versions of normal (beer). Lots of same candidates = vote share d?

  • Follow Martin