Bankruptcy... Is it to easy?

chewmylegoff

PasturesNew wrote: »

I think the thing that surprises me most is how much they're "allowed to keep to live on" in the time between when they go BR and when it ends. e.g. A family of 4 could reasonably say their food/groceries bill is £500/month. When you tot up all the outgoings they're allowed to keep it's a fortune. I'd have thought they'd have been allowed similar to "dole + work costs" for the two years. After all, they've had their choices/fun with the money, it would seem "only fair" that they were told how much they had to live on and not the other way round.

Years ago it was a total "shame for life" thing, now it's more like "just popping out to the court, won't be long, when I get back we'll go out for dinner because it's back to normal"

it goes further than that.

in my previous job we were investigating someone who ended up in bankruptcy. his living costs, ratified by his trustee in bankruptcy, included several thousand pounds a year to pay for tanker deliveries to his own personal petrol pump.

he asked for £13k a month, i think they gave him £7k or so. bearing in mind he had multi million pound debts from a collapsed business. if i had my way he would have been in the local YMCA.

mewbie_2

piggeh wrote: »

If the OR believes that the bankruptee...

Like an amputee? Except the 'limb' being removed in this case is the credit card?

piggeh

mewbie wrote: »

Like an amputee? Except the 'limb' being removed in this case is the credit card?

Yep, and just as painful for some

Dooooooooooooooonut

StevieJ wrote: »

Good to see that you now aknowledge that the serious losses the banks have incurred is nothing to do with the UK borrower. With regards to the future they appear to now be ducking dodgy debtors.

Yes it is. Do you really think Northern Rock, for example, would have such difficulty in the wholesale markets if other lenders had not been worried about the quality of its book?

The failure of the US sub prime market was a trigger for a hell of a lot of '!!!!!! are we doing?' type thinking... and people realised Adam Applegarth had no clothes

Broken_hearted

dad-of-4 wrote: »

but i don't want a mortgage ever and would very much like a holiday. Surely i should be free to have a holiday & not a house, if that is how i choose to live my life.

You are free to have a holiday just save up for it. If you can't afford the holiday without credit you can't afford the holiday. Surely thats what being bankrupt is supposed to teach people.

leveller2911

dad-of-4 wrote: »

personally i think its wrong to "punish" people for nothing more than having a go at living their lives, its the wrong perspective to have on it, and i don't believe thats why bankruptcy exists.

bankruptcy protects people, nothing more. it protects the unaware lenders, and it protects the debtor from the lender, any punishment or lack of, is based purely on ones own perception.

its just a means to bring things to a final & legally binding conclusion and stop things getting out of hand.

and lets not forget this bankruptcy thing work both ways, you can just as easily make someone bankrupt as you can go bankrupt.

so a little protection of peoples worldly goods is probably a good thing, after all it wouldn't be in a banks, or any other lenders best interests to file for possession and sell at a loss, if they can bankrupt you and cover the debt in full.

seriously, some people need to wake up to the true reality of what they wish for, and what they would like life to be like. the ability of the odd person here and their to manipulate the system to their advantage isn't a good reason to alter it to the disadvantage of everyone.

i only wish me and mine could live with such a high level of security as our normality, that we wouldn't need all our rights and liberties and the protection it give us.

I don't particularly aim that at nick mason, but i do ask are you really sitting that pretty in the scheme of life, that you would gladly see bankruptcy changed in that way you suggest, and have 100% confidence that it could never be wielded against you.

i don't know anyone who walks into a court of law on the wrong end the proceedings and ever expected to see the day come, not criminals, not bankrupts, not divorcee's not anyone.

You say its wrong to punish people for "nothing more than having a go at living there lives".............So what happends if we ALL max out on credit cards??????

"so a little protection for peoples worldly goods is a good thing"

Are these the 50" plasma screen TV,s 4x4 cars,expensive jewelly,designer clothes etc all purchased with credit cards? Because they wanna keep up with the Jones???

One word thats missing here is "MORAL" is it morally right to over extend your borrowing with no thought of paying it back??

And as for the "odd person out to manipulate the system" just made me laugh , I personally know of 7 people who have maxed out on credit cards and then gone bankrupt,like other posters here have said they just shrug it off, still have the "Blackberry" phones, I pods, cars, holidays etc and 50% of them are dole-ites .......

They are as bad as any long term, work shy,dole scrounging,system manipulating SCUM.........:mad: ( And No I dont mean the genuine unemployed)..

chucky

Dooooooooooooooonut wrote: »

Not at first, but they will be. Risk was underpriced everywhere and this includes the issuance of loans to UK consumers.

have you seen the numbers for people late on their mortgage payments - it's just under 1.5%... so the answer is no the problems were not due to UK loans.

fc123

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

If only it were so fast!

I got a Legal Aid cheque last week for work I did in Nov. 2003.

Seriously? Do they add interest to it? I have heard that your profession needs nerves of steel concerning cashflow.

Dooooooooooooooonut

chucky wrote: »

have you seen the numbers for people late on their mortgage payments - it's just under 1.5%... so the answer is no the problems were not due to UK loans.

:rotfl:

Have you considered a career as a quant on a mortgage exotics desk? Or are you busy as a Labour spin doctor? Or just thick?

The number you quote has nothing to do with anything, really.

blind-as-a-bat_2

piggeh wrote: »

If the OR believes that the bankruptee has deliverately built up debts to 'play the system' they can impose BROs on them and probably other conditions (havent read BR stuff in a few years now). The only weakness in BR is that ORs do not always look into matters as well as they should.

Really we should all pay a little more tax so these ORs are a bit more well resourced and able to look into cases more fully because at the end of the day that is really the only way to sort out the abusers from the 'innocent' - but then we should also pay more to pretty much every area of Government as they could all do things a little better with additional resources!

The OR is target based on both IPA,s and BRO/U's, they are also under pressure to make there office pay for itself through IPA/O payments ( the cost of each BR starts at 1.8k or there abouts) to meet these targets, and fund there office, and get there performance related awards, they go after the "easy Targets" that require the least work.

Its simple to see why the system does not catch the rougues, they require more work and reduce productivaty Its not about funding, its about a conflict of intrests:rolleyes: