Can I spend it?

Izabel

Thanks to all who replied.

I’ve just had the response from the OR.

And it went something like this …. The technical manual was updated in April 2008 and this was removed or altered (can’t remember exactly what was said) to include Child Tax Credit.

They haven’t amended the public document yet, I was given the impression that this was a mistake on there behalf. The OR has spoke to the technical department in London after I sent the query and they confirmed that it is correct and should have been updated in the public document.

They still want all the £500 arrears payment.

I was told it was all in section 31.6 of the public document updated in April 2008 but I can’t seem to find (probably being a bit thick!)

Am I going to have accept I've just been unlucky or have a got grounds to appeal?

blind-as-a-bat_2

Ch 31.6: Stock, Work in Progress and Plant Machinery (August 1997)

Errmmm i dont think that number is right if they are refering to the tech manual


And those quotes we made where from the updated 2008 version of 31.7.9 and 31.7.10

Sorry but they will have to do better before i would agree to hand it over:rolleyes:

Starting with quoting the exact bit there refering too.

Izabel

That's what I kept getting up when I searched it.

They said they would write explaining it all. Will see what the letter says.

Nigella_2

I have some arrears of benefit coming to me.

The O/R wants to know the value of the arrears amount in writing and what I would have done with it at the time it should have been paid.

If I would have used any of the money that I should have had to repay my debts then the O/R would claim that element.

I think (as per previous replies) there are guidelines but some cases are more complicated.

If you don't comply with the O/R they could extend your bankruptcy up to 15 years, (BRO) prosecute you or can reverse your actions back to where they should have been!

Ring up CCCS, CAB or NDL for advice

Broken_hearted

Do you have any outstanding bills you could use it for say gas or electric and use that as an arguement for keeping some of it. Money for children should be there to use for their welfare.

MammaCas

Hmmm, now I'm not as clever or knowledgable as Fermi or BAAB, but, I read the BR obligations and they state you must inform them of 'any increase in income' within 21 days.....If you are saying that this isn't an increase to what you declared in your SOA I really don't see why you should have to tell them.

In addition, I totally agree with BH - CHILD tax credit is paid because you have children and is 'for' the children......

xx

Mrs_Bones

Have you tried ringing the benefit help line to see what they say about the matter, I know if the bank tries to take benefit for bank charges they can recover the money. Just wondering if they could help on this matter.

Rylynn

I hope you get this sorted out, and it has made me wonder about something recent that happened to me. I will start my own topic to ask about it.

It seems very unfair that the OR wants this money, and also why have the rules been altered? And if they have why have the public ones not been updated that is pretty remiss of a government body!

blind-as-a-bat_2

Rylynn wrote: »

I hope you get this sorted out, and it has made me wonder about something recent that happened to me. I will start my own topic to ask about it.

It seems very unfair that the OR wants this money, and also why have the rules been altered? And if they have why have the public ones not been updated that is pretty remiss of a government body!

I dont think the rules have been changed, as the Social Security Administration Act 1992
over rules any change anyway so what they are claiming is a non starter

From: Social Security Administration Act 1992

187 Certain benefit to be inalienable

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every assignment of or charge on—
(a) benefit as defined in section 122 of the Contributions and Benefits Act;
(b) any income-related benefit; or
(c) child benefit,

and every agreement to assign or charge such benefit shall be void; and, on the bankruptcy of a beneficiary, such benefit shall not pass to any trustee or other person acting on behalf of his creditors.

It may be a typo or a misunderstanding but i dont like this one bit on the face of it someone is trying to pull the wool over your eyes

Oh and to add to that siezing £500 will be of no benefit to your creditors,unless you are paying an IPA, so l will let you deduce from that what you will;)

blind-as-a-bat_2

Broken_hearted wrote: »

Do you have any outstanding bills you could use it for say gas or electric and use that as an arguement for keeping some of it. Money for children should be there to use for their welfare.

We actually agree for once BH:rotfl: I have not been happy with the change allowing for CTC to be counted towards IPA calculation as "income" as its not, its the same as CB, its a benefit for the welfare of children, so is payed to the parents yes, but not for the parents benefit.