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

skylight

Theoretically, yes. Courts are impartial and justice is blind.
Most judges are there to be fair and makes judgements based on law and evidence.

JCS1

And OR would have to explain to judge how income increase of £274 leads to IPA increase of £374.

DON79

I hope that you can take this further Rosey because it seems so unfair and the assistant working it out does not seem as though he is acting fairly either.....maybe he doesn't quite understand how it should be worked out himself? I hope that you get it sorted out.

peachyprice

Rosey,
I don't see that you have anything to lose by taking it further, if it goes to court it won't cost you anything, and in the meantime while it gets sorted you'll still be paying the reduced rate, it'll all count towards your 36 payments;)

Rosey321

Thanks all for support and kind words on this one.

I forgot to mention that I phoned the original OR's office today as well and tried to speak with my original IP but didn't make it past the person who answered the phone.
On taking my name and details and finding out I'd gone to RTLU just said they had transferred everything over from their office and couldn't help and they wouldn't have any details any more of how they originally calculated the figure as this would be on my file.

deedee_3

Then find out who is the OR at that office and write a letter, send it recorded delivery so it can be tracked. Ask for it to be answered with in a certain timescale.

louiser123

i have been reading this post i dont have any advise as i have no experience of ipa,s but just wanted to say it sounds totally wrong to increase the ipa well in excess of the actual increase in income, its all topsy turvy, have they made a mistake and put a 3 instead of a 1, eg 374 instead of 174 increase just a thought.

anyway i think you should definatly go the whole way with this as i feel it would be seen as wrong if it had to go to a judge. so good luck my good wishes are with you. i will keep updated daily!!

Rosey321

Just thought of two more points overnight:

That little paragraph he wrote in his last letter about the IPA being the same had the calculation been based on a sole bankrupt: I have just realised that this would be true. However, in the case of a sole bankrupt in a house, the other person wouldn't have an IPA! Maybe he has shot himself in the foot here and I can turn that argument around.

Next, although the original IPA calculation has still not been disclosed, it just occurred to me that his original reply had stated that the IPA used to be at 66%. Therefore, our previous disposable earnings must have been under £500 each. As our IPA amounts were £325 each, our disposable income must have been about £492 each.
Looking at the new IPA calc, my wife's disposable income has shot up to £858 (70% of which is £601).
The increase in disposable income therefore far outweighs what we had declared which adds to the theory that something else must have originally been included. I can only think that it was the other person's IPA.

There is still clearly a lot that is unanswered. The process has clearly changed too as before our payments were obviously split 50/50 but now they split it based on our income. This would be fair enough too - no probs with that but I do think they need to explain the missing element that was used beforehand.

I think the whole 'couples' thing needs documenting as clearly the different offices don't know what the correct process is and it will surely become more common. Maybe I could go a bit higher as suggest something along these lines while dropping the details of my saga in!

In the meantime, I think it is necessary that I get hold of the original IPA calc. That should explain all. Maybe the original one was generously composed in our favour? Maybe it included each others IPAs?
At this stage, who knows........!!
I'm going to go back with some responses a bit later anyhow.

peachyprice

Rosey, I don't see how they can't include the IPA's in outgoings, the money isn't there, you have to pay it out just the same as all your other personal expenses, and your disposable is reduced by the maount for your IPA, it stand to reason therefore your contribution to the household has to be less by the amount of your IPA.

Rosey321

I have just sent a very long winded e-mail so the fight continues!!

Have stated that I still believe the IPA should be taken off the contribution. Have also asked why that, given that we were both in the 66% bracket (disposable income each of less than £500), why has my wife's disposable income shot up to £858 as only an extra £230 has been declared, particularly as she pays the greater portion of the household expenses based on their calculation method.
I've had a bit of a moan in general about nothing being documented, tried to soften the mood by saying it must be a nightmare for IPs as well as BRs that this isn't clarified..

I sort of closed by asking to see the original calculation. I stated it was in our best interests to find a solution and I also emphasised that my queries were reasonable as a court would also ask to see changes to calculations if it were to go down the IPO route, which I did express a preference to avoid.

I also said that if the amounts are to stay as quoted, that I want a written confirmation that the process has been overseen by either the OR himself or his assistant, and I would like to know that they have seen the whole process ie how it was originally calculated.


Now, I shall sit tight again and see what I get.......!!