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

wolfers

If the IS has cut staff, won't this change make life even worse for them -- surely it will increase their workload?

debtinfo

wolfers wrote: »

If the IS has cut staff, won't this change make life even worse for them -- surely it will increase their workload?

yep...............

pauleenbruce

sorry for being a bit dense i became bankrupt in august and do not yet have an ipa but will have one soon i am meant to phone the or at the end of the month when i get paid from my new job, does this mean that my ipa will be larger because in effect it will not be agreed until after the 1st dec and that they will take all of DI not a percentage

debt_doctor

debtinfo wrote: »

I think not, None of the money from these changes will go to the creditors, it will go to the IS to pay their costs, Bear in mind that the Fees rules also changed, the main bit you saw from this was the £450-£600 change but what is less noticable is the SOS fee on assets which means more of the smaller realisations go to the IS rather than to the creditors (something im sure they are not happy about)

If you look at the IS figures which has to be self funding, it is obvious that firstly with the housing crash there are more negative equity properties so a big loss of revenue there. Secondly they introduced DRO's great news for debtors but causing a Huge drop in bankruptcies which turned into DRO's instead and they only get £90 for them rather than £450.

Finally they recently cut all of the agency staff. So i think it just comes down to them doing what they can within the existing laws to make their books balance

All the above is completely spot on (were you in my office today DI?) It was our exact conversation!
The saving grace may be that the IS will not fund going for an IPO if an IPA is not agreed. I mention quite often when creditors are not playing by IS rules to local IS office only to hear "we wouldnt be able to fund a case......"

I think a mass 'NO, I won't agree to the IPA' has to be on the cards, and that is what I intend to do with ant of my affected clients.

DD

Tupperware_Queen

I didn't know that you could refuse to pay an IPA

alastairq

IPA/IPO....


'agreement' and 'order'....


if 'agreement' cannot be achieve, twixt OR and BR, then technically, the OR will go to the Court for a decision...the Court will hear both arguments [OR & BR]...and make a decision....this is then 'binding' on both parties.

The problem for the OR is, firstly, funding the Court case...and secondly, if the Court lands more in favour of the BR, then it is possible they may order a lower payment than the OR wanted..

fermi

debt_doctor wrote: »

All the above is completely spot on (were you in my office today DI?) It was our exact conversation!
The saving grace may be that the IS will not fund going for an IPO if an IPA is not agreed. I mention quite often when creditors are not playing by IS rules to local IS office only to hear "we wouldnt be able to fund a case......"

I think a mass 'NO, I won't agree to the IPA' has to be on the cards, and that is what I intend to do with ant of my affected clients.

Will be interesting to see.

I can't remember the exact figures, but the IS only got around 70 (ish) IPOs in the last year they've published the stats for, as opposed to about 15,000 IPAs.

Funding 70 IPOs applications is fine. If that goes up by orders of magnitude, I cant honestly see it either? Especially in marginal cases.

Whether the "official" minimum is set at £20 or not, you have to wonder whether a higher "unofficial" threshold will occur in practice, based on where they feel confident and it's economic to go for an IPO, and whether the BR rocks the boat by challenging them?

Tupperware_Queen

thats all very interesting. I don't want to be difficult, and I accept that I am a grown woman who was at least partly responsible for the current situation (maybe niavely ?sp beleiving what she wanted to beleive).

However, I have worked up to 80 hours per week trying to keep home and hearth together, I cannot do this any more, hence the BR. As a result my wages recently do not represent my usual income, and if OR does not accept letter from payroll and last years P60 as proof of my 'normal' income, I will be in an impossible situation. Even without this my wages can vary by as much as £2-300 if I have a busy on call (which I have to every 6 weeks or so). My orginal plan when I was managing my debts myself was that I used the extra cash from on calls to fund things like school uniforms and shoes, which come along infrequently, but which eat up huge chunks of money in one go. I expect I will not be allowed to do this from now on.

pauleenbruce

has anyone got any idea about my question please

Darnit_2

pauleenbruce wrote: »

sorry for being a bit dense i became bankrupt in august and do not yet have an ipa but will have one soon i am meant to phone the or at the end of the month when i get paid from my new job, does this mean that my ipa will be larger because in effect it will not be agreed until after the 1st dec and that they will take all of DI not a percentage

I don't think of any of us know the answer to that one until we know when it will be implemented, but it sounds like it yes. however, it also sounds like they may increase some of the expenditure you can claim before payment such as emergency expences.