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

fermi

Den78 wrote: »

Originally posted by Fermi

If the vetting of your bankruptcy has been concluded, the main reason for it being reassessed is during the Early Discharge process, when you will be sent an IPOQ form to reassess your capability of agreeing an IPA. If the form is not returned to the Insolvency Service the only consequence is that you will not be granted early discharge.

That is rather stating the obvious.

However, people may have a change in circumstances while they are undischarged and be obliged to notify the OR/trustee of this. If this results in an increase in surplus income then their suitability for an IPA should be re-examined,

Anyway, that is not the point.

Regardless of any re-assessment for the 1st time implementation of an IPA being due the ED process or a change of circumstance notification by the bankrupt, the question is would this IPA assessment be subject to the new guidelines?

The claimed phrase: 'These changes should be applied to all new IPA/IPOs agreed on or after 1 December 2010'

suggests that they would.

Den78

The documt also states 'In all cases where the initial assessment of whether or not an IPA/IPO is appropriate takes place on or after 1st December 2010, the full amount of surplus income if above £20 should be sought by way of monthly payments under an IPA ( or an IPO if an IPA cannot be agreed. This includes any cases which were initially assessed at nil but in which a further assessment is made.'

fermi

Den78 wrote: »

The documt also states 'In all cases where the initial assessment of whether or not an IPA/IPO is appropriate takes place on or after 1st December 2010, the full amount of surplus income if above £20 should be sought by way of monthly payments under an IPA ( or an IPO if an IPA cannot be agreed. This includes any cases which were initially assessed at nil but in which a further assessment is made.'

Thank you.

That is the bit we would need to verify, if indeed true.

Although I have heard from certain quarters exactly the same, I haven't yet seen this verified from any official document/source.

Den78

fermi wrote: »

Thank you.

That is the bit we would need to verify if true.

Although I have heard from certain quarters exactly the same, I haven't yet seen this verified from any official document/source.

I have the document in front of me now and am quoting directly from it.

fermi

Den78 wrote: »

I have the document in front of me now and am quoting directly from it.

Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily disbelieve you.

However, I also don't know you from 'Adam'.

So you hope you understand that I take all statements on matters like these, that I can't verify this second myself, with an amount of caution.

Den78

fermi wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily disbelieve you.

However, I also don't know you from 'Adam'.

So you hope you understand that I take all statements on matters like these, that I can't verify this second myself, with an amount of caution.

Lets just say that I came on here as a disgruntled examiner who will be reluctanctly making these assessments next week

fermi

Den78 wrote: »

Lets just say that I came on here as a disgruntled examiner who will be reluctanctly making these assessments next week

Thanks for taking the time then.

I've heard so many contradictory rumours/statements form various sources that I'm taking everything with a pinch of salt at the moment.

I can quite imagine that many examiners are far from impressed about these changes and the prospect of having to explain them.

JCS1

I'm guessing that it's not a £20 surplus, just that if the surplus is £20 or under it's not worth setting up the paperwork/paying moonbeever to collect?

I imagine the interviews are going to be fraught on both sides, especially where the person going BR has taken advice and based SOA on the old guidelines

Den78

fermi wrote: »

Thanks for taking the time then.

I've heard so many contradictory rumours/statements form various sources that I'm taking everything with a pinch of salt at the moment.

I can quite imagine that many examiners are far from impressed about these changes and the prospect of having to explain them.

Its not the prospect of explaining that upsets me, just the total unfiarness of the situation, which IMO goes against the spirit of the Enterprise Act. How will an IPA with no surplus allowed be seen as encouraging a fresh start. The notice of less than a week is also so unfair in that people who on advice, have taken in to account the old way of assessment,, have gone bankrupt and are now faced with something totally against what was in place at the time of their order.

fermi

Den78 wrote: »

Its not the prospect of explaining that upsets me, just the total unfiarness of the situation, which IMO goes against the spirit of the Enterprise Act. How will an IPA with no surplus allowed be seen as encouraging a fresh start. The notice of less than a week is also so unfair in that people who on advice, have taken in to account the old way of assessment,, have gone bankrupt and are now faced with something totally against what was in place at the time of their order.

Believe me, I agree with all those sentiments.

The whole thing really does 'beggar' belief on so many levels.