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

debtinfo

wolfers wrote: »

I'm afraid I don't share that viewpoint. To me it smacks of "bankrupts are bad people and deserve what they get".

How far do the rules have to change before you will regard them as unfair. What if the IS changes policy to this: Bankrupts expenditure shall be limited to the value of the state benefits they would receive if they were not in employment. Any surplus over this amount shall be deemed as non-essential and will be subject to an IPA for three years. Hell, let's make it five.

Your argument that the bankrupt would still have had thousands of pounds of debt written off still applies, so where is the line drawn?

Those who are currently BR but without an income-based IPA should be bound by the rules/regulations/guidelines/historical practice that applied when they went BR. Changing the rules halfway through is not fair and it is no justification to say "well, just look at how much you got away with when you went BR".

I think an application for judicial review would get a sympathetic hearing from a court. You cannot change the rules halfway through the game.

It is my experience that the people who lose out from any change always believe that it is unfair. It is not a case of fairness, Imsure that the creditors though it was unfair whan bankruptcy changed from 3 years to 1 year then to ED then to DRO orders, times change guidelines change, rules change, the creditors were probably not impressed when many of the things that you could be prosecuted for were changed to "merely" restrictions.

Someone said that it went against the spirit of bankruptcy, well spirits change over time, they vary from country to country, within our own union and across the EU who we have common bankruptcy arrangements with. We are lenient, believe me, even with these new guidelines.

The point is that the law when you went bankrupt was that all surplus was able to be taken as long as you had enough to live on, that was the at the time ans still is, the rest is down to the trustees discretion, those that had private trustees did not do the same as the OR, the OR has now chosen to use their discretion differently but the law remains the same.

Remember when reclaiming bank charges was the thing to do, that got all the way to the top where the judge basically said, yeah its probably unfair but im going to rule for the banks anyway because that was the correct legal thing to do.

Its not about fairness, that is down to ones opinion on the matter it is about what is lawfull.

Im sure the IS would have taken advice, they always do, and im sure that someone will challange it, they always do, ive never met a solicitor who didnt think there was a case. Do you want to be the first and save everyone else the trouble.

In the meantime the IS will collect what they can to serve the purpose which is to make their books balance in the short term. Remember why the "very unfair" IS is in this position in the first place, because they proposed and put through parliment changes to allow the very worst off to apply for DRO's thus ensuring that the IS funds were reduced considerably to make sure that these people could get the help they needed. The result is that the bnkrupts that work have to pay more.

Im sure if it gets challanged then they will change the law and the next lot of bankrupts will get hit with something a lot harder to raise the funds. The fact remains that the IS pays for itself and that money comes from the bankrupts in the end

wolfers

debtinfo wrote: »

It is my experience that the people who lose out from any change always believe that it is unfair. It is not a case of fairness, Imsure that the creditors though it was unfair whan bankruptcy changed from 3 years to 1 year then to ED then to DRO orders, times change guidelines change, rules change, the creditors were probably not impressed when many of the things that you could be prosecuted for were changed to "merely" restrictions.

Someone said that it went against the spirit of bankruptcy, well spirits change over time, they vary from country to country, within our own union and across the EU who we have common bankruptcy arrangements with. We are lenient, believe me, even with these new guidelines.

The point is that the law when you went bankrupt was that all surplus was able to be taken as long as you had enough to live on, that was the at the time ans still is, the rest is down to the trustees discretion, those that had private trustees did not do the same as the OR, the OR has now chosen to use their discretion differently but the law remains the same.

Remember when reclaiming bank charges was the thing to do, that got all the way to the top where the judge basically said, yeah its probably unfair but im going to rule for the banks anyway because that was the correct legal thing to do.

Its not about fairness, that is down to ones opinion on the matter it is about what is lawfull.

Im sure the IS would have taken advice, they always do, and im sure that someone will challange it, they always do, ive never met a solicitor who didnt think there was a case. Do you want to be the first and save everyone else the trouble.

In the meantime the IS will collect what they can to serve the purpose which is to make their books balance in the short term. Remember why the "very unfair" IS is in this position in the first place, because they proposed and put through parliment changes to allow the very worst off to apply for DRO's thus ensuring that the IS funds were reduced considerably to make sure that these people could get the help they needed. The result is that the bnkrupts that work have to pay more.

Im sure if it gets challanged then they will change the law and the next lot of bankrupts will get hit with something a lot harder to raise the funds. The fact remains that the IS pays for itself and that money comes from the bankrupts in the end

I don't want to become tediously repetitive, but . . .

I don't say the changes are unfair. They are what they are. I say that the application of them to people who went bankrupt before the changes were announced is unfair. And it is. It is changing the rules midway through the game.

And the court will not merely look at the law. It will look at the application of the law -- policies, procedures, guidelines, advice notes, whatever else -- all of these are relevant to a judicial review.

Yes, of course I'm vocal about this because it applies directly to me, but that doesn't mean my argument is wrong.

now

PNPSUKNET wrote: »

what you have to take into account, although the ipa will be higher to pay you are having thousands written off so less to pay out in the long run.

Are you BR? or have you ever been BR? unless you experience such a thing then really you can't comment. most people have no choice and others dump Ltd companies leaving other business to take the hit. Yes money is written off by the thousands but when you have no income and small children to bring up an IPA with a surplus of £20 is very harsh. This past week just shows that £20 would not go far if you have to turn up the heating, fine for those who can afford it but if you are on a prepaid meter and you got no spare cash what do you do? I think they should have given a little more time and thought to this also it will encourage people to lie about their income etc

debtinfo

wolfers wrote: »

I don't want to become tediously repetitive, but . . .

I don't say the changes are unfair. They are what they are. I say that the application of them to people who went bankrupt before the changes were announced is unfair. And it is. It is changing the rules midway through the game.

And the court will not merely look at the law. It will look at the application of the law -- policies, procedures, guidelines, advice notes, whatever else -- all of these are relevant to a judicial review.

Yes, of course I'm vocal about this because it applies directly to me, but that doesn't mean my argument is wrong.

I try and take a view on it based on all bankrupts future, past and present,and creditors and the system itsself, and can only tell it how i see it. Or course its natural that you want to get the best deal for yourself:D. If you do challange it, let us know how you get on

wolfers

debtinfo wrote: »

If you do challange it, let us know how you get on

I hope the OR never thinks about me again! I hope my file gets lost at the bottom of his ever-growing pile and that I sail quietly into AD midway through next year.

Bankruptcy isn't easy. It's emotionally extremely hard. And I've made massive economies since (and, indeed, before) going bankrupt. But I do feel a little like I'm in jail and I just want to serve my time, get out and rebuild my life. I'll certainly never get credit ever again, I promise you that.

Tupperware_Queen

wolfers wrote: »

Bankruptcy isn't easy. It's emotionally extremely hard. And I've made massive economies since (and, indeed, before) going bankrupt. But I do feel a little like I'm in jail and I just want to serve my time, get out and rebuild my life. I'll certainly never get credit ever again, I promise you that.

hear hear!

WLITC

wolfers wrote: »

I hope the OR never thinks about me again! I hope my file gets lost at the bottom of his ever-growing pile and that I sail quietly into AD midway through next year.

Bankruptcy isn't easy. It's emotionally extremely hard. And I've made massive economies since (and, indeed, before) going bankrupt. But I do feel a little like I'm in jail and I just want to serve my time, get out and rebuild my life. I'll certainly never get credit ever again, I promise you that.

You totally summed up my feelings. Like yourself I don't have an IPA (at the moment) and I hope it stays that way until AD. I've been stressed worrying about getting an IPA since I went BR and after several months I finally figured it was unlikely (give the time that had passed) and finally relaxed about it, but then last week I read this thread and a whole level of panic set in once again and now, in the back of my mind I'm once again worrying/stressing about possbly getting one.

Clearly some people are fine with getting an IPA and see it as part of their punishment (i.e I got myself in this position and therefore I should give something back), where as, others like myself don't see it quite that black and white. For me, being BR has and would continue to feel (if I had an IPA) like a prision sentence and being on probation for 3 years. The thought of having to report everything (changes in income, if I moved address, etc) would feel like I was constantly being monitored and a constant reminder of the mess I got into.
I really just want to move on and have a life. Due to my debts these past several years I have effectively had no life (I don't smoke and last time I got drunk was back in Feb and before that last Xmas at home with the family) and I haven't dated or been in a relationship for several years. I essentially never go out. I'm not asking to be able to move on so that I can become a party animal and go out and get drunk every weekend .. I just want to make a fresh start and start having a social life again (and maybe even meet someone) and when friends do invite me out for a drink or dinner, to be able to say yes on ocassion. An IPA, especially at the new levels would essentially mean another 3 years of a wasted life, sitting at home gettting more depressed than I already am.

wolfers

Welshlad, I'm so glad you wrote that because that is exactly how I feel and it's nice to know I'm not the only one. I genuinely can't remember the last time I went out -- to the pub, to the cinema . . . my budget is tight and I have to stick to it. I'm OK with that for a year, but if it were to go on for another three I think it would really get to me.

elliesmemory1

What happens if they try to give you a IPA but you dont agree, I know it can go to court and you can get a IPO but does it cost the br anything?
Just wonder if it would be best to just not agree and make them go for a IPO?
Whats the worst that would happen? You might get a IPO anyway but is that the worst of it?
I have not got a ipa but may have a small payrise soon which would, as things stand take me over the £20.
Just thinking it would be as well to make them go for a IPO and see what happens.

pauleenbruce

I am thinking the same, for me BR was not so clear cut i had no personal debt at all i have always been careful not to get above my head but my business got into trouble when the recession hit and so was made BR anyway i managed to get a part time job and no IPA about a month ago i got promotion and a full time position, i knew that i would then get an IPA but was prepaired to pay knowing that i would be able to keep at least 30% and so improving life for my family. I informed the OR of my change in circumstances but have not yet heard anything, i must say i am gutted to read of the new rules and feel it is totally unfair as i could have stayed in a part time job and been free by summer.