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

1worried1

Hi,
I went BR in Oct2010 and I have no monthly IPA as I had £0 surplus, this month will be my first nil tax code payment which will last until apr11. My question is that I get a work bonus in march and I wondered if I will still apply under the old rules that they will take 50-70%? or the new rules where they take 100%
Also when I had my OR interview I told her when I work a bank holiday I get a one off payment of £100 a day, I worked two over xmas and i'm due to get £200 extra in this months salary, in my interview she said that she wouldn't be intrested in that amount and I could keep it, do you think I should re-confirm this with her becuase of the new rules in place? or just keep quiet?
Thanks

davidgmmafan

Just a query on the detail again. If this is to raise money why is it needed if insolvancy was rising last year?

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/credit-and-loans/dealing-with-debt/article.html?in_article_id=522357&in_page_id=62

Does anyone know of any politicians who have an interest in this area? I worry that many people, who have been struggling for years, will be hit hard by this change.

southgrange

You are correct....my problem is that these new rules were NOT in force the day I went BR in November. I don't have an IPO/IPA and don't know if I will get one but I don't see why I should under the new rules.

I am speaking to my OR tomorrow to have this out. Funny thing is they havent actually informed me of the rule change. If I hadnt heard it through here I wouldnt know.

debtinfo

davidgmmafan wrote: »

Just a query on the detail again. If this is to raise money why is it needed if insolvancy was rising last year?

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/credit-and-loans/dealing-with-debt/article.html?in_article_id=522357&in_page_id=62

Does anyone know of any politicians who have an interest in this area? I worry that many people, who have been struggling for years, will be hit hard by this change.

This is a case of you need to read the full statistics not just the headlines, Whilst insolvencies may be up the part that the IS takes fees from Bankruptcies is way down, additionally income from properties is way down, hence why they are seeking extra income and cutting about 1000 staff in total (perm and temp)

debtinfo

southgrange wrote: »

You are correct....my problem is that these new rules were NOT in force the day I went BR in November. I don't have an IPO/IPA and don't know if I will get one but I don't see why I should under the new rules.

I am speaking to my OR tomorrow to have this out. Funny thing is they havent actually informed me of the rule change. If I hadnt heard it through here I wouldnt know.

The Rules have not changed, they are stated in the acts of parliment and state that they can take any income after reasonable expenditure. so the rules WERE in force when you went bankrupt. Also when you went bankrupt you would not have been able to control whether you had an IP or the OR as trustee of your case and as IP's have their own private guidelines rather than the OR's published one then you could not have been certain how your case would have been judged apart from in accordance with the actual LAW which allows them to do this

southgrange

seeking income is fine.....but these rule changes are unfair for people like me who went BR under the old rules......the old rules were part and parcel of the research done into BR and as I say I am going to ring the OR tomorrow about this and may even write to my MP and the Prime Minister.

southgrange

If the rules havent changed what is this thread about?!

If I get an IPA/IPO now they take all after £20 surplus.

When I went BR and if I got an IPA/IPO immediately i would have to give them 50-70% of surplus.

So the rules have changed......big time!

debtinfo wrote: »

The Rules have not changed, they are stated in the acts of parliment and state that they can take any Private Messages (PMs)income after reasonable expenditure. so the rules WERE in force when you went bankrupt. Also when you went bankrupt you would not have been able to control whether you had an IP or the OR as trustee of your case and as IP's have their own private guidelines rather than the OR's published one then you could not have been certain how your case would have been judged apart from in accordance with the actual LAW which allows them to do this

debtinfo

Im afraid that you misunderstand, rules are set by parliment in acts the most recent being the enterprise act 2002. The only thing that has changed is the OR's own internal guidelines( ie their own personal choice as to how much to take, they have always been legaly allowed to take the full surplus, they simply chose not to). Only the Rules not the guidelines are binding and the OR may change their mind whenever they want as long as the do not break the legaly binding rules.

southgrange

Oh I see.....so maybe in some cases they may choose to take it all after £20.00 and maybe in others they might take for example 50% of the surplus after the £20.00. So it basically it is still at the discretion of the OR.....its just a case that they are now encouraging to take all surplus whereas before they werent??

Its just a very worrying time and I am sorry if I misunderstood.

debtinfo wrote: »

Im afraid that you misunderstand, rules are set by parliment in acts the most recent being the enterprise act 2002. The only thing that has changed is the OR's own internal guidelines( ie their own personal choice as to how much to take, they have always been legaly allowed to take the full surplus, they simply chose not to). Only the Rules not the guidelines are binding and the OR may change their mind whenever they want as long as the do not break the legaly binding rules.

debtinfo

well all OR's will be expected to ask for the 100%, but remember that this is just an IPA so an agreement, if you dont agree you dont have to sign, If you dont then the case will go to court and a judge will decide (an IPO (order)). The judge can decide whatever he/she wants but will still refer to the same law and decide what is fair (ie no guarantee they would reduce the amount the OR wants)