Time needed to enforce IPA / IPO

dojoman

alastairq wrote: »

I thought I'd hilite the above quote......if you don't mind?

No need to highlight it, everyone is entitled to their opinion and I respect that. But I am still entitled to mine.

dojoman

alastairq wrote: »

I meant , elsewhere....

Can`t find this post, could you please put the link up for it?

fermi

debt_doctor wrote: »

Also I have seen the OR / Trustee apply to court for suspension of discharge if any forms or information is not forthcoming in time for AD (had this just 2 weeks ago actually).

What circumstances exactly?

If the bankrupt fails to return forms or info within the timescales laid down in the IA86/IR86, then yes, then suspending discharge would be a legitimate response.

That is non-cooperation or failure to disclose information.

If due to chance (or error on the part or the OR) the IA86/IR86 timescales, takes things past AD, I think suspending discharge then would be an abuse of those powers/provisions. In other words, if you are not breaching your obligations then it should not be a good enough reason.

kepar

aero1 wrote: »

I just posted a thread on this as my partner is 6 weeks to AD, and JUST got an IPA to sign, but as its based on incorrect figures, he won't be signing. We will be replying within 7 days as requested but as it will have to recalculated and agreed I'm hoping they go over the date.
As for your point above, our elec is in red letter stage, we certainly are not in the happy position of paying it as soon as the bill arrives lol.

Also its good to see open mindiness here as to be honest, I was a bit scared of asking my questions simply due to some very judgemnental and almost 'looking for a fight' comments on some of the threads. We are not here to judge afterall

Because it hasn't been signed before discharge, the OR will probably extend the br until the matter is sorted.

debt_doctor

fermi wrote: »

What circumstances exactly?

If the bankrupt fails to return forms or info within the timescales laid down in the IA86/IR86, then yes, then suspending discharge would be a legitimate response.

That is non-cooperation or failure to disclose information.

If due to chance (or error on the part or the OR) the IA86/IR86 timescales, takes things past AD, I think suspending discharge then would be an abuse of those powers/provisions. In other words, if you are not breaching your obligations then it should not be a good enough reason.

Hi Fermi,
It was a client of my colleagues and the application was made by an appointed trustee very close to the ED date. I would have to look at the paperwork for exact details, but i'm off for the next two weeks:D so the reply will be delayed im afraid.

DD

fermi

debt_doctor wrote: »

the application was made by an appointed trustee

I think that goes a long way towards explaining it.

Ineedaname

kepar wrote: »

Because it hasn't been signed before discharge, the OR will probably extend the br until the matter is sorted.

As per Fermi's post, only if a breach of timescales has happened. Aero has confirmed they will be complying with timescales and therefore cooperating. So there would be no grounds to extend the BR in relation to this...

fermi

Ineedaname wrote: »

As per Fermi's post, only if a breach of timescales has happened. Aero has confirmed they will be complying with timescales and therefore cooperating. So there would be no grounds to extend the BR in relation to this...

That is the way I read it yes. And the way the Insolvency Service explained it to me when I queried it with their technical section a couple of years back.

The Insolvent Act 1986 quite clearly states that the court can only make an order suspending discharge....

"only if satisfied that the bankrupt has failed or is failing to comply with an obligation under this Part."

Where that "part" is the Part IX section of that act that deals with bankruptcy.

The OR just "running out of time" does not qualify on it's own.

kepar

Could they claim, failing to sign is not co-operating.

fermi

kepar wrote: »

Could they claim, failing to sign is not co-operating.

Certainly not.

The bankrupt is perfectly entitled to not sign an IPA if they do not wish to.

In fact, that is set down specifically in the Insolvency Rules 1986 as one of the two ways that the bankrupt is entitled to respond.

6.193A(3)

Within 14 days or such longer period as may be specified by the official receiver or trustee (whichever is appropriate) from the date on which the income payments agreement was sent, the bankrupt shall –

(a) if he decides to approve the draft income payments agreement, [authenticate] the agreement and return it to the official receiver or trustee (whichever is appropriate); or
(b) if he decides not to approve the agreement, notify the official receiver or trustee (whichever is appropriate) in writing of his decision.

EDIT: And don't forget that the OR trustee is still entitled to go for an IPO rather than an IPA. As long as they get the application to the court before the discharge date.