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

debtinfo

Ineedaname wrote: »

So are they saying that if you have over £20 per month surplus you will lose everything except £10 per month? When if you have less than £20 per month surplus you get to keep up to £20 per month? That doesn't make sense does it now.

basically say your income is £1,000 and your expenses are £900. You then get £10per person per month for emergencies, so say you are a family of 4 that is £40pm plus your expenses leaving a surplus of £60pm

so since £60pm is above the £20 limit they will collect the whole £60pm

if say your surplus was £19pm after expenses and emergency fund so below the £20 limit then they would just not bother collecting it as it would be uneconomical to do so

FuzzyCub

Ineedaname wrote: »

So are they saying that if you have over £20 per month surplus you will lose everything except £10 per month? When if you have less than £20 per month surplus you get to keep up to £20 per month? That doesn't make sense does it now.

There's always problems with rules.

I had a surplus of £97 at BR that I got to keep with no IPA. My ex had a £107 surplus so an IPA of £55 leaving £52 as surplus to keep. Rules always disadvantage some whilst benefiting others.

I suppose there has to be a trigger point, and for those just past these points it can feel quite unfair.

Ineedaname

It just seems contradictory that they can let you keep £20 surplus because it's uneconomical to collect, but if you have £21 surplus they take the lot.

As with Fuzzycub's example above, if you tip the balance you lose out.

debtinfo

yes but there is a cost, they have to pay their agent moonbeever to collect the payments so if you are collecting £10pm but it costs you £15pm to collect it then they would be losing money

counting4christmas

Penelope_Penguin wrote: »

I'd agree - fairly well researched What was not mentioned, is that all benefit income is disregarded. So this hypothetical "family of 4" (assume 2 adults and 2 children) will, in addition to the £40pm, be able to keep child benefit (about £100pm) and any child tax credits.



This information was told to be verbally by an OR, so please correct me if you have a link to something else.

As much as I would love the info about child benefit to be true, I don't think it is sorry. They did use to disregard child benefit as an income but my understanding is that has changed now. Please someone correct me if I am wrong.

C4C

maxmycardagain

madcabby wrote: »

When I went BR last year I had a disposable income of £23/month......I was told at that point I would not receive an IPA/IPO. Now things have changed somewhat..but if the OR thinks they will give me an IPA/IPO for 3 years they can think again.I work 12 hour night shifts picking up the kind of people you just don't want to meet....but at least for 1 year this wasn't so bad...but for 3 ? no way.

I`ll go on the dole till the BR is over....at least I'll get free dental care/rent/council tax and £65 to spend.

Ding Dong! im with you geezer, lets hit the hippy trail!

dojoman

Penelope_Penguin wrote: »

I'd agree - fairly well researched What was not mentioned, is that all benefit income is disregarded. So this hypothetical "family of 4" (assume 2 adults and 2 children) will, in addition to the £40pm, be able to keep child benefit (about £100pm) and any child tax credits.

Benefits ARE taken into consideration, here is what it says on the IS website.

31.7.41 State benefit income to be included where bankrupt also receives non-benefit income

The official receiver should not automatically discount the possibility of obtaining a contribution from a bankrupt who is in receipt of benefit. The Service has obtained legal advice that once a benefit is paid to an individual, it may be considered to be income and so falls within the scope of section 310(7) of the Insolvency Act 1986. Whilst this confirms the possibility of obtaining an IPA/IPO where a bankrupt is in receipt of state benefits, as a matter of policy as stated at paragraph 31.7.40, the official receiver should not seek an IPA or IPO, where the bankrupt's only source of income is state benefits.


BTW, debtinfo, used to work for the IS and is generally right about anything he posts

dojoman

Here is the link:) it is dated December 2010.


http://insolvency.gov.uk/freedomofinformation/technical/TechnicalManual/Ch25-36/Chapter31/part7/part3/part_3.htm#31.7.40

Penelope_Penguin

dojoman wrote: »

Here is the link:) it is dated December 2010.


http://insolvency.gov.uk/freedomofinformation/technical/TechnicalManual/Ch25-36/Chapter31/part7/part3/part_3.htm#31.7.40

Thank you - I shall delete my posts and be on the phone to the OR when I'm back in the office tomorrow

fermi

It's still pretty much the same as before.

If your only income is state benefits, then the OR should not seek an IPA/O. Whether the letter of the law technically allows them to or not.

If you have an income that is part earned, part benefits, then an IPA is possible. The income from benefits is used to calculate the surplus. BUT any IPA should only be made on the non-benefit income.

In other words, if you have say £500 surplus, but only £300 non-benefit income, then an IPA could not exceed the £300. Exceeding the £300 would mean that part of the benefit income was being claimed, which is against policy.