Why dont the Insolvency Service speak plain english????

FraudBuster

My understanding is that the 30 day rule does not apply to misconduct:

Reporting misconduct
Although the grounds for objecting to a DRO are quite strict, the official receiver will always consider any evidence from creditors detailing misconduct regarding the debtor’s dealings or property, or suggestions for further explanation or enquiry.
Examples of useful information would be if you have information previously unknown to the official receiver, which identifies undisclosed assets or debts, or about the debtor’s behaviour.

Examples of the type of behaviour which may result in further action being taken are:

• non-disclosure or removal of assets;
• dishonesty in obtaining credit;
• failure to keep or produce records which account for losses during the 2 years prior to the DRO;
• disposal of assets at less than their value resulting in a loss to creditors;
• payment of some creditors in preference to others;
• excessive pension contributions;
• failure to supply goods or services wholly or partly paid for, resulting in a loss to creditors;
• incurring debts (as an individual or a trader) which they had no reasonable prospect of paying;
• gambling, rash and hazardous speculation or unreasonable extravagance which has materially contributed to or increased the debt;
• neglect of business affairs which may have materially contributed to or increased the extent of the debts;
• fraud or fraudulent breach of trust;
• failure to co-operate with the official receiver.

This list is not exhaustive. If you know of any misconduct by the debtor which you think may have contributed significantly to their insolvency, please put this in writing to the official receiver, together with copies of any supporting documentation

headoutofsand

"Competent authority" Now that's a new one. These depts are into competency big time, in fact they have now become obsessed with this new found word. Competency this compentency that. Box ticking is what I call it. If you happen to fall out the of the box, you are deemed unsuitable. Which is clearly :mad:

Lost2

I don't no why they just cannot tell you in plain English to [STRIKE]Bu!!!!! off[/STRIKE]:o go away as we don't no the answer ether :rolleyes:

Trollfever

As DRO's have only been running for a couple of months, everybody is currently on a very steep learning curve.
I am campaigning against pension funds being classed as assets.

.

dalip

Troll....i would back you on that one.

fiveyearplan

blind-as-a-bat wrote: »

............

BAT - thanks for that - I've been trying to work out how you score out a word and can't figure it out. How do you do it?

peachyprice

[STRIKE]with the score through button[/STRIKE] (Only available on full reply, not quick reply)

It's the last button on the row of tools, looks like an 'S' with a line through it.


HTH

fiveyearplan

Thanks peachy - I usually use quick reply which is why I've never noticed it. DOH!

I [STRIKE]think[/STRIKE] I see it now.

dalip

Oh me [STRIKE]to[/STRIKE]too:rotfl:

elfieb

FraudBuster wrote: »

My understanding is that the 30 day rule does not apply to misconduct:

Yet another reason that whoever has implimented DROs does not know their a**e from their elbow!!!

DROs, like bankruptcy, should be final. Once you have been granted one, thats it, you are insolvent, no amount of objecting from creditors should be able to change that.

Its a shamble that people who have been granted a DRO, have to be constantly aware that an objection should come at any min! Its like living on a knife edge!!! I dread the post coming everyday now!