Urgent news on IPA's - Changes for BRs after 01/12/2010

now

debt_doctor wrote: »

Hi,

I wish I had more info to give you - but I'm not supposed to have the info I already have!

The document released to all IS offices is 3 pages long and makes it very clear that this new ruling will ONLY affect the potential IPAs of those going BR AFTER Dec 1st 2010. Those who are currently under IPA agreements will continue to be assessed under existing rules. Those who are currently bankrupt and do not have an IPA will NOT be re assessed using the new rules.

DD

Thank you for putting your neck on the line in sharing this with us

imustbedreamin

phew, went br just in time then.:beer:

fermi

welshladinthecity wrote: »

Most will have booked their court dates weeks ago and the first they'll hear about this is when they get their OR interview. The IS really should be given more notice before bringing this in, at the very least it should have been 1st of Jan 2011 not next week.

If I was cynical, I would say that the short notice was deliberate.

alastairq

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11812384

The above link is for a recent Rowntree study of rural economics, and makes for interesting reading.

Whilst we all knew that rural living carried a cost penalty...somewhat unfairly in my view...and can be blamed for the exodus from rural areas of young people, simply seeking work or a better lifestyle.

However, I think the above has some serious import to us on this forum...and in particular, to this incredibly important thread.

Whilst we are all wringing our hands over the impending tightening-up of IPA rules...it is, to me, ever more important to revue and argue our SOA's.

The above link provides direct evidence [irrefutable, considering its sponsor]....which may allow those future BRs who live in rural locations to exercise argument [call it ammunition?} for increased living costs on the SOA, over an equivalent town or city dweller.

remember, the IPA is still subject to agreement/argument....and in my view, reduction of surplus income is essential for the BR, given this thread's news?

Daisy4567

Tupperware_Queen wrote: »

thank you DD.

I kind of agree with you Kepar - I really didn't have any other choice than the BR, and I know that once it is all done and dusted I will be able to make a new start without the baggage of a failed marriage and the debt which accompanied it. Maybe the point of the change is to make those who have an alternative to BR to really consider it. I don't have any problem with making payments, I know that the debt built up over several years and recent circumstances made it impossible to resolve. My concern is that I'll get asked to make payments I can't afford - and from what DD and others have said, this won't happen. I think that this will maybe stop people working overtime or going for promotions etc, as they will not really benefit from the additional income, whereas previously they could have at least kept some of it.

Does that make sense or am I waffling....been a long day at work and my brain is frazzled!!

Well from what I can figure out from the previous posts and what seems like my initial misunderstanding (thank you fermi and charco for your appreciated posts in clearing things up for me), overtime and bonus payments etc are not what is actually being talked about and included here.

It is the surplus left over after the SOA/I&E - so lets say your wages are £1000 and you're outgoings are £900 - you're surplus is £100 and this is what will go to the OR.

This is different from overtime etc as in your standard wage surplus.

Please someone jump in and correct me if I am wrongn

alastairq

pay slips would need to be forwarded to the OR if they show even a temporary increase in income...the IPA system is flexible either way.....certainly this is so if on NT tax code

NekoZombie

Daisy4567 wrote: »

Well from what I can figure out from the previous posts and what seems like my initial misunderstanding (thank you fermi and charco for your appreciated posts in clearing things up for me), overtime and bonus payments etc are not what is actually being talked about and included here.

It is the surplus left over after the SOA/I&E - so lets say your wages are £1000 and you're outgoings are £900 - you're surplus is £100 and this is what will go to the OR.

This is different from overtime etc as in your standard wage surplus.

Please someone jump in and correct me if I am wrongn

Lol, not quite right. Under the new rules, £80 would belong to the OR.

This change is shocking, disappointing, but not all together surprising given the current financial situation and all the cuts across public spending. People wanted a change! Well, we got it alright. We have been totally Con Dem'd.

Windsurf

Does anyone know where people can find the maximum allowances to put on the SOA or IPOQ forms as this may help people in the future reduce surplus?

JCS1

Windsurf wrote: »

Does anyone know where people can find the maximum allowances to put on the SOA or IPOQ forms as this may help people in the future reduce surplus?

They are guidelines rather than allowances, so people should still put what they spend.

Also, you do get cases where people put the maximum guidance figure for each category - these people would either be asked to re-do their SOA and provide receipts as proof. I also then tended to go through their case in a bit more detail as a result.

milothewestie

back out of hospital i missed the site, but awfull news for those just going br good luck all