At least 2 out of 3 people declared bankrupt are not home owners.

carolt

The 'PM thing' thing?

What's that, chucky?

Afriend_2

I prefer carolt when she's in hippy mode.

Have you run out of chocolate carolt?

bluey890 wrote: »

I really misjudged you carolt. I thought you were always angry. I now realise you occasionally smoke weed.

carolt wrote: »

I do realise it must sound like that.

But promise I've not been smoking or ingesting anything stronger than chocolate (though obviously, that's pretty powerful stuff....).

Just reread that and realised it sounded like I could have been smoking the chocolate. :eek: I haven't. I promise.

If I really am, as posters on this thread have suggested, 'rude', 'arrogant' and 'narcissistic', then it is clearly lucky I've had a gentle wake-up call. Or maybe I was never quite as bad as I was cracked up to be?

Who can say.

Sweet dreams, all.

Have a lovely tomorrow.

PS Hope the new sweetness and light me isn't making you vomit.

silvercar

Student loans definitely can't be included in bankruptcy. With the lax bankruptcy laws in this country, every student would finish their degree, declare bankruptcy, go travelling for a year and come back home with a clean slate.

carolt

Afriend wrote: »

I prefer carolt when she's in hippy mode.

Have you run out of chocolate carolt?

I'm sure I prefer me in hippy mode too - definitely a hippy chick at heart.

I've had some chocolate, but is it enough? Can any amount ever be enough?

leveller2911

ninky wrote: »

btw it's a bit cliquey and backslapping over on the br threads. just got the forum equivalent of mob lynching for suggesting self-pity in the face of having to downgrade a car might not be the best way to go....

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1982807&page=2

Its like a "Happy Clappy Church" on there some nights..I'm sure I saw some party poppers go off last Thursday in there..:rolleyes:

SingleSue

I spend a lot of time on the BR aboard and there seems to be just as many home owners as renters posting.

One thing that may skew the figures is that when the !!!!!! is really hitting the fan, a fair few hand the keys in and include the shortfall on sale in the BR once the figure is finally known (it can take a while to process).

I agree about that comment re not kicking a person when they are down, debt is horrible and until you have experienced it (and/or possibly losing your home), it is difficult to have empathy. Yes, some is down to personal irresponsibility but not always especially in the economic climate over the last few years...that has beggered a fair few up who are now finding themselves unable to carry on with their financial commitments after a job loss, shortening of the working week or salary reduction (hence my banging on about paying cash, only buying what you can afford and so on and so forth...you may be able to afford it now but what if the unthinkable happens?).

For every story of spending outside of their means there is another one where !!!!!! has happened and they have tried as hard as they could to still cope but have eventually had to give up.

mewbie_2

SingleSue wrote: »

For every story of spending outside of their means there is another one where !!!!!! has happened and they have tried as hard as they could to still cope but have eventually had to give up.

Good points of course. But I think they should have to identify themselves as part of the ID. Two categories - hard luck and rotten scoundrel.

fc123

On the whole, the new BR laws are very fair from what I researched. Of course, if you know the rules first and want to play the system, then it's possible, but that is only a minority.

House are valued at quick sale price less EA fees and any redemption penalities. If the mortgage payments are affordable and they are seen as reasonable (compared to rents in the area), then you can choose to keep the house.

If you have equity, then you need to raise the sum agreed from a family member (for example) and give it to the trustee to go towards your debts...but after the trustee has taken a fee which can be 20k+.

I can't link the thread as it no longer works, but on another forum I read of someone who went BR and had the house repo'd by NR. She then rented and moved on with her life. 3 months later they offered her the house back on the existing mortage at same int rate.

She chose not to take it back as she felt her work wasn't stable enough to be sure of paying the mortgage (whereas LHA would help her with rent if she had income issues).

On the whole, one can't transfer assets or cash during the previous 5 years as the OR will ask for them back.

Other threads I have read include someone keeping 2 of their 4 BTL's plus family home as they were all in neg eq and the OR didn't have any interest in them.

My SIL was repo'd in early 90's and automatically got a nice council place. As there is hardly any social housing nowadays, they had to change the way it worked as they couldn't house everyone who needed it if repo was auto after BR.


I can't work out what Kerry Katona did as she was BR but still seems to have a far larger than average house.

fc123

And a link to a thread about a new Govt Initiative to prevent homlessness.

http://www.bankruptcyhelp.org.uk/forum/topic.asp?whichpage=1&TOPIC_ID=9130&#39428

ninky_2

fc123 wrote: »

On the whole, one can't transfer assets or cash during the previous 5 years as the OR will ask for them back.

thanks for a great post fc123. however, i know this is only anecdotal, but i remember seeing a documentary following some cases of people in debt a little while back and there was one woman who was going bankrupt who had giving several thousand pounds to her mother a year of two before. she was stressed because there was a suggestion this money might have to be returned and argued that it wasn't fair to put stress on her mother who couldn't afford to pay back the money (it wasn't clear whether she actually had the money or not). in the end it was decided she didn't have to pay back the money. what would happen for example if the person who had been 'gifted' the money just said they'd spent it? this would be very tricky to disprove especially if it was cash.

i'm beginning to wonder if i'm a mug. my OH had a large loan taken before i met him (some may remember this story) which i negotiated to have frozen and the interest and ppi paid back. he had no income or assets at the time so i made the new reduced payments. OH now covers them himself. i've been a bit of a dragon since then and banned him from loans and credit cards but quite frankly i'm wondering if we should have just lived on the easy credit to the max then he could go bankrupt - the house and assests are all mine - what's to lose? (apart from my own strong sense of right and wrong of course)