anyone paid6 months rent and had ipa because if it

MITZIW

just wondered if you do manage to save 6 months rent so you have spare money for 6 months do you get an ipa because of it?

sizzler

New one to me.

It depends on where money came from, OR would definetly ask.

If you had that sort of spare money you would probably be paying an IPA.

If money was paid by relative and you did not have any, and you could prove to OR i think would be ok

sizzler:)

MITZIW

cheers, i mean if you have a long time waiting for reposession so manage to save lots of rent (very unlikely for us lol) so you dont always have that spare cash just until you move into rented house. was just wondering about it.

peachyprice

Do you mean that once you are BR you stop paying the mortgage and put the money to one side for deposit and rent?

Or do you mean before you go BR you pay 6 months rent up front?

MITZIW

before you go br and saving for rent and stop paying mortgage, then go br and they see you have paid 6 months rent upfront.

debtinfo

If when they llok at your case you are not paying rent because it is prepaid then you will have more surplus and so open to an IPA, at least for a few months

immoral_angeluk

You should be including your normal rent payment into your SOA, as otherwise after 6 months you'll have to amend your IPA. If you've prepaid it you've still paid it and are liable for it so you should include it in your SOA.

debtinfo

got to disagree, if you are not going to be paying it for 6 months it should not be on the SOA at this time, when that changes in 6 months the OP should update the OR at that time, You cant have the money counted twice, the original lump sum is not available to the OR as it has been paid for in advance so the income coming in should be available to the OR, its one or the other not both

immoral_angeluk

debtinfo wrote: »

got to disagree, if you are not going to be paying it for 6 months it should not be on the SOA at this time, when that changes in 6 months the OP should update the OR at that time, You cant have the money counted twice, the original lump sum is not available to the OR as it has been paid for in advance so the income coming in should be available to the OR, its one or the other not both

I can see where you're coming from but it's not counting the money twice really, if you weren't forced to pay it in a lump because of the BR you would be paying it monthly. And an SOA for an IPA should be realistic based on their normal household expenditure. I would see little point revising the IPA after 6 months as you're only paying the rent once anyway.
Granted OR/trustees work in different ways so only way to know for sure would be to contact the court office involved

debtinfo

but the money that paid it was not an income it was an asset, a lump sum or savings which you have denied the OR by putting it into pre paid rent (not saying this is wronag as required by landlord, just a statement of fact). If the OR did not take this stance what would stop a person who received say a large redundancy payment just before bankruptcy, from paying 3 years rent up front and then still claiming the rent each month on the SOA.

same principle applies the OP does not need to pay rent for the 6 months as it has been prepaid and so cannot be claimed on the SOA during that period

immoral_angeluk

debtinfo wrote: »

but the money that paid it was not an income it was an asset, a lump sum or savings which you have denied the OR by putting it into pre paid rent (not saying this is wronag as required by landlord, just a statement of fact). If the OR did not take this stance what would stop a person who received say a large redundancy payment just before bankruptcy, from paying 3 years rent up front and then still claiming the rent each month on the SOA.

same principle applies the OP does not need to pay rent for the 6 months as it has been prepaid and so cannot be claimed on the SOA during that period

True but the person would only have the option of paying rent up front or being homeless, I doubt that the OR would penalise them because of it as it's fairly common knowledge that BRs usually have to pay rent in advance. Would also depend on how the money was raised but I'd be very surprised if the OR made them subject to an IPA using income that would otherwise be keeping a roof over there heads...