can I avoid council tax?

crow

The more threads I read on here the more I see prejudice bigots who seem to think it's acceptable to criticise members who try to optimise their situation. Did any others here NOT try to maximise their own situation? I suppose every other bankrupt here gave every penny they had to their creditors, and was forced into bankruptcy by a creditor rather than petition themselves, and didn't need a IPO as they voluntarily suggested an IPA where they take only their essential expenses and give everything left to their creditors, and that they will continue to do so until every last penny their owe is paid, with interest? Or will you all wait for the end of your IPOs and then breathe a sigh of relief that your liability has ended?

Did anyone here send those letters to their banks challenging the banks application of charges? So, you enter into a legal agreement then complain when the bank applies the rules you agreed to?

Has anyone sent a stautue barred letter, or did you willingly agree to pay those debts that had been forgotten about even when you are not obliged to?

Or is it ok to use the rules to YOUR benefit, but not acceptable for anyone else to do the same?

Now, I came here looking for advice, but it doesn't seem there is much advice on offer if certain members feel that the person asking for it shouldn't have it. In other places that called a clique, or maybe even a cartel.

To paraphrase a post I read earlier, this site exists to support people, and it should be remembered that those considering bankruptcy have often struggled with their situation for a long time, keeping it a secret.

As a result of how they view their situation, what seems an essential tactic to ensure their actual survival may seem unsavoury or immoral to others. I daresay others may have the same opinion about you when you were in the same situation.

Have many members have been driven away by this 'attack dog' mentality. Perhaps if you don't want to offer advice you just didn't make any post at all, it would be better for everyone and the site would serve a purpose other than giving some, the opportunity to critcise others. From the eyes of a creditor, I don't think anyone here is innocent or beyond criticism.

So, now, I fully expect to be criticsed because thats what bullies and packs of dogs do.

blind-as-a-bat_2

crow wrote: »

Now, I came here looking for advice, but it doesn't seem there is much advice on offer if certain members feel that the person asking for it shouldn't have it. In other places that called a clique, or maybe even a cartel.

.

Your post history says otherwise, at least under that user name:rolleyes:

You have been reading to many of merlins posts as well by the phraseing of your last one;)

Walter_J

blind-as-a-bat wrote: »

Funny how every time you bother to post on here walter you choose the most controversial threads...

Oh Oh!

It looks like I've got a stalker!

It is true that I don't visit here very often. I am kept very busy running a small business and have a hectic home life involving a wife and four children. On top of that we are in the middle of having a large extension built. Occasionally I get a quiet hour or so in front of the computer and even more occasionally I'll come here.

I don't choose the most controversial threads to post on; simply whatever is around at the time that takes my interest. What interests me right now is the cliquishness intentified by Crow in his excellent post above and displayed by several of the more prominant contributors to this forum. Anyone new breezing in who doesn't fit your stereotype of a poor downtrodden victim ripe for patronising is attacked as an interloper. This has happened to Stintond, Crow, and now me all in the space of one innocuous thread.

It is pathetic.

An inernet forum should be just that; a place for an exchange of views, ideas, and advice. A person's post count or the evident fact that they do not have much of a meaningful life away from their computer screen does not make their views any more valid than those of an occasional or new contributor. It is clear that some of you just do not like new blood walking on your turf.

I see no contradiction in the views I expressed in the two very old posts of mine which you dragged up as an example of my 'hypocracy'. In the first example, some idiot was bleating on about how he wanted to hang on to his BMW when he went bankrupt. I simply pointed out that he couldn't, and that the sooner he got used to the idea that one effect of bankruptcy was the breaking of the psychological link with material goods the better. Any attempt to retain the car would be taken by the OR as evidence of pi55-taking.

The second example merely states the bleedin' obvious. Keep your monthly excess to under £100 and you won't get an IPA or IPO. When I hear of people paying £300 or £400 a month on an IPA I have to wonder why they have gone bankrupt at all. This suggests a monthly excess of £600-700. My experience of bankruptcy was that I was totally skint! Even now I'm back on my feet I would have trouble finding £700 per month after paying all my family's living costs.

Bankruptcy is intended for those who can't pay their debts. Not those who merely choose not to.

Tinytim

Mummy4 I couldn't agree more.

We are right at the start of the process, having gone BR last week. We have taken a long time getting to this point, and it really was the last resort. When personal guarantees for my failed business are taken into account my SOA showed unsecured creditors in excess of £200K, and over the last year and a half I have had to say goodbye to members of staff who had become friends and been with me for many years. I have had to sit down with my kids and try to explain why we will probably have to move house, and why they can't take a group of friends to the cinema or MacDonalds for their birthday.

Yes, there has been some stupidiy on my part with borrowings, and hindsight can be a very powerful thing, I feel most guilty about staff who have missed out on payments they are entitled to, and a few small creditors who are simply trying to run a business the same as I was. I feel less guilty about the banks and credit card companies, especially the one who "manufactured" documents to support their case at court; I regret that BR means I won't be able to stand up in court and present evidence of this fact.

I have my (office based) interview with the OR the week after next. It gives me a wry smile when I read about posters who are worried about this. I can empathise with those who are nervous and daunted by the prospect of the interview itself, but struggle to understand those who are hoping to hide something or manipulate something; perhaps BR wasn't the last resort in their case. All I know is that there is nothing the OR can say or do which could compare with the turmoil and heartache of the last twelve months

Tinytim

Walter_J wrote: »

Oh Oh!

Bankruptcy is intended for those who can't pay their debts. Not those who merely choose not to.

You are 100% right on this

Where I have trouble is in the whole "get the excess to below £100" scenario. When I was doing my SOA, I had to really try hard not to end up with a deficit, and missed off quite a few items. I know that if I really did have an excess of over £100, there would have been at least a slim chance that I could have persauded creditors to accept token payments for at least a little while and may have avoided BR. I do find it difficult to reconcile the fact that some people have sufficient surplus when the go BR to have to pay and IPA/O.

Deep_in_Misery

The majority of people on here are just like me, that's the way i see it. I have been getting stuff on credit and HP since i left home and had kids, that was the only way i could afford it, low wage, then divorced and left with 2 severely disabled now grown up children. Credit mounted as one got a progressive bone disorder, bills for equipment etc, i never judge anyone, after 30 full years of never missing anyone i forgot to save for an interest only pay on a credit card and just could not pay it, so on advice after being determined to pay i was refused all options even though i did want to pay.
Br is by far not what i wanted, but in the end the bank was partly to blame for giving me the loans on the basis i had access to others high benefits, i have and will always continue to pay council tax without question, it is something you have to do and there is no way out as i see it, i even paid the poll tax, many did not.
I have found this board a lifeline, but would never visit anywhere that would just deliberately be some sort of get out to paying what you can do in life and screw over anyone you can place.
Kids do need all spare money after priority debts are paid, but i accept there are instances with rent for example it is never easy, life is hard.
BR is an option that comes as very easy for some, but for others it is not as easy and some have it very bad.
I too missed off my rent contribution as it was my son and daughters second dependant contribution so as to have money to pay, the OR told me it had to be included as it was in my name, she also upped the food list.

DEBTMONKEY1A

Hi all,

Obviously getting below the magic £100 mark so BR is over in 6-12 months is the aim of the game. Without resorting to dodgy stuff, like getting 'rent rises' (ahem!!)....there are LOADS of allowences that you can put down that YOU ARE ENTITLED TO put down that many would not be aware of....such as 'lunches at work'....etc (we all buy sandwiches-right??)...and many others....you have the right to put these down yet many are not aware...I think I posted my SOA ages ago on here if you wanted to look.

This information can be gained from various web-sites......Simon on http://www.debtquestions.co.uk/forum/index.php helped me greatly & is a mine of information...a lot of the maximum allowences say for food/meals at work, etc are in the OR's manual & many do not know these figures....

An example (ficticious figures!)....say the maximum per week you can claim for say food is £120. You normally spend £80. The morally upright on here (!) would put the £80 down.....but you are ALLOWED the £120!! What would happen if you put the £80 down on your SOA & fell ill & subsequently had to buy expensive ready meals? It would be a very difficiult job to revise your SOA to reflect this...

Anyway....my point is that if you are going BR then take the full amounts of allowences you are entitled to....& yes it can help you get below the £100 IPA figure....:beer: