Help - SOA and surplus for IPA?

Grandadto2

OR wants me to sign for an IPA to give any surplus at month end but I don't have any surplus - I only have enough to live on and sometimes not that. He pretty much threatened that he could make things difficult for me if I do not sign.
What can I do? I do not want to sign in case in this first year I have no surplus. I have tried to put a considered discussion forward but to no avail.
Can I refuse?
:mad:

Maizy

HI There

Im sure someone who has experience will be along to assist. Im curious as someone who is opting for BR why the OR would ask you to sign something when you dont have surplus left over?

Im really not able to deal with heavy handed or threatening people at all and hope to god that my OR isnt like that.

Grandadto2

I think he can see my earnings may increase in about 18 months and he wants a share

alastairq

This has pretty much been covered in another thread.

JCS1

You can refuse to sign.

The OR then has the option to take you to court for a IPO, and the judge will decide the payments. They may also consider a suspension of discharge (SOD) on the grounds of non-cooperation which means that your automatic discharge would be suspended.

Have you spoken to the Assistant Official Receiver assigned to your case or just had dealings with the examiner so far? It might be worth a discussion with the AOR to begin with.

Grandadto2

I have an independent practitioner. I am worried that if it goes to court and the judge agrees with receiver ( I have no faith in judges. Once got sued and judge agreed with other party even though I had calculations to support me. The judge could not work out percentages and I lost) then I will get a penalty of some kind

JCS1

If it does go to an IPO, and you didn't then pay you would be breaking a court order.

Have you posted up your SOA and compared that with what the IP has allowed you?

This may also be useful: http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/guidanceleaflets/ipcomplaint/IPComplaint.htm

Grandadto2

JCS1, I don't understand what the SOA has to do with it. That is not what is in question. I have no surplus but he wants me to sign a surplus IPA which would affect me for 3 years which seems unfair. What am I missing about the SOA? why might it be relevant?

JCS1

Grandadto2 wrote: »

JCS1, I don't understand what the SOA has to do with it. That is not what is in question. I have no surplus but he wants me to sign a surplus IPA which would affect me for 3 years which seems unfair. What am I missing about the SOA? why might it be relevant?

Because we might be able to help you identify items on your SOA that the IP as disallowed or reduced (and can also help identify outgoings that you are able to claim but not have put on the forms).

kepar

Who has decided you have no surplus ? you or the IP. When you went through your SOA with the IP did you record what was agreed or are you taking it from the allowances you submitted.
If when you went through the SOA and there was no surplus then the IP cannot make you sign.
But if you are taking it from what you submitted then as JSC1 posted some items may have been reduced or not permitted.

Grandadto2

Oh I get it. No, the OR has agreed SOA but says I have a surplus even though I can prove the "surplus" he is referring to is a business expense. Also, because I am self employed my income is very up and down