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

live'n'learn

confused76 wrote: »

you need to have taken advice before you go br, or it will be turned down. you could try phoning the national debtline, i think they are open quite late.

i am a little worried you are rushing into this though? please take advice before you do anything else

Hi,

thanks for your concern!!

Going for BR is something that i have thought hard about but with the change happening on Dec 1st its made me want to rush things as it seems being BR after then is going to be so much more difficult than it is now!!

alastairq

Declaring BR wont be any more difficult....

Regarding surpluses....we seem to be forgetting, that 'surplus' remains simply that, in accordance with the BR's SOA.

If the OR deems an IPA is to be offered, then that too, is that.....after all, the present system is but a guideline.


The real problem seems to be folks' ideas on what constitutes a 'surplus?'

The 'Surplus' the OR works on, may not in fact, represent the true 'surplus' of cash available to the BR.

Surplus cash can be acquired, in exactly the same way that it was 50 years ago, before we all had access to instant credit, and boatloads of it.

People 'saved'.....and in order to 'save' on a limited income, some degree of 'sacrifice' needed to be made.

It is already agreed that the current expenditure guideline for the OR are somewhat more generous than those offered under the Benefits system as it stands.

Therefore, with prudent budgeting, I suggest that rather a lot of folk could possibly find 'surplus' cash from within their allowed SOA?

'Holidays' allowed for, but either not taken, or costing less than the allowances?

Haircuts claimed for, but either done at home, or less often? {Bald folk may have problems if undergoing a face-to-face OR interview??]

Running costs of the exempted motor car, saved by doing a bit of DIY?

Even fuel costs, saved by reducing speeds and increasing sensitive driving?

All sorts of 'savings' can be made with care and forethought.

These wont be claimed by the OR......simply because, they have already been agreed and allowed for, in the SOA?

Yes, I agree, more hardship may be suffered because of the new guidelines...but to suggest that these guidelines remove the 'safety net' of a small surplus is perhaps too simplistic or misleading.

It looks like they will be a fact of life.


The only way I can see that their implementation can be delayed, is if the ORs themselves chose to do so, perhaps on administrative grounds?

Think positive, folks....that 'surplus' can still be acquired for that safety net....it will simply be a case of extra tight budgeting, surely?

As was the case years ago?

Or..is this approach simply unacceptable today?

FuzzyCub

alastairq wrote: »

Declaring BR wont be any more difficult....

Regarding surpluses....we seem to be forgetting, that 'surplus' remains simply that, in accordance with the BR's SOA.

If the OR deems an IPA is to be offered, then that too, is that.....after all, the present system is but a guideline.


The real problem seems to be folks' ideas on what constitutes a 'surplus?'

The 'Surplus' the OR works on, may not in fact, represent the true 'surplus' of cash available to the BR.

Surplus cash can be acquired, in exactly the same way that it was 50 years ago, before we all had access to instant credit, and boatloads of it.

People 'saved'.....and in order to 'save' on a limited income, some degree of 'sacrifice' needed to be made.

It is already agreed that the current expenditure guideline for the OR are somewhat more generous than those offered under the Benefits system as it stands.

Therefore, with prudent budgeting, I suggest that rather a lot of folk could possibly find 'surplus' cash from within their allowed SOA?

'Holidays' allowed for, but either not taken, or costing less than the allowances?

Haircuts claimed for, but either done at home, or less often? {Bald folk may have problems if undergoing a face-to-face OR interview??]

Running costs of the exempted motor car, saved by doing a bit of DIY?

Even fuel costs, saved by reducing speeds and increasing sensitive driving?

All sorts of 'savings' can be made with care and forethought.

These wont be claimed by the OR......simply because, they have already been agreed and allowed for, in the SOA?

Yes, I agree, more hardship may be suffered because of the new guidelines...but to suggest that these guidelines remove the 'safety net' of a small surplus is perhaps too simplistic or misleading.

It looks like they will be a fact of life.


The only way I can see that their implementation can be delayed, is if the ORs themselves chose to do so, perhaps on administrative grounds?

Think positive, folks....that 'surplus' can still be acquired for that safety net....it will simply be a case of extra tight budgeting, surely?

As was the case years ago?

Or..is this approach simply unacceptable today?

I agree with a lot of your points, including the generosity of BR SOA allowances, and agree that it is possible to save up on these allowances.

However, I do think that there is an issues with this change of approach to IPAs, in that it effectively removes any incentive to increase ones income during an IPA term as the BR will see no benefit for themselves.

I work overtime and pushed forward with my career and have been promoted twice during my BR, satisfied in the knowledge that it will benefit my family. I am happy to declare the increases in wage to the OR and pay my dues, but, if my family did not benefit from my work, would I rather earn enough to cover my agreed SOA, clock off and spend time with the kids... In honesty... Probably.

Krazy_Kat

Does this new ruling affect anyone on a temporary work contract (which I am currently on)? I'm planning to go bankrupt in January, when I'll have all the necessary fees saved up.

alastairq

Much will depend on your SOA, the OR's agreement, or not, with it...and the likelihood of any surplus being identified.

If such a surplus is realised, but subsequently your income falls, then this is communicated to the OR, who will likely revise, or even zero, any IPA.

alastairq

However, I do think that there is an issues with this change of approach to IPAs, in that it effectively removes any incentive to increase ones income during an IPA term as the BR will see no benefit for themselves.

In fact, this 'issue' has always been there.

It is not the purpose of BR to enable an individual to better themselves.

Its purpose is to deal with insurmountable debts in an equitable fashion.

The fact that, as a by-product, BR enables the individual to 'make a fresh start' has nothing to do with IS policies.


This is all getting a bit like the motorist, charged with exceeding the speed limit, by but a few mph?

1 mph over is breaking the law....yet the motorist feels aggrieved..[ie, unfairly treated] that the speed camera is not set up following ACPO guidelines![which may have allowed the motorist to escape prosecution, had the camera operator chosen to follow them?]

I choose not to take any opportunity for so-called advancement, promotion, whatever.....simply because, I don't see the rewards matching the increases in stress, responsibilities, or liabilities, ie, to be worth it.

Such promotion seeking must be considered against the backdrop of one's BR...

In other words, is the [lack of] financial rewards offset by the career advancement?

Is the refusal to take up the offer, really going to be a case of cutting off one's nose to spite the face?

Or..as was the case when one considers BR, is one going to see 'the bigger picture?'

Falze

Alastair,

I find myself agreeing with your all (most) of the time. Is that worrying:D:D

philnicandamy

Falze wrote: »

Alastair,

I find myself agreeing with your all (most) of the time. Is that worrying:D:D

Very.....:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

feelsolow

Hi all

I had a an appointment with the CAB today who were adamant that regardless of br date if your OR interview is after the 1st December you will be under the new ruled regarding IPA. Can someone please clarify this please, as my local court has a walk in policy and I would try and push to going br on Monday / Tuesday.

Thanks

fermi

"In all cases from DEC 1st 2010, the FULL amount of surplus income above £20 should be sought via an IPA."

What is a "new case" exactly?

Someone who goes BR on or after the 1/12/2010?

Or someone who doesn't have their interview (and hence IPA case decided) until interview after 1/12/2010?

Without more info, that is possibly open to interpretation?