Not my car - can they take it?

Fang_3

cuddlycaz wrote: »

Hi peeps. Just come back from the court after being made bankrupt and need to rant at someone.

We got a very snotty judge, 'didn't you realise you were in debt' "we were managing okay until our son was sexually abused by a neighbour, and until it went to court 6 months later we were victimised, had the car vandalised, my son was suicidal so we agreed it was better for him to stay elsewhere until it was all over and my husband stayed with him in a caravan 50 miles away from the rest of us! It cost a lot, the animal only served 3 months and it was only after that episode that we struggled." 'Do you feel it was worth it? ' getting annoyed now "Of course it was, my son is no longer suicidal, he has a nice girlfriend and things seem fine" 'Have you no sympathy for your creditors?' "Yes, but my family has to come first, when he slit his wrists we did not think- oh we must pay a bill- we thought, right thats enough, he needs to be away from here now! We then missed payments and couldn't catch up, so we contacted Christians Against Poverty who were very understanding. It was CAP who after dealing with us for 18 months advised us to go bankrupt, and it was not a decision taking lightly" 'Your son may have paid for the car but you get the major benefit from it, so i can't think of any reason why you should keep it! I think it should be sold for the benefit of your creditors' "I have a bank statement from my son's bank, he had to go to the bank to withdraw the money, i have a receipt from the seller signed by him and my son' "can your son drive?" 'no, he has agoraphobia' "so you're the main user, then it's your car! Thank you, goodbye" I knew it wouldn't be easy but i'm in tears now.

I'm sorry to hear that, but in your first post you said that your son used the car, but you told the judge that he didn't. Could that have had a bearing on what was said?

bat-out-of-hell

Fang wrote: »

I'm sorry to hear that, but in your first post you said that your son used the car, but you told the judge that he didn't. Could that have had a bearing on what was said?

Yes I feel it did, but still does not change the facts, if he owns it, it does not matter who uses it, I think, reading between the lines, the reaction of the OP may have got the person hearing the petition's back up, but considering the past, and reasons given, he was totally unprofessional in the manner he handled it, and created the situation by not listening, and taking on board that the legal system had, in the ops view, already failed them once and showing some compassion or sympathy was a failure on there part, not the OPS IMO

And then to make a comment, as fatbelly says, that has nothing to do with them, and they have no say in, can only be seen as an attempt to add insult to injury or goad the OP.

Totally unprofessional, and begs the question are they fit to hold the position they do?

I see it as no more than bullying, for the sake of it

alastairq

As I understood my own BR proceedings... the Judge is there to grant or deny the BR application.

This then gives the Order a lawful basis, which cannot be overturned except by another court, and another Judge.

The Order also carries with it certain legal 'rights' as well as 'duties'.

[Some of those rights concern protection from the actions of creditors.]

It is the Judge's responsibility to ascertain whether the Applicant has received proper advice....is indeed insolvent, and that the 'reasons' for applying for BR are sound and proper.

Apart from anything else, the questioning determines whether any potential fraud has taken place.....?

In other words, before granting the Order, the Judge has a number of legal boxes to tick...or not as the case may be?

Basically, my Judge confirmed what I had written in my 'reasons'....and that I had no significant assets...and that I had been attempting to re-pay my debts in the past. [rather than, acquiring debt with no intention of re-paying]...


I also suspect [reading between the lines] the OP's Judge was attempting to make the Applicant aware that ..in this case, the motorcar, may well have to be included as an Asset...and does the Applicant wish to continue?

In the end, the Judge hears Pleas....it is the OR who does the investigating...and determines what constitutes an 'Asset'...and who seizes those Assets from the estate.....in accordance with the laws and regulations that an OR operates within.

Perhaps holes were being dug during the Judges hearing of the Application?

In the end, what matters is the Outcome.....not, what was said on the way to that Outcome.

alastairq

Something else regarding 'cars'......

The issue regarding 'ownership' of a car....and 'main user', isn't about whether, [in this case, the 'main user' appearing to be the BR]....the car can be included as an ''Asset''....clearly, if the BR ...who might happen to be the main user....does not actually 'own' the car...and can prove it.....then the car cannot be included as an asset within the BR's estate.

However.......neither can the BR include the running costs of the car within their SOA.......unless the OR accepts that there is a need for the OR to use the car..ie to get to work.

There is nothing that precludes any BR from either owning, or even, operating, a vehicle..for whatever reason.

The issues regarding motor vehicles are simply......

Is it owned by the BR? [value as an asset....within limits..]

Are the running costs included within the BR's SOA?

Is that inclusion, acceptable and justified?


As a BR, I owned several vehicles......none of which, sadly, had significant financial value.

I 'kept' them all!

One was deemed my daily driver, so became the vehicle which the OR ''allowed''....and whose running costs were included within my SOA.

The others, I purchased the ''Interest'' from the OR, for an agreed, negotiated sum per vehicle.

Any running costs associated with these other vehicles, had to be met from any surplus income I had.

debtinfo

The judge generally in most cases just grants or not the order, but their reach extends to averything within a bankruptcy, nearly everything the OR does can ba appealed and it is the judge that has the final say if something is appealed.

Having said that the judge should really be proffessionl and stick to the facts of the case and not allow their personal opinion to to come to the fore. The facts of this case is that the son bought the car ans so is the owner. It doesent matter if someone else is the main user, eg if you ret a car and have sole use of it over an extended period of time it in no way makes you the owner

MORPH3US

cuddlycaz wrote: »

"can your son drive?" 'no, he has agoraphobia' "so you're the main user, then it's your car!

This bit is the key for me... and you didn't mention it in the OP.

If I was going to go bankrupt but wanted to keep a car then i'd get my son / daughter to buy it in their name... give them the cash for it but get them to move some around to look like its their cash....

Not saying the above is what you have done but to the sceptic in the street who just hears tale after tale of people getting loads of stuff on credit and going bankrupt etc.... you can see how it comes across.

MicheH

MORPH3US wrote: »

This bit is the key for me... and you didn't mention it in the OP.

If I was going to go bankrupt but wanted to keep a car then i'd get my son / daughter to buy it in their name... give them the cash for it but get them to move some around to look like its their cash....

Not saying the above is what you have done but to the sceptic in the street who just hears tale after tale of people getting loads of stuff on credit and going bankrupt etc.... you can see how it comes across.

Maybe the 'sceptic on the street' hearing tales 'of people getting loads of stuff on credit and going bankrupt etc' should refrain from posting on a thread asking for help.. you certainly have not heard 'of people getting loads of stuff on credit and going bankrupt etc' from here - sterotypical? judgemental? This is not the place for opinion and doesn't help anyone.

alastairq

what this forum is very good at, is separating urban myth from fact.

The sceptic is really not sceptical at all...simply ignorant of the subject, and we should not be considering how we appear to others..

Considerably more 'moving around' would be needed regarding what must be assumed to be an expensive car with significant asset value.

It is very easy for an OR , when presented with such a situation, to confirm if a car was ever 'owned' by the BR... and when it ceased to be 'owned?'

Care needs to be taken when transferring ownership of 'assets' pre-BR.

The judge generally in most cases just grants or not the order, but their reach extends to averything within a bankruptcy, nearly everything the OR does can ba appealed and it is the judge that has the final say if something is appealed.

To be more precise, it isn't the 'Judge's' reach, but the Court's reach.

The Judge merely presides.

And, rightly so, the OR's decisions can be challenged...but the Court is the place of arbitration....with the Judge presiding.

But the Court isn't just about the Judge.
It is also about the Interested Party's...and their being able to present their arguments with equality.......which is one of the Judge's responsibilities...to ensure that equality.

The presence of the Judge within the Court ensures a decision is binding.

However, such decision is also subject to an Appeal Process if necessary.


No guarantee the Judge who hard the initial plea, will be the Judge who presides over arbitration to a challenge to an OR's decision.

alastairq

Whether a person forced into a position of Insolvency ,takes action to mitigate the effects of the Insolvency, really isn't too much of an issue.

Certainly no more so than posting an SOA to see what needs adjusting?


In all walks of life, we see folk doing what they can to take advantage of a system.

This whole MSE site is chock full of people taking pleasure in showing how to take advantage of a system.


Not one single Sub-forum fails to point out how advantage can be taken!


The motoring section is full of advice on how to use the system....whether it's about Mum's insuring their kid's cars, to gain pecuniary advantage...or how to squirm out of a Speeding ticket?

Credit card stoozing..is about taking advantage.

Life on MSE is really about one constant battle...a war against the system...... about squeezing what we can out of the biggies....

And the MSE site is also chock full of moral hypocrisy.

So...why should the Bankruptcy forum be singled out for special attention?

Miche...the sceptic in the street is a no-mark......whose opinion should be given no more status than that of the trivial....

alastairq

Whether a person forced into a position of Insolvency ,takes action to mitigate the effects of the Insolvency, really isn't too much of an issue.

Certainly no more so than posting an SOA to see what needs adjusting?


In all walks of life, we see folk doing what they can to take advantage of a system.

This whole MSE site is chock full of people taking pleasure in showing how to take advantage of a system.


Not one single Sub-forum fails to point out how advantage can be taken!


The motoring section is full of advice on how to use the system....whether it's about Mum's insuring their kid's cars, to gain pecuniary advantage...or how to squirm out of a Speeding ticket?

Credit card stoozing..is about taking advantage.

Life on MSE is really about one constant battle...a war against the system...... about squeezing what we can out of the biggies....

And the MSE site is also chock full of moral hypocrisy.

So...why should the Bankruptcy forum be singled out for special attention?

Miche...the sceptic in the street is a no-mark......whose opinion should be given no more status than that of the trivial....