child benefit indirectly included in soa

cardinalfire

so if i have an income of 1265.42 (excluding child benefit) and outgoings of 1229 with 36.42 left then i shouldnt have got ipa should i? so they have defo taken cb into account saying i have 117 left therefore pay 58 ipa. so it isnt right is it? or is it?

blind-as-a-bat_2

31.7.9 State benefits

April 2008

Whilst an IPA should not be sought where the bankrupt's only source of income is state benefit [note 3], the official receiver should not automatically discount the possibility of obtaining a contribution from a bankrupt who has surplus income but is also in receipt of benefit. Any calculation to identify surplus income should include all available income, including state benefits, paid to an individual for the general benefit of that individual and their family. This includes child tax credit, which is also a state benefit and comprises part of the income available to the bankrupt and his/her family, against which an IPA can be calculated. The person making the income and expenditure calculation (usually the examiner) should initially ascertain whether the bankrupt is also in receipt of non-benefit income. If this is the case, an IPA should be considered, the total income should be established (see other income sources at paragraph 31.7.7) and the bankrupt's reasonable expenses deducted (see paragraph 31.7.19) to cover his/her reasonable domestic needs. An assessment can then be made as to whether the bankrupt is in receipt of surplus income. If an IPA is to be sought, any surplus should be less than or equal to income from the source other than benefits. It should be remembered that whilst the bankrupt's total income (including state benefits) should be included in the calculation of surplus income, it is the income from sources other than the benefit(s) which is providing the payments under the IPA/IPO, which is why an IPA should only be sought to the extent of the non benefit income.

The only exception to the inclusion of state benefits in an income payments calculation is where a bankrupt is in receipt of child benefit, which is not an income based benefit (unlike child tax credit, see above). The High Court has stated as a matter of public policy that child benefit should not be included in the statement of income when applying for an IPO and there is no reason why the same principle should not be extended to cover IPAs.
Where a bankrupt’s income solely comprises state benefits, it is unlikely that a surplus will arise except where they are in receipt of non-means tested benefits, for example Disability Living Allowance. The official receiver should consider that it is always open to the bankrupt who has a surplus and wishes to contribute, to make voluntary payments. If the bankrupt was minded to contribute on a voluntary basis, having been informed that their income appeared to be sufficient to produce a surplus taking in to account their reasonable domestic needs, a voluntary agreement could be incorporated into an IPA, but it would have to be clearly noted that no enforcement action would be taken if the bankrupt failed to make agreed voluntary payments.

The Department of Work and Pensions website provides useful information regarding allowances and benefits currently in force and can be accessed at http://www.dwp.gov.uk/.

31.2.22(a) Bankrupt claims he/she needs vehicle for work

When considering whether to exempt a motor vehicle under section 283(2)(a) the principal points to be considered are;

whether the vehicle is used by the bankrupt in his/her employment, business or vocation,

that the bankrupt could not reasonably travel to and from his/her place of employment without a vehicle, due to lack of alternative transport,

that the bankrupt’s prospects of obtaining employment would diminish without use of the vehicle, even though the bankrupt may not be in employment at the date of the bankruptcy order. In such cases, the official receiver will need to decide whether there is a reasonable prospect of the bankrupt obtaining work,

that a self employed bankrupt who does not have work at the date of the bankruptcy order may be able to retain a vehicle as an exempt asset if he/she can satisfy the official receiver that there is a reasonable prospect of him/her obtaining work, and

that the bankrupt’s prospect of obtaining work would diminish even if a vehicle requires repair but will then be used to travel to work or to seek employment.

The bankrupt must satisfy the official receiver that a vehicle is necessary. If the bankrupt cannot do so, and the official receiver has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is not exempt, he/she is entitled to treat the property as part of the estate and deal with it accordingly.

hope that helps


In fact tell them to get stuffed, they include CTC even though that is a benefit for the children so is not payed for your benefit so let them take it out of that :mad:

It annoys me they try to make your kids pay for your mistakes,

Rylynn

Well it helps me think she has been stitched up BAAB to be honest with you, and I would fight this.

Child benefit on SOA should have been listed as benefit NOT earnings did you list it as earnings ie add it to your salary? if so you should not have.

It states in BAABs post they cannot use CB to give you an IPA... now the fact you can use transport and you say she has been kind in letting your keep your car as it would be cheaper by public transport, okay then scenario, did you add going shopping to the doctors etc as you would have to pay P transport for them as well.

Don't think I would or will take this type of thing lying down, I will fight tooth and nail on things I know they are NOT allowed to include and CB is one of them. SO NO you should not have an IPA if you only have £30 odd quid left in your surplus.. cheeky beggars.

cardinalfire

yes i think i did include it as income as didnt know then...

she only counted work as essential journeys and wouldnt accept anything else...not even trips to hospital for my daughter

i knew there was something not right about this...

blind-as-a-bat_2

change my last post to read "make our kids pay for our mistakes,"

That wasnt meant to make you feel bad OP sorry

We all screwed up, thats why where here, we dont need a jumped up examinor trying it on to make us feel worse than we already do about it by trying it on just so they can meet a god damn target :mad:

Sorry but im getting brassed of seeing OR,s examiners egnoring there own guidelines:rolleyes:

skylight

Who have you actually spoken to about it?? It was highly unlikely to be your actual OR as listed on your BR paperwork - the top dog. More an examiner or underling/jobsworth trying to prove themselves.

You could always ask for the direct email of your listed OR and email plus write directly to him (her) about this and ask for their opinion and help. Always ask for help - making yourself vulnerable actually makes them feel more powerful and more likely to actually help!

blind-as-a-bat_2

cardinalfire wrote: »

yes i think i did include it as income as didnt know then...

she only counted work as essential journeys and wouldnt accept anything else...not even trips to hospital for my daughter

i knew there was something not right about this...

hollocks and thats putting it politely:p

Any trip to allow normal day to day living is valid, whether that be by public transport or your own car.

This examinour is really trying it on, if this was refered to court for an IPO the judge would be furious IMO

cardinalfire

I havent spoken to anyone other than the examiner who made the decision, im awaiting the paperwork for the ipa

Is the OR there to help me with this kind of thing?

btw what does BAAB mean?

blind-as-a-bat_2

skylight wrote: »

Who have you actually spoken to about it?? It was highly unlikely to be your actual OR as listed on your BR paperwork - the top dog. More an examiner or underling/jobsworth trying to prove themselves.

You could always ask for the direct email of your listed OR and email plus write directly to him (her) about this and ask for their opinion and help. Always ask for help - making yourself vulnerable actually makes them feel more powerful and more likely to actually help!

You need to ask for it to be looked at by there line maneger, that is the next level up, the actuall OR wont get involved yet, unless it goes further after re-assesmant of the line maneger, or thats how i understand it anyway

blind-as-a-bat_2

cardinalfire wrote: »

I havent spoken to anyone other than the examiner who made the decision, im awaiting the paperwork for the ipa

Is the OR there to help me with this kind of thing?

btw what does BAAB mean?

blind-as-a-bat