Bankruptcy nightmare

fermi

And from recent guidance to the OR.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=39591368&postcount=7

Particular care should also be taken where the debtor appears to have had assistance from a commercial organisation in the completion of their statement of affairs as a set of pro-forma outgoings may have been included which are not necessarily expenses actually incurred by the bankrupt on a day-to-day basis.

debtinfo

its funny how people dont think the OR notices these things when they see them every day

JCS1

hermoine wrote: »

JCS1 yes I know that you cannot have a third party answer the questions but it was good to have moral support and the company I went with were finance lawyers so they could advise me after without having to rely on me remembering what had been said!

I am only giving my opinion and account of what happened to me and how I found an insolvency practitioner to be helpful - all that anyone says on these forums is how they are BAD and no one should ever use them.

H

They do have their place mainly for business, but there are a lot of dodgy firms around too who like in the OP's case seem to have charged a lot of money and not advised correctly.

BB&B

I have recently seen a SoA where the I&E section had been completed by one of these companies, and it was as if I was reading the MAT Trigger Figures Tables. They claimed as a result there was only £65 excess however, on investigation there was actually £195 excess, but we were able to correctly do an I&E, based on their REAL needs, as a result the excess dropped to £5!

As I have said, if an examiner sees an I&E with 'Stock' amounts they will often chase the whole lot down, or disallow huge chunks (such as claims for holidays, etc.).

And baring in mind most ORs offices now are stretched beyond belief, I suspect the examiner just put the red pen to work to save time!!.

I am aware of a person paying a sizeable IPA, simply because the company they used said that was the expenses to use, and to ignore reality, they included DLA for children, but HID the DLA. We are dealing with this at present, but the examiner is dragging her healing in dealing with it (and possibly justifiably so as the record of the interview clearly shows the bankrupt agreeing the figures were correct)

Tim

wotway

debt info you sound very knoweledgable about all of this, however if you say rules have not changed how do you explain that theOR published a scale of how much deductions would be made as a percentage of income.Also what about the publication URN10/1183 which states categoriclly that beneficial interest of Less than £ 1000 then the beneficial interest get sold back to the BR? The rules have changed, anyone looking for advice will still find the old advice proffered, and if this lady or anyone else were looking for official advice inc any commercial advisors then they are getting duff info and it's not fair!

fermi

The rules haven't changed.

Rules are something that must be followed. i.e statute, or othersuch measure that can't be ignored. They have not changed.

Guidelines/policy has changed. For example the % to be claimed under any IPA. No-where is that % set by law. Instead, it was the IS's internal policy to set the amount to 50-70%. That has now changed, and does not require any 'rule'/law change to do it.

wotway

Seems very arbitary, i bow to your knowledge ,however the 'guidelines /policy' are still being published, how is anybody supposed to know? Let's be fair the individual/company whoever should have definitive rules to follow and if those guidlines policy change mid flow there should be some kind of cross over. I can't belive that this poor woman did not take advice and research the advice given? also surely she would have been given a soa to check or at least checked the one suppplied. it must have been based on some info supplied, no company would stay in business just pumping out photo copies of a set piece surely?

JCS1

wotway wrote: »

Seems very arbitary, i bow to your knowledge ,however the 'guidelines /policy' are still being published, how is anybody supposed to know? Let's be fair the individual/company whoever should have definitive rules to follow and if those guidlines policy change mid flow there should be some kind of cross over. I can't belive that this poor woman did not take advice and research the advice given? also surely she would have been given a soa to check or at least checked the one suppplied. it must have been based on some info supplied, no company would stay in business just pumping out photo copies of a set piece surely?

I've seen several BR SOA's where it has been copied exactly from the person's IVA proposal - with the reasons for BR copied word for word from the IVA document.

And these were done by companies that charged a lot of money.

wotway

I'm sure you have but it's not put forward that this is the case her, the real issue was not about what was put down but on what basis the advice was given.That is should the lady have taken the advice based on the guide line given by the insolvency service who are still giving that same advice on their web site today?.Or should she have stayed in an inapproprriate IVA or just toss a coin in the air?. I can't beleive that anybody 6 months ago could have foreseen this situation and I can hope from this that she was given the advice that prevailed that time. If she had posted on this forum 6 months ago would the advice obtained have been very different to what she paid for, probably not! I'm sorry she did pay for advice but sometimes people seem to be too frightened to do it themselves. She could not have failed an IVA in less than 6 months in practical terms. We are not here to debate the ills of fee or no fee ,but some people elect to pay for the work done, right or wrong their choice. (And I've seen some real foul ups from CAB and other charities too)The issue is the insolvency service gave the information which they then changed, these goal posts can't even be in the same post codes and where is it going? It seems the insolvency service will force every one with property into an IVA. The IVA companies must have the champagne flowing with this. Who on this forum is saying that debt solutions is one size fits all? IVA, bankruptcy, DRO, DMP, run and hide, fee, no fee all options. I think the public has a right to expect government guidlines and publications to be correct.

JCS1

wotway wrote: »

I'm sure you have but it's not put forward that this is the case her, the real issue was not about what was put down but on what basis the advice was given.That is should the lady have taken the advice based on the guide line given by the insolvency service who are still giving that same advice on their web site today?.Or should she have stayed in an inapproprriate IVA or just toss a coin in the air?. I can't beleive that anybody 6 months ago could have foreseen this situation and I can hope from this that she was given the advice that prevailed that time. If she had posted on this forum 6 months ago would the advice obtained have been very different to what she paid for, probably not! I'm sorry she did pay for advice but sometimes people seem to be too frightened to do it themselves. She could not have failed an IVA in less than 6 months in practical terms. We are not here to debate the ills of fee or no fee ,but some people elect to pay for the work done, right or wrong their choice. (And I've seen some real foul ups from CAB and other charities too)The issue is the insolvency service gave the information which they then changed, these goal posts can't even be in the same post codes and where is it going? It seems the insolvency service will force every one with property into an IVA. The IVA companies must have the champagne flowing with this. Who on this forum is saying that debt solutions is one size fits all? IVA, bankruptcy, DRO, DMP, run and hide, fee, no fee all options. I think the public has a right to expect government guidlines and publications to be correct.

OP went Bankrupt mid november. From post number 9, it would appear that they are being assed under the old IPA guidelines, as states surplus £709, IPA of £496 which is 70%.

I'm not aware that the guidelines for the car on HP have changed.

The only thing which has changed for the OP is the property, and that is waiting for 2 and a bit years before the BI is dealt with, rather than doing it sooner.

It would therefore appear that the issue in this case is not the information on the IS website (apart from the property), nor the change of guidelines for the IPA, but the guidance and detail being given by the company that was involved.