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

debtinfo

Everytime, it is reassessed thet will ask for a new full statement of all expenditure

deadinthewater

so if you did not add these on your 1st soa due to lack of income then you add them as funds become available i.e pay rise and they allow it i only ask as i am about to go br and at present have not put these as not enough money but will get pay rise on 1st jan of approx £15 week so will inform or and add the missed items to cover the extra money thus taking me back to under £20 di

JCS1

Thinking about the new IPA guidelines, I wonder if they will also change the threshold for NT Tax IPA's.

If they are now saying that anything higher than £20 is to be collected as an IPA, will they apply the same limit to Tax codes where it's currently £50?

WLITC

Hardupandfedup wrote: »

I understand that, but what about things like pet insurance etc that people paid from their surplus before but will now have no surplus.
Does that mean that we will all have to rehome our pets.
There are many other things that people paid for from the surplus so what happens now.

This is a good point and yet another reason why this move is massively flawed. The old guidance was that extras like gym memberships, cigs, etc had to be paid out of your surplus. The new rules are going to be harsher and worse than any IVA or payment plan. At least with IVA they allow things like Sky, presents, etc. I really can't see this working. Its one thing for people to struggle on with this sort of tight budget for say 12 months, but for 3 years its crazy. Someone surely has to challenge this rule change legally. Has anyone alerted Martin about this rule change?

As someone else pointed out, it goes againts the spirit of the Enterprise act and their own literature which states that BR is meant to be a fresh start .. more like a 3 year prison sentence now :mad:.

Also, can I just clarify (been catching up one the posts of the last few days) that its now established that :-

1) The new rules will apply all IPA/O's that are assessed on or after the 1st Dec and not just IPA/Os for people made BR after the 1st. In other words, if someone who does not have an IPA but is not currently discharged has a change in cirumstances (pay rise) or they complete an IPOQ for early discharge then in both situations they will be re-assessed under the new rules?

2) Under the new rules there is indeed no surplus and its simply that any surplus under £20 is not deemed worth collecting. However, people are now allowed a £10 per person allowance for emergencies?

JCS1

I'm sure that the Technical Team will have considered any legal challenges, but it's a change of guidelines only in this case. The IA 1986 doesn't state £99 surplus or give percentages.

I suspect more details will be known as to whether more items will be allowed on SOA's once people have had interviews post 1st December.

fermi

welshladinthecity wrote: »

Also, can I just clarify (been catching up one the posts of the last few days) that its now established that........

Apart from 100% of surplus being taken, much else is either hearsay or not 100% confirmed from an official source.

Hopefully, once people have been back in the office tomorrow and re-checked what they have we might be able to confirm more.

How in practice it's implemented is an entirely different matter.

fermi

JCS1 wrote: »

I'm sure that the Technical Team will have considered any legal challenges, but it's a change of guidelines only in this case. The IA 1986 doesn't state £99 surplus or give percentages.

Neither does the EA2002, the Insolvency Rules or any other piece of secondary legislation.

WLITC

JCS1 wrote: »

I'm sure that the Technical Team will have considered any legal challenges, but it's a change of guidelines only in this case. The IA 1986 doesn't state £99 surplus or give percentages.

True and I could see how there really couldn't be any legal challenge for new BR cases, but if someone who decided and got advice to go BR based on the old guidelines (which, in part were on the IS booklet on IPA/Os) and was now given an IPA under the new rules (following a change in circumstances or IPOQ) then I think definately you could argue that their decision was based on the old published rules and therefore the new rules cannot be applied to BR cases prior to Dec 1st.

The general IS website (and I'm not talking about the technical manual) clearly stated that if you got an IPA they would take a surplus of 50-70%. So even if it doesn't specifically mention the £99 rule, it states that only 50-70% would be required for the IPA and that in itself is a major game changer. I would certainly not have gone down the BR path had these rules been in place. I would have tried negociatng with creditors instead.

I'm not saying a proper legal challenge, but more likely refusual to sign an IPA and let the IS take it to court for an IPO and have a judge decide and IMHO they would go in our favour.

fermi

It will be interesting to see how willing the OR is to go for an IPO in marginal or disputed cases.

I can't imagine that they have the funding to cope with a wholesale increase in IPO applications through the courts?

JCS1

I suspect that there will be a test case with an IPO going in front of a judge to decide. IF that goes in the OR's favour, then they have the case precedent to quote to other judges.

And I agree, the short timescale of the new guidelines coming in does mean that people have based their decision under the old rules, whereas if they were aware they may have looked at alternatives in more detail.