Really worried about car...

miss_spooky

HI,

It's a shame you have only just foud out about the DLA & CA. IF your OH is awared CA, he will be seen as a Carer which is a vocation whereby the OR has a duty to leave you / him with a car. It's in the tech manual . I'll see if I can find the info.

I was allowed to keep mine as I am in receipt of CA.

But if you can show the OR any letters from the DWP saying that they hace received your applications, then this could be enough.

Good luck.x

philnicandamy

This bit?

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/freedomofinformation/technical/casehelpmanual/M/MotorVehicles.htm

miss_spooky

Thanks Phil,

Nearly, it's this bit

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/freedomofinformation/technical/TechnicalManual/Ch25-36/Chapter31/part2/part3/part_3.htm#31.2.23#$11778#31.2.23

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.

kutiez2005

Yay I finally worked out how to find my old posts!! So I've re read all of the really good advice and this is how far I have gotten...

... I am now confident that the car we have will be exempt as my husband is my full time carer and will shortly get carers allowance which will further support our need for the car.

What I am not confident about is the value of the car. I have to put a case together as to why we should be allowed to keep our car (value £4k). At the moment I'm worrying that they are going to ask us to pay the difference between the value of our car and the value normally allowed. If this happens we will have to let it go as there is no way we could come up with that sort of money. I'm not sure I'm going to do a very good job of this & it's getting me down a lot

kutiez2005

p.s bear with me guys & gals, I get easily confused so I might have missed something along the way?!?!

kutiez2005

Just bumping to see if anyone has any further advice since my update? I arrived home today to a letter from the OR saying he wants this info by 29th Dec. Bit annoyed cause the worry of it is infringing on my Christmas a bit. Christmas day is going to be super busy with 2 excited toddlers and baby so shouldn't think about it too much then but could really do with getting it out of the way before that if I can.

Thanks everyone

K

confused76

hey kutie sorry i don't have any experience of this. did you use the parkers guide 'poor value'? i am keeping my fingers crossed that you can keep the car x

kutiez2005

Yes, unfortunately the poor value amount is £4000. Does seem a bit high at the moment though... I don't honestly think we'd get any more than £3500 and probably even a bit less. Although it doesn't really make much difference cause it is definitely still over the normal allowed amount & we definitely can't afford to pay the difference so all tips welcome.

I'll be glad once this statement thing is done and out of the way. It seems a little bit unfair though that someone else in exactly the same situation might get to keep their car at no cost because they are able to do a better statement. My head is in a spin with the whole thing.

out_of_cash

you can argue that such is the importance to you to have a reliable car that this will not be achieved by them leaving you with a 2nd hand one thats probably not been maintained to well.

i had to take the insolvency service to court to keep mine and i won.i was unemployed at the time.Put up a fight and they dont like it but they dont always win my car was worth 3k

kutiez2005

Thanks out of cash. I'm just soooo rubbish at fighting my corner. Funny really cause I always manage to stick up for other people but when it comes to myself I'm under the table, shaking, with my tail between my legs :rotfl:

I'll have a go but if they decline I'll try to get back in touch with you for some tips.