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

southgrange

ok so the rules havent changed but the guidelines have....but surely it still isnt fair when the guidelines were more favourable on the day I went BR to not being favourable at all a few days after. I did my BR research on the old guidelines and firmly believe any potential IPA/IPO should be based on the old guidelines and I will make my point to the OR tomorrow.

debtinfo

im not saying it is fair, but it is lawfull.

southgrange

Is what is written here fact?

debt_doctor wrote: »

Hi,

I wish I had more info to give you - but I'm not supposed to have the info I already have!

The document released to all IS offices is 3 pages long and makes it very clear that this new ruling will ONLY affect the potential IPAs of those going BR AFTER Dec 1st 2010. Those who are currently under IPA agreements will continue to be assessed under existing rules. Those who are currently bankrupt and do not have an IPA will NOT be re assessed using the new rules.

DD

debtinfo

no its not, that was when it was first announced and it was a little confusing as to how exactly it would work, It has since been made clear that it is for all IPA's signed after 1 dec 2010

sealsandsqueals

Maybe it's best to keep quiet - I thought this the best option as went BR in August and my IPA had still not been set despite it being discussed in my interview and I was fully expecting to pay one - then was worried it would be a lot higher than talked about in the interview.

I said nothing and my IPA has now been set up under the old guidelines - it was only because of this forum I'd heard about the changes in the guidelines and so if changed dramatically I then would have asked the OR to tell me why. If it was higher then so be it as I do have surplus.

southgrange

When was it set up?

BB&B

Southgrange

May I suggest that if you do not like what is legally in place YOU initiate a Judicial Review over this, instead of bleating on about it.

I am sorry if I seem a little terse about this but over the past couple of year I have seen many of the rights that debtors have eroded, simply because people will NOT shut up and put up with what is there.

Yes during transition phases it is not fair to some, it is more than fair to others, but hey that is how it has always been and will always be. However, the IS like many other organisations "strive" to treat people fairly and equally, but that is not always possible. And why isn't it alwasy possible, simples really because someone comes along who thinks they deserve better treatment than their equals.

OK you don't like what is there now, what do you suggest the old system, where debtors go to prison, the US model, where you remain bankrupt until all the debts are cleared, the UAE method where you will go to prison as part of the punishment, and so on.

You may like to know that currently the UK has some of the least arduous Insolvency laws in the world.

Rant over

Tim

sealsandsqueals

Mine is just being set up now.

But like others have said, I'd be happy to pay whatever amount is deemed surplus - I'm in a far better place than six months ago, I now sleep at night and feel like I'm moving forward.

southgrange

Take a chill pill......for christs sake!!

I wont mention it again Tim.....just thought that this was a forum for people like me who are BR to discuss such matters.

Really sorry for bleating....I wont post again.

BB&B wrote: »

Southgrange

May I suggest that if you do not like what is legally in place YOU initiate a Judicial Review over this, instead of bleating on about it.

I am sorry if I seem a little terse about this but over the past couple of year I have seen many of the rights that debtors have eroded, simply because people will NOT shut up and put up with what is there.

Yes during transition phases it is not fair to some, it is more than fair to others, but hey that is how it has always been and will always be. However, the IS like many other organisations "strive" to treat people fairly and equally, but that is not always possible. And why isn't it alwasy possible, simples really because someone comes along who thinks they deserve better treatment than their equals.

OK you don't like what is there now, what do you suggest the old system, where debtors go to prison, the US model, where you remain bankrupt until all the debts are cleared, the UAE method where you will go to prison as part of the punishment, and so on.

You may like to know that currently the UK has some of the least arduous Insolvency laws in the world.

Rant over

Tim

neil277

Windsurf wrote: »

I think this will backfire on them as people who are working if they are working for no extra cash they will aslo end up going onto benifits.

I agree you are probally better off on benifits if they are gonna target people hard like that.

I also feel sorry for those poor soles who may have just had enougth left over to join a gym contract or other pay monthly club and now have it stripped away from them as they have no surpless money anymore. They will end up back in debt again!

People will just sit at home on benefits or do cash in hand, look at the petrol the government thought they would be clever and stick up vat, etc,etc now the revenue they get back is less as people start to cut back

Only an idiot would work all month for nothing, stay at home and be happy

Thanks

Neil