Please Help, Advice wanted

debtinfo

Its called dissipation of assets or putting assets beyong the reach of creditors. However all circumstances are taken into consideration.

For instance consider these two examples one was misconduct, one was not.

A woman was kicked out of her house after a dispute with her family with her only asset being an £8,000 car, having no where to go and a small child she sold the car, got a £2,000 one, Put a £1,000 deposit down on an unfurnished property, Spent £1200 on 3 months rent and used the rest to furnish the property. No BRO

The other woman decided after speaking to CAB and after a lifetime of living on her credit cards, cashed in an endowment policy 3 weeks before the BR for £5,000. She decided to freshen ip her huse by redecorating and buying all new appliances and some furniture. BRO granted

tigerfeet2006

Also check out https://www.freecycle.org for furniture for free.

Look in the For Sale ads in your local paper for cheap furniture.

Ebay is a good source of furniture as well.

You don't need to have new furniture.

INAMESS

Hi well my car is up for sale now and i intend on moving into the flat mid august, once i sell my car i will get a cheaper one for upto 2K, will also use some of the money for paying the one month rent in advance and also for some essential items eg bed, settee, fridge etc, and put the rest of the money in the new bank account until i guess i then go BR in a month or 2 time and then i guess the OR will take that remaining money, does anyone see a problem with me doing all of this?
One more point, if the flat was just one bus ride to work would i still be able to have a cheaper car for getting to work and seeing my son? Thanks.

INAMESS

Hi has anyone got any thoughts on my last reply above? Still feeling a bit worried and stressed!lol Thanks

terr123

INAMESS wrote: »

Hi well my car is up for sale now and i intend on moving into the flat mid august, once i sell my car i will get a cheaper one for upto 2K, will also use some of the money for paying the one month rent in advance and also for some essential items eg bed, settee, fridge etc, and put the rest of the money in the new bank account until i guess i then go BR in a month or 2 time and then i guess the OR will take that remaining money, does anyone see a problem with me doing all of this?
One more point, if the flat was just one bus ride to work would i still be able to have a cheaper car for getting to work and seeing my son? Thanks.

My own feeling is that this would be acceptable to the OR, especially if you spend reasonably and leave the balance (which they will take).

As an aside,
have you looked at coming to an agreement with your creditors, rather than BR? Credit card lenders will often be prepared to write off a certain amount of money rather than lose it all. If it doesn't work out, you can always declare BR at a later date.

INAMESS

Hi well the problem is once i move into the flat having already done an estimated budget sheet it leaves me with less than £50 a month left over for paying the creditors, with debts of upto £30K im fairly sure that they would not be interested in doing a deal with me.
Have been looking at cheap cars this weekend, do people think that upto £2K is ok to spend then and i should be allowed to keep that car after selling the one ive got now?

Merry_Gentry

No one can tell you for definite that you will be able to keep the car. ORs have been known to take cars worth only £250 in order to remove spendings on the SOA and get an IPA. You need to prove that you need the car for work, not that it's convenient and certainly not "just" for picking up your son (I don't mean that in a bad way, but the ORs don't have to consider this).

INAMESS

Hi thanks for all the replies, i have found a new car which will cost £1995 which includes tax and warranty, does anyone see a problem with this? Using public transport from where i am moving to in order to get to work would mean 3 bus journeys and 2 hours of travel time just to get to work so obviously the same again going back home, surely the OR would see that having a car would make more sense? Also do OR's not take into account family reasons for needing a car (seeing my son) at all?? Thanks

INAMESS

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

debtinfo

hi this is the relevent section of the OR's technical manual, these are all the reasons a vehicle may be exempt apart frm work which you already know about

31.2.22(b) Bankrupt is a carer for a relative
Caring for others clearly can be a vocation and the means by which an individual earns their living (e.g. nurses, care assistants) there seems no reason why caring for another, who is in fact a relative, should be treated any differently. There are considerable number of "informal" and upaid carers in the country who would describe their "vocation" as that of a carer. Many may be eligible for a carer's allowance, an income maintenance benefit for those who are required to care for a severely disabled person. The allowance is a taxable benefit for informal carers, payable where the carer looks after a disabled person for at least 35 hours per week.
A bankrupt might therefore not be in paid employment and have no prospect of obtaining employment as a result of having taken on the care of a disabled relative (including a child). In considering whether the bankrupt has a "vocation" as a carer a material issue would be the time involved in undertaking the care, the receipt of any carer's allowance and the level of care required. For example the normal care of a child reasonably expected of a parent is not a "vocation" in this context but a parent caring for a disabled child would fall into this category.
In respect of a claim for a vehicle to be exempted under section 283(2)(a), the definition of "employment, business or vocation" has been widened following recent case law to include debtors who are informal, full-time, carers of a disabled friend or relative who would use the vehicle in connection with that role. The receipt of a carer's allowance is not essential but will be indicative that the debtor is pursuing a "vocation" as a carer.
31.2.23 Bankrupt claims he/she needs vehicle due to disability or for domestic use
A bankrupt may inform the official receiver that he/she suffers from a disability and that his/her motor vehicle is necessary for mobility or inform the official receiver that the vehicle is necessary for domestic use (e.g. to take children to school). The official receiver should treat such cases sympathetically but where the exemption provisions as laid down in the legislation do not apply the motor vehicle cannot be treated as exempt property by the official receiver (see paragraph 31.2.16.)
It is for the bankrupt to convince the official receiver that the motor vehicle is necessary, to the extent that no practical alternative exists, to meet a genuine need and not simply as a matter of convenience. If the use of vehicle does not meet the test of necessity the vehicle is vested in the bankruptcy estate and the official receiver should instead pursue with the bankrupt the option to make a reasonable offer for the purchase of the vehicle (see paragraph 31.2.34.)
For the purpose of determining necessity, a reasonably practical alternative does not mean no alternative. In most cases, a taxi service would offer an alternative to a private vehicle, but it should be borne in mind that the costs of regularly using such a service might well exceed the costs of maintaining a modest vehicle and thus compromise the debtor's ability to contribute to an income payments order/agreement. For example, a task that needs to be undertaken daily might be prohibitively expensive by taxi, but undertaking a weekly shop at the supermarket may well reasonably be achieved by using a taxi service rather than retaining the use of a vehicle.
Where a bankrupt claims to require a vehicle to transport children to and from school, he/she will need to demonstrate that there is no public transport alternative or that the distance to travel would make walking (or cycling) an impractical alternative. It is not sufficient for a bankrupt who lives in a rural area to claim a motor vehicle simply by virtue of distance from the school. The bankrupt must provide a statement that there is no transport alternative (e.g. a local authority school bus service) or, if there is more than one child, show that diverse locations makes it impossible to transport all the children to school by public transport. The practical problems such as organising children to walk to school, to travel with more than one child on public transport, or any general concerns expressed about safety are simply a matter of convenience and in such cases the vehicle is not necessary to meet a basic domestic need. However, if the children attend school in opposite directions and could not physically be delivered at school on time without the aid of a motor vehicle, it might be considered necessary to the household.
It is anticipated that the bankrupts most likely to benefit from the wider interpretation of exempt property, and the claims most likely to succeed, will be from bankrupts who suffer from a disability and state that the motor vehicle in question is necessary for mobility. In such cases, the bankrupt's disability would prevent them from seeking employment. Where this is the case, the official receiver must be satisfied that the vehicle allows the bankrupt a degree of independent living which would be impossible without the retention of a vehicle, and/or that there is no practical alternative to allow the bankrupt to undertake routine medical appointments or care associated with their disability.
In such cases, the vehicle should be used personally by the bankrupt and must not be a vehicle maintained for another's exclusive use with occasional assistance and transportation given to the bankrupt. If the bankrupt requires the assistance of another to travel, even in a motor vehicle, then the vehicle does not come within the exemption. Should this be the case, the main user of the vehicle should be invited to make an offer to purchase the vehicle (see paragraph 31.2.34.)
Bankrupts who live in an urban area with reasonable transport links are unlikely (other than as a result of disability) to be in a position to claim that a motor vehicle is necessary to meet a domestic need. For this reason, a decision that a motor vehicle is exempt property, unless the vehicle is required for employment (see paragraph 31.2.22) or is by reason of the bankrupt's disability, must be confirmed by an assistant official receiver