Ive just reduced my hours to avoid an ipa , how will the OR react????

scootw1

stintond wrote: »

I'm sorry that you are offended that youre having to pay this amount when others are not , I dont wish you to have to pay this.I did ring up the insolvency service helpline before going bankrupt and they told me they dont care whether I do the overtime or not , just that they want half of it if I do.

That isn't what you stated in your post. You said you had reduced your hours to avoid the IPA completely. This is very different to not working overtime. If it is overtime you are on about then you should have stated that and of course you are quite within your rights not to work it if it is going to increase the amount the OR gets.

Edit : Just noticed that you were on about child tax credit increasing but then you are on about overtime. Can you make this all clear as I am getting confused by all this.

stintond wrote: »

There are those who would question why people like you(bankrupts) are only paying 324 pound a month when they are having to pay back the full amount of their debt.

i do feel that I am paying a fair amount back at that level of IPA. It amounts to over 11000 over the three years and I lost a back payment of tax as well which amounted to about 500 pounds and back payment of quite a big pay rise which was about £1300 so I would say about 14000 in all off a debt of 45000 (16000 of which was due to very high interest on a loan of 8000).Plus I was on an IVA before that and shelled out £4000 in that. Of course it isn't the full amount I owed. I was not talking about bankrupts versus debt payers, my argument was concerning two bankrupts, one of which was completely honest about their SOA and the other who sought to reduce their hours in order to avoid an IPA.

stintond wrote: »

I think there are a lot of hypotheticals in your argument that the ORs are
going to throw a wobbly and start disallowing this that and the other.
I wouldnt have anything against a fixed amount in principle ( say a 100 pound a month for 5 years) , but what benefit is there for me to work all the hours God sends . I cant keep any reasonable percentage of the money , they will take most of it

Again, if this is to with overtime then fair enough but it would sound to most people like you were trying to avoid paying anything back if you reduced your standard hours.

stintond wrote: »

Anyway sorry once again , you are not personally out of pocket because of me.

I didn't say I was personally out of pocket because of you. I merely said why should I work full time when other people reduce their hours and go part time to get out of the IPA.

stintond wrote: »

What about the greedy fat cats , the MPs the bank bosses , my tax money spent on nuclear weapons (7000 million) , which will never be fired , wars in other countries , I'm bankrupt , I havent got a penny to my name , why do people always look to the bottom of society (wealthwise!) when they are searching for someone to blame for the world problems.

That's a whole different kettle of fish and nothing whatsoever to do with this situation

Merry_Gentry

stintond wrote: »

I have reduced my working hours so I avoid an ipa

Good morning Stintond, I think you will find this is the misleading part of your post - if you had stated overtime hours I think you would have had a very different response from people. As it is, it reads as though you have decided to go part-time in order to avoid paying an IPA, which is why people feel that you are playing the system in a bit of an unfair manner.

philnicandamy

The title says it all :rolleyes: .....

Ive just reduced my hours to avoid an ipa , how will the OR react????

stintond wrote: »

I'm sorry that you are offended that youre having to pay this amount when others are not , I dont wish you to have to pay this but you have NO choice its in the terms of your bankruptcy.I did ring up the insolvency service helpline before going bankrupt and they told me they dont care whether I do the overtime or not , just that they want half of it if I do. sometimes more than half depending on what surplus you have
There are those who would question why people like you(bankrupts) are only paying 324 pound a month when they are having to pay back the full amount of their debt.I think there are a lot of hypotheticals in your argument that the ORs are going to throw a wobbly and start disallowing this that and the other. IF people like you try to cheat the system then the OR's will have no choice in tighter measures
I wouldnt have anything against a fixed amount in principle ( say a 100 pound a month for 5 years) , but what benefit is there for me to work all the hours God sends . I cant keep any reasonable percentage of the money , they will take most of it again its in the t&c's of your bankruptcy...the LEGAL document you presented & signed in court
Anyway sorry once again , you are not personally out of pocket because of me. eventually people who are honest & straightforward will be faced with tougher OR's etc due to people like YOU playing the system
What about the greedy fat cats , the MPs the bank bosses , my tax money spent on nuclear weapons (7000 million) , which will never be fired , wars in other countries , I'm bankrupt , I havent got a penny to my name , why do people always look to the bottom of society (wealthwise!) when they are searching for someone to blame for the world problems NOT really relevant here though...

and its no wonder why this forum gets trolled.........believe me Stintond if at my time of going BR I could have paid anything back towards my debts I would have done in a shot...to me this sounds like another "how can we play the system" and win post..of which I refuse to help...one thing with an IPA you'd be paying a damn site less each month that you would have before delcaring bankruptcy....you ran up the debt & if you have a surplus then WHY is it so wrong to pay a % back?...Hopefully you were well aware of the bankruptcy rules & regs before you signed all the paperwork in court? sounds to me like its not the "EASY WAY" out you thought it was ?

Not one to sound nasty..but with posts like this you deserve a hard time from the Receiver...
**apologies to others for the rant**

Mr_and_Mrs_Spendthrift

I'm reluctant to wade in being a newbie but on every SOA thread, the advice is to put things up to there highest and add what you're allowed to minimise your chances of getting a IPA! If someone is working extra hours they don't need/have to and the result of this gives them nothing but a hard life, why not reduce them? I'm not familier with people on here yet but it could be that pre BR the extra hours were worked to pay debts?!

Everyones reasons for BR are different. It's not always the case that people caused there own problems. In these cases why pay for 3 years what you could have done with in 1!

philnicandamy

dalip wrote: »

Why start a new thread when you already have all the answers you need?:rolleyes:

maybe they didnt like the answers? :rolleyes:;)

philnicandamy

anybody want to borrow a piece??

blind-as-a-bat_2

Funny, i posted on DT that BR's dont fall out as who gets an IPA, and who does not, only last week

Now we have a thread causing just that

and this thread has had over 400 views, the average is normaly 100-150 tops, most a lot less, so its is being watched


Strange Coincedence:think:

Merry_Gentry

Mr_and_Mrs_Spendthrift wrote: »

I'm reluctant to wade in being a newbie but on every SOA thread, the advice is to put things up to there highest and add what you're allowed to minimise your chances of getting a IPA! If someone is working extra hours they don't need/have to and the result of this gives them nothing but a hard life, why not reduce them? I'm not familier with people on here yet but it could be that pre BR the extra hours were worked to pay debts?!

Everyones reasons for BR are different. It's not always the case that people caused there own problems. In these cases why pay for 3 years what you could have done with in 1!

I think the point causing dissension is that in the original post the OP didn't specify it was extra hours they were cutting down on, and the inference was going part time from full time all to avoid an IPA. That is what's caused the problem.

dalip

I actually think that both threads have been worded that way for precisely that reason. There have been very few responses from the poster except to add fuel to the fire by again choosing their words carefully. They have done little to try clear up that mistake:rolleyes:. Dx

philnicandamy

Very fishy.......very fishy indeed certainly dont smell right (and for once its not me to blame)
agree with others...this seems to have been done for effect