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

debt_doctor

debtinfo wrote: »

They should be basing in on your circumstances now, that is how it works

If the now cooperating BR's income now comprised entirely of benefits ie no IPA, would the IS accept that?

That would allow manipulation by a BR to not cooperate until their situation worsened. (I'm not commenting on the posters circumstances here, just a general comment)

DD

flashman2708

wow this is big news for me and quite depressing to be honest. How will I ever get out of this mess?

tigerfeet2006

flashman2708 wrote: »

wow this is big news for me and quite depressing to be honest. How will I ever get out of this mess?

Talk to one of the debt charities and get some professional advice on your options. You get quite a good standard of living in BR.

foolishqueen

Hello,

After reading this thread I'm now in a quandary as to whether IVA, BR or DMP is my best option. I had always thought, and been told by an IP that BR was my best option. But with the policy changes now in force, I wonder whether an IVA would be better.

Are the allowances in an IVA better than that of BR? From what I've read you are allowed certain allowances in an IVA you aren't in BR, that previously you may have covered from any surplus. Now with that surplus all but gone, I don't know the best way forward.

According to the CCCS Debt Remedy tool, it says IVA. But I know an IVA would most likely tie my in for 6 years (I have the loan element of a NR Together mortgage left!)? On the face of it, most IVAs seem to have a 10/50/50 rule on overtime. Now in BR, I assume any OT you get would have to be given over. But will this actually be the case in practice?

Any thoughts welcome.

Cheers.

ani_26

Hi foolish queen

I'm not best placed to advise you, especially on dmp's, but my best advise would be, as its frequently said here, talk to one of the debt charities and get some professional advice on your options. These services are free of charge, and they will be able to assess your whole situation and what is best for you. If you have'nt done already, i would make an appointment to speak to someone, face to face, then you can make a decision on what is best for your situation.

I'd only consider bankruptcy, as a last option.

Hope this helps somewhat. I'm sure someone else will be along to help.


Nohope

fermi

Updated chapters in the TM.

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/freedomofinformation/technical/TechnicalManual/Ch25-36/Chapter31/part7/Introduction.htm

31.7.1 Index

This chapter is divided into the following parts and annexes:

Index and Introduction (paragraphs 31.7.1 to 31.7.5)

Part 1 - Introduction to income payments agreements (IPAs) and income payments orders (IPOs) (paragraphs 31.7.6 - 31.7.18)

Part 2 - Guidance on making an income and expenditure assessment (paragraphs 31.7.19 to 31.7.31)

Part 3 - Income to be considered in an income payments calculation (paragraphs 31.7.32 to 31.7.79)

Part 4 - Expenditure to be considered in an income payments calculation (paragraphs 31.7.80 to 31.7.125)

Part 5 - Implementing an IPA (paragraphs 31.7.126 to 31.7.149)

Part 6 - Applying to court for an IPO (paragraphs 31.7.150 to 31.7.160)

Part 7 - Review, variation and discharge of an IPA or IPO (paragraphs 31.7.161 to 31.7.178)

Part 8 - Enforcing an IPA or IPO following default – initial action by collection agent (paragraphs 31.7.179 to 31.7.182)

Part 9 - Enforcing an IPA or IPO following default – recovery action where bankrupt co-operates (paragraphs 31.7.183 to 31.7.188)

Part 10 – TO BE ISSUED AT A FUTURE DATE

Annex A – Assessment of real disposable income where the bankrupt's income is derived in part from state benefits

Annex B - Guidance on the assessment of real disposable income where the official receiver seeks to claim a lump sum payment

Annex C - Illustrative examples to support Annex B guidance where the official receiver seeks to claim a lump sum pension payment under an IPA/IPO

fermi

Update sections of the Case Help Manual.

Income Payments Agreements (ISCIS) (December 2010)

Income Payments Orders (ISCIS) (December 2010)

fermi

Worth a read through the above links.

debtinfo

Interesting, I think you were just saying this the other day

31.7.26 Expenditure - maintaining a consistent approach
If a bankrupt's expenditure appears to equate exactly with his/her evidenced income, leaving no surplus income, expenditure should be carefully examined and tested against guidelines provided......

......Particular care should be taken where the debtor appears to have had assistance from a commercial organisation in the completion of their statement of affairs. The figures in the calculation may not be based upon information provided by the bankrupt but rather designed to ensure that the bankrupt is not considered to be eligible for an IPA/IPO

JCS1

This bit looks new too:

5. What if there is an existing IPA?
Existing IPAs in place on 1 December 2010 will continue under current arrangements, including any subsequent review or revision of those agreements following a change in circumstances. Where the IPA was agreed before 1 December 2010 and is reviewed after this date, the percentage scale calculation will still apply, in the same way as when the IPA was originally calculated. The only exception to this is where the surplus income on reassessment is less than £50 but equal to £20 or more, then a revised IPA will be sought for the surplus income of £20 or more.