Are bankrupts getting a raw deal?

Ineedaname

I like the sliding scale Dojo and agree that if an IPA were 'in place' for every BR regardless of surplus, that would prevent people avoiding it so much.

debt_doctor

I don't think bankrupts should have their reasonable domestic needs curtailed because the IS are a bit skint.

I think this government agency should be funded on a long term rolling basis whereby in times of rising property prices the funding would be high from property being sold to pay for the lean years when property was low / negative equity.

I would have any property that had to be sold done by the IS via an estate agent. I see no reason why money grabbing IPs should charge ridiculous amounts of money for which in most cases boils down to conveyencing. I would allow the IS to charge an extra fee on top of the estate agents fee.

I would have a levy on the credit industry to help fund the service, it might teach them to be more responsible in their lending.

I would keep IPAs at 3 years, in the set up manner they currently operate. I would scrap the entire way they are calculated and use the Common Financial Statement (CFS) instead. This would bring bankruptcy inline with DROs, IVAs and DMPs.

DD

kepar

I also believe those on benefits should be looked at. I believe that is unfair that for example 2 individuals , one working and one on benefits netting the same money are treated so differently.

The one on benefits keeps the lot, whilst the one working has to justify every penny.

There are some out there will argue that those on benefits need every penny, but surely does the one working.

Those on benefits should come under the same rules, this would I am sure bring in more.

alastairq

I would have a levy on the credit industry to help fund the service, it might teach them to be more responsible in their lending.

That would seem too sensible an idea....?

However, the moralists who stand firmly on the rock of 'personal responsibility' will have a field day, eh?

I would suggest increasing the charges for petitioning for another's BR...

Plus, seriously raising the limits of debt before BR can be petitioned.

I also think, with personal debt, there should be a greater level of proof required of creditors [from the credit industry] that they have done everything within their power to reach a reasonable repayment plan....

In my own case, I noted that those creditors associated with RBS were in the forefront of aiding and setting up a minimum payment scheme....

whereas those associated with, for example, MBNA, were most reluctant to agree to anything less than 99% of income...

In other words, place an onus upon the credit industry not only to be responsible lenders, but to admit that things can go wrong for their customers...and biting off their corporate noses to spite their faces will result in BRs and zero returns...therefore they need to be seen to be helping their customers avoid the need for BR.

As far as small businesses are concerned, they could do with a much earlier system of intervention.....maybe not preventing them from failing....but preventing them from failing so disastrously that the individual is left with no choice but BR.

debtinfo

anyone else?

so far we have,

1) make the tax payer pay

2) lower IPA payments but cover more people over with a greater catchment period

3) reclaim the money from IP's and creditors and take a bigger chunk of substantial assets

or

4) Include all income to bring benefits recipients under the same rules as workers

edit

and 5) increase the charge for the entry into bankruptcy

debtinfo

probably not a good idea but i will throw it in anyway, What about a levy on the borrower so a fee on each overdraft/credit card/loan etc taken out, a sort of insurance in case things do go wrong, so a sort of halfway to the tax payer but only on those that want to borrow

Ineedaname

DI - isn't that just another form of tax though?

Kepar - don't want to get into that discussion again on here, but just need to reiterate something. The Government states what a person nees to live on - if the OR said "you have too much" then they are disagreeing with the Government. Doesn't work, which is one reason why those on benefits are left alone.

kepar

Ineedaname wrote: »

DI - isn't that just another form of tax though?

Kepar - don't want to get into that discussion again on here, but just need to reiterate something. The Government states what a person nees to live on - if the OR said "you have too much" then they are disagreeing with the Government. Doesn't work, which is one reason why those on benefits are left alone.

Hey it was question , I put up an idea. So why should those on benefits be exempt.
So why should somebody who works be subjected to accounting for every penny whilst somebody on benefits can everything. Not fair.

I suppose that you being on benefits affects the way you think, but why should you be treated any differently. You went bankrupt yet you want to be treated as if you are a special case.

debtinfo

It is Inan but crucially it is a tax only on those that use credit rather than the general tax payer like road tax for instance. It may be more socially acceptable in that it then does not take money away from schools and hospitals. Who would then have 7 credit cards in their wallet just in case if you had to pay a fee for each one

Ineedaname

A good point DI and similar to road tax being abolished and the 'fee' added to {the already exhorbitant fuel tax} petrol prices, so you pay per mile.

I see what you mean now, like an insurance.

Better still, do away with credit cards and HP!