transaction undervalue

debtinfo

actually him giving her money is a transaction at undervalue if he did not get anything of comparable value in return

miss_spooky

Hi all,

Josie I hope you are well and not getting too stressed.

We need a little more onfo on his br really - could you not get him on here to see your thread & help with replies?

Just a couple of questions really. The £11K was obviously profit from the sale of his house, was this sold because of his BR or because of his breakup with his exgf? Is he working at the mo?

Is your house in your name & is your BF living with you, if so how long for?

He said he didn't know he was br, when did he first find out and has he contested it at all? When was he made BR and has he completed an Statement of Affairs for the Official Receiver? How much was HIS total debt at the time - any joint (with either you or ex) and his own personal as these will all be included in his BR. The joint ones will roll over to the other party. There are a few exceptions on what debts are not included - court fines, CSA, Student Loans.

Anyone - I thought you could only be made BR if the papers were served on you? Or is there a loop for "gone away" people? as in if teh creditor has made every effort to find you, then they can go ahead?

debtinfo

as long as all reasnoable effort has been made then they can go ahead, it is for the judge to decide what is reasonable. for example if you are still registered at an address and the petition is served there then that would probably be reasonable. If you have written to them to inform them you have moved and they still serve it at an old address then that is probably unreasonable

debtinfo

snap.........

alastairq

but you don't have a moral or legal case that you should only pay half the holiday costs

the legal aspect will doubtless be dealt with through advice on this forum...the moral side isn't open for discussion, since no-one is in any position to be judgemental regarding moral standards.

Radiantsoul

alastairq wrote: »

the legal aspect will doubtless be dealt with through advice on this forum...the moral side isn't open for discussion, since no-one is in any position to be judgemental regarding moral standards.

I am not suggesting the OP has willingly acted immorally to be clear. However if you were a person who was owed money by her boyfriend you would be cheesed off if you discovered he had recently given a five figure sum to his girlfriend and that they money was spent on a luxury holiday!

Radiantsoul

blind-as-a-bat wrote: »

Sorry, but the OR would have to prove there was an attempt to defraud by BF first, then prove OP was in on it.

While the OR can go to the court to try get it back, unless there is proof otherwise the court will have to accept the OP did not know, and base any demand for re-payment within her financial means

There is no need to prove fraud, that would be a criminal matter. It seems to me that this is a clear transaction at undervalue as their has been no consideration in return for receipt of the money(the OP did not agree to bank the money in return for receiving a holiday). Even if this isn't a transaction at undervalue then it is clearly a preference.

With a potential asset of £11k in the estate this matter is likely to be passed to a trustee who will be keen to recover the funds. I suppose much depends on if the OP has any equity in their property.

miss_spooky

Hopefully if that is the case, then the OP & her bf will be able to come to an agreement with the trustees / OR to pay back the money without her having to remortgage her own property.

It'd be a bit harsh for her to remtge then him do a runner leaving her with hefty bills...

Radiantsoul

blind-as-a-bat wrote: »

Would you like to post the legaslation that backs up your post radiantsoul and your constant ifferance they can go after equity in her property

339. Transaction at an undervalue

(1) Subject as follows in this section and section 341 and 342, where an individual is adjudged bankrupt and he has at a relevant time (defined in section 341) entered into a transaction with any person at an undervalue, the trustee of the bankrupt's estate may apply to the court for an order under this section.
(2) The court shall, on such an application, make such order as it thinks fir for restoring the position to what it would have been if that individual had not entered into that transaction.
(3) For the purposes of this section and sections 341 and 342, an individual enters into a transaction with a person at an undervalue if -

(a) he makes a gift to that person or he otherwise enters into a transaction with that person on terms that provide for him to receive no consideration.
(b) he enters into a transaction with that person in consideration of marriage, or
(c) he enters into a transaction with that person for a consideration the value of which, in money or money's worth, is significantly less than the value, in money or money's worth, of the consideration provided by the individual.

340. Preferences

(1) Subject as follows in this and the next two sections, where an individual is adjudged bankrupt and he has a relevant time (defined in section 341) given a preference to any person, the trustee of the bankrupt's estate may apply to the court for an order under this section.
(2) The court shall, on such an application, make such order as it thinks fit for restoring the position to what it would have been if that individual had not given that preference.
(3) For the purposes of this and the next sections, an individual gives a preference to a person if -

(a) that person is one of the individual's creditors or a surety or guarantor for any of his debts or other liabilities,
(b) the individual does anything or suffers anything to be done which (in either case) has the effect of putting that person into a position which, in the event of the individual's bankruptcy, will be better than the position he would have been in if that thing had not been done.

(4) The court shall not make an order under this section in respect of a preference given to any person unless the individual who gave the preference was influenced in deciding to give it by a desire to produce in relation to that person the effect mentioned in sub- section (3)(b) above.
(5) An individual who has given a preference to a person who, at the time the preference was given, was an associate of his (otherwise than by reason only of being his employee) is presumed, unless the contrary is shown, to have been influenced in deciding to give it by such a desire as is mentioned in subsection (4).
(6) The fact that something has been done in pursuance of the order of a court does not, without more, prevent the doing or suffering of that thing from constituting the giving of a preference.

Radiantsoul

The quote is from the Insolvency Act 1986.
With regard to enforcement if the trustee wins the Transaction at undervalue they can then obtain a charging order against the property in the same way any other debtor could. I would also suspect the OR might be very tempted to slap a bankruptcy restriction order on the boyfriend.