will they class sons dla as income for bankrupcy

debtinfo

fermi wrote: »

Yes, but given recent trends I'm wondering............

From the same link above.

Absolutely

Its another one of those things where it is their guideline, the Bankruptcy law simply says that the IPO would not be made such that the bankrupt would not be able to pay their own reasonable expenses

fermi

debtinfo wrote: »

Its another one of those things where it is their guideline, the Bankruptcy law simply says that the IPO would not be made such that the bankrupt would not be able to pay their own reasonable expenses

It's not how to interpret the insolvency Act/legislation that is at issue.

An IPA based on solely benefit income has been excluded before because of:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/5/section/187/enacted

187 Certain benefit to be inalienable

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every assignment of or charge on—

(a) benefit as defined in section 122 of the Contributions and Benefits Act;

(b) any income-related benefit; or

(c) child benefit,

and every agreement to assign or charge such benefit shall be void; and, on the bankruptcy of a beneficiary, such benefit shall not pass to any trustee or other person acting on behalf of his creditors.

The interpretation is on "councils advice", which is rather meaningless in a legal sense. A full legal determination in higher courts is the only thing that could decide it.

But it is concerning nevertheless....

debtinfo

its the old, is it the benefit that is trying to be taken or is it the cash in the bank which is no longer a benefit argument

Similar to the pension itself does not vest but if you get a lumpsum payment it is cash and cash does vest argument

fermi

I know, but in practical terms for someone receiving the benefit, then that difference is academic.

Having part of your benefits taken in an IPA/O is not.

Hopefully the won't be daft enough to push things that far.

Ineedaname

OK, so if I'm reading this right now I WON'T get an IPA because my income is solely from benefits. That would be good news as I was worrying about the new IPA guidelines meaning I would be paying for another 3 years. Under the old guidelines I was home and dry with my surplus.

dojoman

Ineedaname wrote: »

OK, so if I'm reading this right now I WON'T get an IPA because my income is solely from benefits. That would be good news as I was worrying about the new IPA guidelines meaning I would be paying for another 3 years. Under the old guidelines I was home and dry with my surplus.

Yes, you are correct in your above comment.

Ineedaname

Whooooppppeeeeee!