Income increase of £225, IPA increase of £374!!

peachyprice

Hi Rosey,

Well if I were you wife I'd go back to working less hours, just so I could tell them where to stick their sodding IPA.

If this was the case of a sole bankrupt on an IPA, and the bankrupt’s income was the total of your monthly take home plus the monthly take home of your partner, then the result of the re-assessment would be the same.

So they are saying your IPA IS calculated as a joint IPA, which seems to contradict what they have previously said.

Rosey, have you raised this query with your original OR, this really doesn't sound right.

JCS1

I'd be tempted to phone your OR's office, and ask to speak to the Assistant Official Received (rather than examiner) who is dealing with your case. This will be the person's manager that they will have spoken to.

Got to be worth one more phone call.

Can't really comment on the technical side of the calculation, it's been over a year since I left IS and I suspect a few things will have changed.

Rosey321

peachyprice wrote: »

Hi Rosey,

Well if I were you wife I'd go back to working less hours, just so I could tell them where to stick their sodding IPA.

That would be really interesting actually to see if they calculated it back to how it was before - and I bet they wouldn't!

I phoned the original OR over Xmas, spoke to a guy who I had never spoken to before as my previous case worker wasn't there. He also didn't want to comment much but did sound shocked when I told him the income increase / IPA increase ratio.

Yes, probably is worth one more call. I imagine my original contact from the original OR office may be back by now. I'll try and give it a go tomorrow.

skylight

Personally, I would talk to them again and refuse to sign or accept it. I would risk them taking me to court as I am sure that a judge would see the logic behind an increase of that magnitude compared to the income increase.

And if all else failed, I would decrease my hours. And if that didn't work then I would leave my job. Okay, this is really extreme, but I am the sort of person that believes in fairness and when something I deem is unfair I have been known to cut off my nose to spite my face!

LilyBart

Hi Rosey,
I'm with Skylight (not literally, though I'm sure it would be nice). I've read your transcript of the OR's letter and it doesn't actually make sense - especially that use of "ultimatum" - it's as though someone threw a lawyer's edition of Roget's Thesaurus into a typing pool of monkeys. I think this might be a rather desperate attempt on the the part of your examiner to panic you into signing it, and from what I've read about judges, I doubt it would be upheld in court. Honestly, it's the worst example of semi-literate legalese I've read in quite a long time, and that includes the daft letters from various creditors!
Lily x
ps Seem to remember Dalip had a similar smoke'n'mirrors letter about her suspended/dissolved IPA. PM her and she'll fill you in.

tigerfeet2006

JCS1 wrote: »

I'd be tempted to phone your OR's office, and ask to speak to the Assistant Official Received (rather than examiner) who is dealing with your case. This will be the person's manager that they will have spoken to.

Got to be worth one more phone call.

Can't really comment on the technical side of the calculation, it's been over a year since I left IS and I suspect a few things will have changed.

Rosey as JCS says make sure you talk to the Assistant Official Reciever rather than any one else. If you have no joy with him/her, then talk to the Official Reciever. You are entitled to so do it.

dalip

LilyBart wrote: »

Hi Rosey,
I'm with Skylight (not literally, though I'm sure it would be nice). I've read your transcript of the OR's letter and it doesn't actually make sense - especially that use of "ultimatum" - it's as though someone threw a lawyer's edition of Roget's Thesaurus into a typing pool of monkeys. I think this might be a rather desperate attempt on the the part of your examiner to panic you into signing it, and from what I've read about judges, I doubt it would be upheld in court. Honestly, it's the worst example of semi-literate legalese I've read in quite a long time, and that includes the daft letters from various creditors!
Lily x
ps Seem to remember Dalip had a similar smoke'n'mirrors letter about her suspended/dissolved IPA. PM her and she'll fill you in.

Ummm we have pm'd(when this first started) each other and would you believe "ROSEY'S MAN IS THE VERY SAME ONE AS I HAD";) speaks volumes:D

Rosey321

So, (excuse me for being naive),
When he continually talks about checking with his manager, he's not talking about the OR himself or even the OR's assistant?
So. there is plenty of scope to go to the top and speak to someone who knows.

skylight

Rosey321 wrote: »

So, (excuse me for being naive),
When he continually talks about checking with his manager, he's not talking about the OR himself or even the OR's assistant?
So. there is plenty of scope to go to the top and speak to someone who knows.

Probably.

Imagine the OR as being the Chairman of a company. He presides over everything and ultimately the buck stops with him and he puts his name to everything. He won't be doing the "donkey" work though. Doing what most chairmen do, sit, sign stuff, drink tea... The hard work is done by the examiners or underlings as they are affectionately known, who will be in teams and they will be managed over and its those managers who either answer to the assistant OR or they are the assistant ORs who answer to the OR.

Basically. Ish....

Rosey321

Just been reading everywhere through the Insolvency Act 1986 in case anything is documented about couples but it really does seem that nothing is. However, it does say that should the OR need to apply to the court for a variation to an income order, that a copy of the ORIGINAL IPA agreement needs to be supplied as well for the courts to review.

I take it that if I did take it all the way that this would very much work in my favour and the OR would then need to justify why the increase is more than just the 70% expected?

I take it courts are impartial to this sort of thing