Different OR's attitudes to cars...and stuff

peachyprice

blind-as-a-bat wrote: »

why, because no one dare insist on the courts making the discision, after all the OR is answerable to the court who apointed them

Why? Because there are nasty people out there who take pleasure in misusing the power entrusted to them.

I still maintain, if you get an examiner who go their rocks off the night before you'll get an easy ride (excuse the pun), if you're unfortunate enough to get one going through a dry patch they'll throw the book at you.

The problem with the whole system is that so much depends on the whim of one person, if they take a dislike to something about you they have the power to do as they like. It's all wrong, there should be more defined rules that aren't open to personal interpretation of a BR's circumstances.

The whole damn manual is full of ifs and buts.

blind-as-a-bat_2

dubiousone wrote: »

Hi all. This stuff with the car confuses me a bit. If a car is on HP and finance still owed on it then why under list of assets is a section for cars which has a section to fill in called outstanding finance? I'm not sure whether to list my car which I would like to keep, under assets as there is outstanding balance. However, I was able to keep it with an IVA. I'm confused.....com!

If you have not paid enough to own any part of the car it is not an asset, and in most cases the OR wont be intrested. BUT the OR may not allow the contract to continue if they deem you dont need it, and even if they do the HP company may have a BR clause and end the agreement anyway.

An OR does not have to allow the costs needed to run the car, and pay for it, but may if it would be classed as exempt, and would deny the BR an income if they where to deny it, this is probebly the only time a job is a justification on keeping the car, and qualifying for an IPA may impact on that discision.

haleygrey

I am closely watching the outcome of these posts re cars. Im fervently hoping that i get to keep my car, otherwise im stuffed. Ok i can walk to work, but it takes 45 mins, and I have to allow time to get changed when i get there.

blind-as-a-bat_2

peachyprice wrote: »

Why? Because there are nasty people out there who take pleasure in misusing the power entrusted to them.

I still maintain, if you get an examiner who go their rocks off the night before you'll get an easy ride (excuse the pun), if you're unfortunate enough to get one going through a dry patch they'll throw the book at you.

The problem with the whole system is that so much depends on the whim of one person, if they take a dislike to something about you they have the power to do as they like. It's all wrong, there should be more defined rules that aren't open to personal interpretation of a BR's circumstances.

The whole damn manual is full of ifs and buts.

Now we are in agreement( and your reasoning regarding there love life may be closer than you think:rotfl: )

The "guide" is there in black and white and if the examinour drifts from it the BR has a right to ask why, they may not be rules or laws, but it does allow the BR to hold the OR acountable to something, and the courts usually folloe the guide to the letter in the fiew times i have seen it tested, the trouble is not many have the balls to take on the OR, if there was the guide would have been replaced with statute years ago;)

fermi

Hi

Discussing the variation in examiner's decisions is fair game, but please could people refrain from discussing the affairs of a third party who doesn't post here (even if they are famous)?

The discussions are useful, so I would prefer they weren't "zapped" by the powers that be if you get my meaning.

peachyprice

Now we are in agreement( and your reasoning regarding there love life may be closer than you think:rotfl: )

The "guide" is there in black and white and if the examinour drifts from it the BR has a right to ask why, they may not be rules or laws, but it does allow the BR to hold the OR acountable to something, and the courts usually folloe the guide to the letter in the fiew times i have seen it tested, the trouble is not many have the balls to take on the OR, if there was the guide would have been replaced with statute years ago;)

Statute, now there's an idea;)

peachyprice

fermi wrote: »

Hi

Discussing the variation in examiner's decisions is fair game, but please could people refrain from discussing the affairs of a third party who doesn't post here (even if they are famous)?

The discussions are useful, so I would prefer they weren't "zapped" by the powers that be if you get my meaning.

Sorry Uncle Fermi

lisamummytoarchieplusbump

tigerfeet2006 wrote: »

Was just having a quick glance through the information that Bat just post and this stood out to me


31.2.22(b) Bankrupt is a carer for a relative

Caring for others clearly can be a vocation and the means by which an individual earns their living (e.g. nurses, care assistants) there seems no reason why caring for another, who is in fact a relative, should be treated any differently. There are considerable number of "informal" and upaid carers in the country who would describe their "vocation" as that of a carer. Many may be eligible for a carer's allowance, an income maintenance benefit for those who are required to care for a severely disabled person. The allowance is a taxable benefit for informal carers, payable where the carer looks after a disabled person for at least 35 hours per week.

A bankrupt might therefore not be in paid employment and have no prospect of obtaining employment as a result of having taken on the care of a disabled relative (including a child). In considering whether the bankrupt has a "vocation" as a carer a material issue would be the time involved in undertaking the care, the receipt of any carer's allowance and the level of care required. For example the normal care of a child reasonably expected of a parent is not a "vocation" in this context but a parent caring for a disabled child would fall into this category.

In respect of a claim for a vehicle to be exempted under section 283(2)(a), the definition of "employment, business or vocation" has been widened following recent case law to include debtors who are informal, full-time, carers of a disabled friend or relative who would use the vehicle in connection with that role. The receipt of a carer's allowance is not essential but will be indicative that the debtor is pursuing a "vocation" as a carer.

thanks tiger i obviously had the bloke going through the dry spell then or he knows me already lol

fermi

peachyprice wrote: »

Sorry Uncle Fermi

Oi!

I'm no better than anyone else most of the time! :o:o:o

Twas just a comment, knowing (somewhat) how these things work.;)

Summer1969

They took our car, it was only worth £300, it was gone 2 days later. I am not working, off work with depression but did tell him it was a lifeline for me to get out and about but made no difference, its been hard the past 6 months without it, I have felt very isolated, but at least we have saved money I suppose.