Can they take my pet Tarantulas and Snake?

fermi

Playing 'devil's advocate', I think the number may also be a factor here though........ :eek:

spidwoman wrote: »

We have 1 snake and 53 tarantulas,

blind-as-a-bat_2

Food for thought

The official receiver or trustee must ensure that an agreement with the bankrupt to make regular repayment from his/her income is only entered in to where the bankrupt can afford to do so. In the case of Boyden v Watson [2004] BPIR 1131, Manchester County Court, District Judge E R Jones 27 January 2004 [note 12] the trustee made application to the court for an IPO following a failed attempt by the trustee to set up a voluntary payments agreement with the bankrupt (this was prior to the enactment of the EA2002 IPA provisions). The court stated that the only issues which required consideration were the amount the bankrupt could afford to pay and for what period. The trustee's application was dismissed because the court held (having tested the bankrupt's explanation as to the reasonableness of his monthly expenditure) that it was not possible to make an IPO as this would have the effect of reducing the income of the bankrupt to below the amount necessary to meet his reasonable domestic needs, and that to make a nominal order for the period of three years would be of no benefit to the creditors. The court commented further that the trustee's application was misleading in that, rather than seeking to obtain an IPO in order to fulfil his duty to realize and distribute the bankrupt's estate, the trustee was primarily motivated in making the application by a wish to guarantee payment of his fees.

31.2.25 Exempt vehicles of excess value (updated August 2008)

Where an exempt vehicle appears to have a significant value, the official receiver, when acting as trustee, may claim it for the estate if he/she considers that the realisable value of the vehicle exceeds the cost of a reasonable replacement [note 7]. The vehicle must be claimed by notice in writing no later than 42 days after it came to the knowledge of the trustee (in the case of the official receiver, on his/her becoming trustee) [note 8]. Any notice after this time can only be made with the leave of the court. The official receiver should not normally take any steps to claim an exempt vehicle unless the potential net realisation to the estate is at least £500 after taking into account any costs of sale and of a replacement vehicle. A third party contribution equivalent to the net value of the car to the estate may be accepted to avoid the seizure, sale and replacement of the vehicle. This will also need to cover the value of any cherished/personalised registration mark if that is also to be retained by the bankrupt (see paragraph 31.2.25A).

The official receiver will need to consider the nature of the bankrupt’s business in assessing whether a vehicle has excess value since in the past the courts have concluded that a bankrupt could retain a high value vehicle because he/she operated a business which provided chauffeur driven vehicles.

Ok you might be wondering what that has got to do with this, but i see no reason why the same arguments cannot be used in ANY situation in realisation of assetts, if it is not going to benefit your creditors the first could be argued

If they will not make £500 or more then why should the same principle applied to cars not apply, in short they are implying if it cant raise £500 or more its not worth the hassle.

Just another way of looking at it

Paulgonnabedebtfree

This is infuriating. Thoughts of releasing them to the OR (by going into the office and letting them out) are going through my head. That wouldn't solve anything though.
I'm wondering how long it will be until they want to sell people's kids into slavery by sticking em in a boat across the Atlantic and making sure they're loose packed so more survive.
I'm no pet lover and I have no legal knowledge but morally this should not stand. If you were talking business and you ran a pet shop maybe, but not family pets.
No help to you but just want to offer feelings of support.

fermi

Paulgonnabedebtfree wrote: »

Thoughts of releasing them to the OR (by going into the office and letting them out) are going through my head.

What? Like:

"Here. Have them, if you really want them!!"

:rotfl::rotfl:

Tempting.

Sorry...................................... not helpful :o

blind-as-a-bat_2

fermi wrote: »

What? Like:

"Here. Have them, if you really want them!!"

:rotfl::rotfl:

Tempting.

Sorry...................................... not helpful :o

But funny:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

MrsTinks

I guess because it could be argued that a car is a tool, something needed in this day and age to get to and from work or obtain work?
A pet tarantula (or other pet) would hardly fit in the same category...

lisamummytoarchieplusbump

MrsTine wrote: »

I guess because it could be argued that a car is a tool, something needed in this day and age to get to and from work or obtain work?
A pet tarantula (or other pet) would hardly fit in the same category...

but its still classed as an asset that can be sold to gain money towards the creditors so surely should come under the same thing

blind-as-a-bat_2

MrsTine wrote: »

I guess because it could be argued that a car is a tool, something needed in this day and age to get to and from work or obtain work?
A pet tarantula (or other pet) would hardly fit in the same category...

its down to the old consistancy argument, or lack of it:rolleyes:

The whole asset thing is a big grey area, by there own admision, in the past, and in that paragraph i posted, items under a certain value are just not worth the effort to sieze, yet they will insist a BR pays say £100 for a computer, because that cost them nothing to do that, the question is if the BR refused would they go ahead and bother taking it anyway, or are they just trying it on

Trouble is one OR might, another wont, as i said no consistancey:rolleyes:

MrsTinks

I know - and I'm not saying I agree with it at all Just saying that might be the argument...
And as Fermi says... 53... I mean to me 53 spiders is an infestation not a pet collection :rotfl: Seriously OP no offence I just don't like them lol! But I can understand why they might not be seen as pets in that number...

peachyprice

31.6.47 Pedigree pets
A bankrupt's pets are unlikely to have a value, unless they are pedigree animals. Even so, a pedigree pet is unlikely to be saleable unless it has been used recently by the bankrupt for breeding purposes, is of an impeccable pedigree e.g a recent winner of Crufts, or is of a rare or currently fashionable breed. If possible a valuation should be obtained .If it is apparent that the bankrupt was engaged in business as a breeder, the animals should be sold as an asset of the business. If necessary, specialist agents should be used.
If the bankrupt claims an emotional attachment to the animals, it should be suggested that a member of the bankrupt's family or other third party purchase the animals. The costs of sale that would otherwise be incurred should be taken into account in assessing any such offer.

I wonder is the examiner is clutching at the above straw, however, surely spiders and snakes are only rare because they're not most peoples choice of pet