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

fermi

debtinfo wrote: »

Im fairly certain that the law itsself does not lay down any guidelines such as £99 surplus or 50-70%.

It doesn't. Nothing at all in the legislation. I checked that out a loooong time ago.

So as the £50 minimum payment and 50-70% band were just IS policy, they are free to change it. Subject, as you say, to the rather vague legal requirement that the bankrupt must be left with sufficient funds to meet "reasonable domestic needs".

fermi

JCS1 wrote: »

Glad I'm not having to explain all that in an interview though.

I bet. The IS staff who have to implement this are going to get it in the neck in a big way.

now

skylight wrote: »

I read that as current IPA's wont change nor will how they are worked out change if they need to be varied, but with all cases from 1st Dec, the new arrangement will apply (assume it means all cases not already subject to an IPA - it does say ALL and not new). Remember that an IPA can be applied (if you have the surplus) at any point before your discharge date; which is why I assume it means all cases not already subject to an IPA.

Therefore, I would interpret that as if you are still BR but with no IPA, then after 1st Dec you would pay one if your surplus is over £20. When you get the IPOQ forms I couldn't say; you may not ever get them and ORs may stick solely to new cases (as in new BRs) - I think that this particular bit may be dependent on workload in each individual office but this a surmise rather than fact!


Nothing is simple; and if we have different POV's then what will the ORs do???

I think you could be right on the workload as they are already overloaded, I would not like to think of the extra paperwork if they had to re asses every case over a 3 year period with IPA's awarded against them. What would happen to all those who have had cases semi closed for example if the OR has applied to be released as trustee as they are no longer interested in the case, or for people on benefits with no IPA and a £99 surplus?

I had to send in proof of income in May but did not hear anymore until the end of the summer, this was I think due to the work load of our OR

now

fermi wrote: »

I bet. The IS staff who have to implement this are going to get it in the neck in a big way.

I eel sorry for them as they are already under pressure as it is

lottodreams

It has been this way in Scotland since April 1st 2008 :eek:

Only upside is AiB seems to permit more generous allowances ie Entertainment allowance, emergency allowance and some Pay monthly telephones, gyms etc

Perhaps the same rules will apply elsewhere in th UK????

Lotto

Even still pretty dark days ahead I fear

Tupperware_Queen

eeeek!! I went BR on 8th Nov, and have yet to hear if I get an IPA.....I'm going to keep everything crossed

debt_doctor

fermi wrote: »

It doesn't. Nothing at all in the legislation. I checked that out a loooong time ago.

So as the £50 minimum payment and 50-70% band were just IS policy, they are free to change it. Subject, as you say, to the rather vague legal requirement that the bankrupt must be left with sufficient funds to meet "reasonable domestic needs".

I'm afraid I agree with fermi and Debt info. The info given to me today was that the IS are currently not meeting their running costs (they normally do) and the government has imposed these conditions to remedy the situation.

DD

immoral_angeluk

You WHAT????? :mad:

immoral_angeluk

debt_doctor wrote: »

I'm afraid I agree with fermi and Debt info. The info given to me today was that the IS are currently not meeting their running costs (they normally do) and the government has imposed these conditions to remedy the situation.

DD

Have we had a CABlink/advisernet announcement on it yet? I've not spotted anything or been notified? How the hell are we supposed to deal with that quick a change and allow time for it to filter down to everyone??

wolfers

That strikes me as an incredibly stupid change. I think it may well deter people from going bankrupt altogether because in effect you will be living in virtual poverty for three years with no incentive to progress in your career because any pay rise will be entirely lost. I thought the principle of bankruptcy was to give people a fresh start, not punish them.

I don't think this will affect me: I went BR in June but have no IPA because my surplus was under £99 (it was under £20). I will now do everything I can to ensure that my surplus remains that way and I'm sure others will, too.