Household Expenditure Spreadsheet Updated

nervousmother

Ok i have got to the bottom of it, i had the old versions saved on my PC! when clicking the link it automatically opened up the older ones. now deleted thanks bat.
OOOOO this gets me so wound up!! that expenditure is supposed to be average for the country, maybe the water one is average if your not on a meter!! I know I dont have a IPA but when we were calculating mine it was the child benefit that ment we did not get one so if we went br today we would.
I have 3 children, and there are so much other things that are needed for kids including pocket money. BR is not supposed to effect the children but now it will. They have left no room for parents to give their kids any extras.

wayforward_2

i'm in the process of agreeing my IPA at the moment and she included the CB as an income but not the informal maintenance i get from my ex hub - but then she didn't include any of the child expenses

missyp123

Hi,
Iv not got to the stage of filling in opfficial forms in etc yet...i have just filled it in roughly and our ex leaves us with £65

its says no payments??? i have read that they cut things back on your forms, how likley is it that they cut things down so that you have to pay something?
I think no matter what its going to be a struggle, the apparent £65 we are meant to have is never there at the end of the month!

blind-as-a-bat_2

missyp123 wrote: »

Hi,
Iv not got to the stage of filling in opfficial forms in etc yet...i have just filled it in roughly and our ex leaves us with £65

its says no payments??? i have read that they cut things back on your forms, how likley is it that they cut things down so that you have to pay something?
I think no matter what its going to be a struggle, the apparent £65 we are meant to have is never there at the end of the month!

All depends who you get as an examiner and who they are trying to impress:rolleyes:

Thats one of the problems, there is no consistancy, some accept what you put, others stick to the above spread sheet to the letter, some go below it.

Which is why we always say an IPA is an agreemant, if you cant live on what they say, then you dont agree;)

This is the oficial guidelines opening paragraph

IPAs Assessment of Real Disposable Income
December 2006


31.7.6 Identifying surplus income - initial stage

Whether completing the statement of affairs or in creditor petition cases the Bankruptcy Preliminary Information Questionnaire (form PIQB) the bankrupt should, in all cases, answer any questions regarding income and outgoings, providing full details of monthly income he/she receives (from all sources) and usual monthly expenditure. This may include accommodation, food, housekeeping, utilities, travel costs, clothing etc. and other regular outgoings. See paragraphs 31.7.19 and 31.7.24 for further information as to a consistent approach when considering whether expenditure claimed by the bankrupt is reasonable.

In the case of a debtor's petition, the bankrupt's income and expenditure figures should be available from the statement of affairs for consideration at the preliminary enquiry stage. Chapter 4, Initial procedure when bankruptcy order made, Part 3 provides guidance concerning the correct interview procedure to follow should an IPA/IPO be considered appropriate once thestatement of affairs has been examined. Where a bankrupt is required to complete a preliminary information questionnaire ( PIQB), he/she should be asked to return the completed PIQB prior to any interview with supporting evidence such as pay slips and utility bills. This will allow the examiner to consider whether the bankrupt may have sufficient surplus income to make payments under an IPA/IPO and, if necessary, note any unusual or excessive items of expenditure requiring further explanation by the bankrupt at interview.

It may be that the information already provided is sufficient for the official receiver to ascertain that there is little likelihood of an IPA/IPO as the information shows that the bankrupt's sole source of income is derived from benefits or the bankrupt has proved to the official receiver that he/she has insufficient surplus income from which to make any contribution.

Where the bankrupt appears to have income in excess of what is required to pay for his/her reasonable domestic needs and those of his/her family, an IPA should be considered by the official receiver based on the "real disposable income" that is available.If a bankrupt's expenditure appears to equate exactly with his/her evidenced income, leaving nothing to pay into the estate, the figures should be closely examined and a full explanation sought, especially where expenditure appears to vary considerably from the averages recorded for the relevant family group in the Household Expenditure Spreadsheet. Questions concerning previous debt repayments should also be considered, particularly as most bankrupts make payments of some sort to their creditors prior to the making of the bankruptcy order. Whilst the creditor debts which the bankrupt has been attempting to service prior to bankruptcy from his/her income (and that of his/her partner as appropriate) may now be included as unsecured creditors within the bankruptcy proceedings, information concerning these pre- bankruptcy debt repayments may help to provide a context in which to consider whether amounts claimed by the bankrupt as necessary expenditure post bankruptcy are reasonable.

Each case must be considered on its merits but a consistent approach regarding reasonable expenditure must be maintained. This may mean that where a bankrupt has pared expenditure down to a level where it is likely he/she will have difficulty in funding their own reasonable domestic needs, it may be necessary to build in some flexibility, e.g. incorporating a monthly allowance for a moderate holiday (see paragraph 31.7.26). On the other hand, where it appears a bankrupt is seeking to avoid making any contribution in order to maintain his/her lifestyle at the expense of the creditors, all outgoings should be carefully examined and tested against guidelines provided, taking in to account the averages as shown in the Household Expenditure Spreadsheet and expenditure guidance at paragraphs 31.7.19 and 31.7.24. It is important to remember when making an assessment of expenditure claimed by the bankrupt that it is his/her reasonable domestic needs that need to be considered, [note 1 ] as opposed to basic domestic needs [note 2].

It should also be remembered that whilst the IPA is intended to provide some kind of return to the creditors, bankruptcy is intended to allow the individual to start afresh and remain solvent in the future.

In cases where the bankrupt has sufficient assets in addition to an IPA which may warrant the appointment of an insolvency practitioner at a meeting of creditors, the official receiver should continue with the necessary procedure to ensure the IPA agreement comes in to force at the earliest opportunity and should not neglect to secure the payments under the IPA pending the appointment of an insolvency practitioner. Where the IPA is the only or principal asset, once the IPA is effective the continued administration of payment collection and monitoring should be dealt with by the appropriate RTLU.

blind-as-a-bat_2

However, i find this paragraph intresting

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.

If an OR tweaks the figures so the BR just reaches a surplus of £100, and therefore gets an IPA of £50, that only covers the OR's costs, so is of no benefit to the BR's creditors.

In my eyes its doing the same thing as the IP mentioned above did;)


NB Assuming that is all that will be recovered from the BR,s estate - IE there are no assets, or further monies to sieze

missyp123

i know its bad for thinking this could happen, but it was the first thing i thought of when inputting my expenditures.
well iv got a long way to go yet lets just hope my OR is more of a nice nannie mcphee rather than a wicked witch!

dalip

blind-as-a-bat wrote: »

Not sure if THIS will work, try it and let me know

:j:jyes thanks bat:A

debtinfo

it all goes on what is considered reasonable and this can vary quite abit with no official test. As much as an examiners opinion may vary a judges opinion can vary just as much from the very draconion to the very liberal.

for instance consider a person who had been married with with 5 children who's relationship had broken down and is now living alone in a 5 bedroom house. Although his rent/gas/elec/council tax/water etc etc will all be genuinely high alot more than the recomendation for a single person is it reasonable to go with the recomendation or his actual bills

blind-as-a-bat_2

debtinfo wrote: »

it all goes on what is considered reasonable and this can vary quite abit with no official test. As much as an examiners opinion may vary a judges opinion can vary just as much from the very draconion to the very liberal.

for instance consider a person who had been married with with 5 children who's relationship had broken down and is now living alone in a 5 bedroom house. Although his rent/gas/elec/council tax/water etc etc will all be genuinely high alot more than the recomendation for a single person is it reasonable to go with the recomendation or his actual bills

They cost what they cost, so that is what is reasonable, regardles of the situation, or anyones view, draconion or liberal.

They are, to a point, beyond that persons control, at that presant point in time

wayforward_2

i agree - utilities etc should be set from the actual bills. Although having said that my OR has accepted my figures for gas, elec, water etc etc