Bro

Itsallgonepearshaped

Hi all,

Haven't been on for a while as things seemed to be going well after going BR last October. Unfortunately got a call to go back in to see the OR a couple of weeks ago and they're trying to slap a 6 year BRO on me reduced to 5 if I agree without going to court. Thr BRO is for "continuing trading when insolvent" although my defence was that I didn't have enough money coming into pay the bills at that time and continuing trading was the only way of having any hope of digging myself out of the hole I was in. This wasn't accepted apparently. Any advice on what to do next? Should I just accept it and get on with my life? What does it actually mean ??

Cheers

Brian

mysterio_2

bit of a read here

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/pdfs/guidanceleafletspdf/bro.pdf

Amiga

Hello there

I have an BRO myself for 3.5 years reduced from 4 for accepting. Mine were for different reasons and I felt I deserved it so accepted it. I can however tell you what they are.

They basically extend your term of bankruptcy. You are still discharged after one year, however for the period of the BRO you still live by the BR restrictions ( such as not applying for credit over 500 pounds without telling the person about the Bankruptcy)

You will have all these info sent to you but if you need any questions answered please PM me or ask me here. I don't find it that bad having one, after all your credit file is rubbish for 6 years anyway, however people do feel different about them.

Itsallgonepearshaped

Amiga wrote: »

Hello there

I have an BRO myself for 3.5 years reduced from 4 for accepting. Mine were for different reasons and I felt I deserved it so accepted it. I can however tell you what they are.

They basically extend your term of bankruptcy. You are still discharged after one year, however for the period of the BRO you still live by the BR restrictions ( such as not applying for credit over 500 pounds without telling the person about the Bankruptcy)

You will have all these info sent to you but if you need any questions answered please PM me or ask me here. I don't find it that bad having one, after all your credit file is rubbish for 6 years anyway, however people do feel different about them.

Thats great thanks. If you're still discharged after a year does that mean if you get a better paid job or come into some cash after you've been discharged but before the BRO runs out you won't get an Income Payment thing?

debtinfo

Yes thats right, the BRO doesn't affect income and assets, it is just restrictions on what you can do

Itsallgonepearshaped

debtinfo wrote: »

Yes thats right, the BRO doesn't affect income and assets, it is just restrictions on what you can do

Thats great news! Need to keep looking for a better paid job then although the BRO on file probably won't help in that regards.

Thanks again everybody!

bosco1977

I had them try to slap a 4-5 year BRO against me, I fought it through the courts (took 5 mths) and eventually had it reduced to 2 years, which I did as an undertaking. I had extensive mitigation factors that i believed the OR did not take into account. The judge agreed.

When i researched all the BRO's out there, I could not believe the number of individuals who just accept whatever term the OR hands out - i feel this is an area that is being abused by the OR on bankrupts. It is being used much more liberally.

I was advised by various groups that i should not fight it because I will only get longer. I later found out (only verbally though) that the BRO/BRU is split into 3 timeframes - 2-5 years, 5-10 years, 10+ years depending on the severity. Because I was in the lower timeframe, i had nothing to lose by fighting it.

i spent a good few days worth of my time researching other cases out there to fight the OR's timescale, and got the lowest timeframe that could be given. A 2 year restriction is better than 5 years any day.

debtinfo

bosco1977 wrote: »

i feel this is an area that is being abused by the OR on bankrupts.

Not really. The OR is tasked in protecting the public from people who would pose a risk to lenders for the maximum possible amount of time and will always seek the longest BRO that they think they can achieve.

You presumably admit that you must have done something wrong when you signed the undertaking and see it as a coup that you got away with a shorter period, as it is your right to seek.

All of the BRO's go to a central authorising team that advise on what period should be sought to maintain consistancy and the period sought in your case will have had nothing to do with the person who interviewed you. The fact that they lost out in court will all go back to the central team to help with cases in the future.

At the end of the day, if it goes to court then it is down to the judge on the day, who can move it into a higher bracket or a lower bracket or set it anwhere in the bracket as they see fit

SouthCoast

To my mind the main disadvantage of a BRO/BRU is that your dirty linen then gets washed in public:

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/databases/ddirector/viewbrobrudetailssummary.asp?gnnregion=south

bosco1977

debtinfo wrote: »

Not really.

I came across individuals who signed up to a bru for 7 YEARS because they spent £2k of money they should not have whilst bankrupt compare that against other individuals who hid assets worth over £100k and get a bro for 5-6 years. Try to explain how the central team make that consistent?

Human beings go through the paperwork and it all falls down to interpretation.

Dont get me wrong - I dont feel like I had an easy touch signing up for a 2 year bru. This was damage limitation. I did wrong. I committed an offence in 2006. It took nearly 2 years to get to court where the cps finally dropped certain charges and I immediately pleaded guilty to what I had done wrong. While in an open prison and having no means to pay any debts I was advised to go bankrupt which I did. In effect i went bankrupt due to me commiting a small financial offence over 2 years prior. The Or wanted to slap a further 5 years as a bru. It feels like a double punishment. during my research I came across individuals who killed people (whether it be death by dangerous driving or manslaughter) who went bankrupt but NEVER had a bro/bru against them. Why? Because the offence they commited was not financial, even though they have gone bankruput because of their conduct that led them to be imprisioned.

Not enough people fight the bru in court and I would urge anyone who feels they are being pushed into signing an excessive term to challenge and ask the OR to justify how they calculated the timeframe, even by making them provide similar cases just to see that it is reasonable. Only challenge in court if you have good reason, because if you are seen to be wasting the courts time and the judge could lengthen the time awarded.

debtinfo

I assure you that all cases go to one central body. The cases you mention do not give any detail as to any of the circumstances. As you mention the Bankruptcy process only covers financial wrongdoing which are laid down very specifically in the legislation so killing people has no bearing and is for a different court.

It is quite possible that a small amount taken out very close to the bankruptcy order and with the use of fraud or theft will attract the same length of time as a much larger amount taken out a couple of years prior to the bankruptcy with merely no reasonable prospect of repaying. It is not solely about the amount it is about the intention, the level of insolvency and how much of a continuing risk you are to the public, which is why BRO's are there in the first place