IPAs

lala9

almostfree83 wrote: »

I sent them costs and also the time involved in getting to work and back via public transport, and also had to send in receipts to show how much I was spending on fuel each month, but this doesn't actually prove that you're spending the money on getting to work and back.

I had to find the extra money by cutting back on other things I basically have no social life whatsoever, I can't afford to go anywhere, and also stopped smoking as the £15 a week went on petrol. I was allowed to keep my car as I could prove I needed it for work. I also told them I use it to help my mum get shopping / to and from work etc and was told that how she gets to work isn't my responsibility.

Seems like you've had a bit of a raw deal, other posters have been quite fortunate where their travel costs are concerned.

almostfree83

Forgive me if I sound harsh but the point of these allowances is for the OR to assess against, not for BRs to say they spend x amount on fuel / groceries etc so you *have* to let me have that allowance.
I might have had a raw deal, but BR isn't meant to be pleasant and a walk in the park. I am still better off financially than if i was spending all this on food / fuel / trying to have a social life, whilst juggling £25k of unsecured debt.

Whilst I agree that some of the things that are being disallowed seem a bit unfair, would it really kill some people to not have their smartphones, or the allowance to spend £50 a month on clothes. I mean, if we've all been juggling debt for a while we're used to living on the tightest of budgets.

alastairq

There is also a lot of simplistic confusion over 'being allowed to have a car', etc.

If the BR owns a car, this is deemed an asset by the OR.

And the purpose of Bankruptcy is the handing over of one's financial affairs to the Official Receiver, who then realises all or any assets for the benefit of creditors.[after administrative costs are deducted].

Since BR isn't a punitive measure, or a criminal procedure....the Law allows for the BR person to retain such goods and income as to maintain a reasonable standard of living.


This standard may not be what the BR individual may desire, or have been used to...

however,if a car is owned, then there is an opportunity for the OR to exempt it as an asset in the estate.

Evidence needs to be presented to the OR to show there is a need..the stickies above outline the nature of that evidence.

If the car is exempted, then reasonable running costs may be claimed within the SOA.

If the evidence is insufficient in strength to allow the OR to exempt the car as an asset, then there are two more options open to the BR.

Firstly, the OR could take the car, and have it sold/scrapped/whatever to realise whatever worth there is in the vehicle......as with any other asset.

Secondly, the BR could negotiate with the OR to purchase the interest in the car.

Thus the BR could retain ownership of the car..[remember, once BR is petitioned, all assets effectively become the property of the Official Receiver]

However, the running costs may not be claimable on the SOA.

Don't forget, though, that travel expenses can be included, for domestic needs...so finding out how much the bus fares for your kids school, to home, etc, is essential...and may be claimable.


The point to remember is that, despite what the BR claims for on the SOA, the BR is free to spend that money how they wish.