Discharge Notification

Johnpj

Hang on a moment, although working tax credits are not benefits as such, it does say for remission 1, that if you getting working tax credits you get FULL fee reduction, is that not how you read the leaflet, page 2.

The only issue is it says you must NOT be getting child tax credits also - wow how complex can they make it!!!

If that is true, and it appears so to me, then you will not have to pay court fees, or do you get all the tax credits.

If you do then it looks like you will qualify for part remission based on low income. Again my reply above applies.

fermi

Dolly-Rocket wrote: »

Silly question but i'm guessng tax credits are benefits? If so, then I dont qualify as this pushes me over threshold.
Many thanks though.

They count towards income for the purpose of remission 2 or 3 if that is what you mean?

If it's borderline or you are not sure, then may be worth filling in the forms anyway.

fermi

Johnpj wrote: »

Hang on a moment, although working tax credits are not benefits as such, it does say for remission 1, that if you getting working tax credits you get FULL fee reduction, is not how you read the leaflet?

If that is true, and it appears so to me, then you will not have to pay court fees.

The OP said earlier that they get both WTC and CTC, which excludes full remission under scheme 1.

The condition is:

Working Tax Credit but not in receipt of Child Tax Credit

Johnpj

fermi wrote: »

The OP said earlier that they get both WTC and CTC, which excludes full remission under scheme 1.

The condition is:

Working Tax Credit but not in receipt of Child Tax Credit

Yep - noticed that when I went back and then changed my notes, and adding how complex can they make it!! Reading the ladies postings, the form, examples and typing at the same time can be a challenge!!

Sounds like low income is the best route to go. Although I have to admit that reading the details, it seems they want more proof than you need to get job seekers allowance, its almost your whole life history!!

However thinking about it, if you are being discharged from bankruptcy then you either have an income order reducing your surplus income to a minium, or you have no surplus income to start with. Further taking into account your working tax credits mean you are on a low income to start with. In which case, based on common sense, you should qualify under the low income remission - sound about right?

fermi

Those fee remission forms and conditions have always been an unholy mess.

Even full time debt advisors and the court staff themselves frequently have trouble with them. :undecided

Johnpj

When I got fee remission, a few years ago, the court simply said it looked about right and just gave it to me. I am not sure in todays more challenging financial climate it would be that easy.

But is my thought process above about surplus income at point of discharge a good starting point to argue the case?

fermi

I get the impression that the courts are more strict now, as they have been told to save and extract every penny they can in the current climate. Same as all public services.

I think you might struggle with that argument now if the sums on the forms technically do not allow remission. But as said, does no harm to try.

alastairq

BUT if you want your credit file cleaned you play by their rules, as it is in your interest not the creditors, to some extent they can be as nasty as they want. Yes it can reach the information commissioner but that takes time and lots of hassle on your part. Much easier to get the certificate and shut them up.

erm, no they cannot!

With regards to the information they place wit a CRA, they are under an obligation to ensure that information is correct, and there are various sanctions that can be invoked to compel them to provide the correct information.

Fermi's clean-up stickies provide info on how to kick butt, and who to use to do it.

Moral rights have nothing to do with the situation.

Johnpj

alastairq wrote: »

erm, no they cannot!

With regards to the information they place wit a CRA, they are under an obligation to ensure that information is correct, and there are various sanctions that can be invoked to compel them to provide the correct information.

Fermi's clean-up stickies provide info on how to kick butt, and who to use to do it.

Moral rights have nothing to do with the situation.

I think we are saying the same thing. I agree totally 100% with you in respect to the final outcome.

Where I respectfully disagree is that in the SHORT term they CAN do what they want, and the only person who will be inconvenienced is the person cleaning up their credit file.

However, where the confusion is, is when you get to the sanctions bit. From a considerable wealth of experience I found both the credit agencies and the creditors both unpredicatable and wildly varying in how easy they made the process of cleaning up ones file.

Yes we both know there are guidelines and sanctions, and of course the ability to refer the matter to the information commissioner, and EVEN in extreme cases issue court injunction procedures.

THe point I am making is during the "process" both the agencies and the creditors either on purpose, or by accident due to lack of training do make mistakes, and it can take months for even simple changes to be made. Even then it can take a number of times to get it totally right because they correct one thing, and change something else to be wrong.

As I stated, the whole process is in YOUR interest, you are trying to clear up your own credit file. The creditors, some more than others, are not going to fall over themselves to help as they did lose money.

So we are agreeing.

The thrust of my argument is to be well armed, have all the right paperwork, follow things through with militiary determination (even if its not your usual personality). But be prepared to use a different tactic for each company/person.

You and I are both saying they are bound by rules and things will go right in the end. However from personal experience and from those of MANY others I know of, it CAN be a terrible and painful process, and its better to get it right early than have to go to the information commissiner etc.

I found that playing by their "rules" and playing the game, and using a personal touch, was far more effective. On one tricky mistake that a creditor made, which was AGAINST the guideles, they refused for months to make any change at all. In the end I wrote a pleading letter to the credit controller in the organisaion, very humble and apologising for their loss. The next day the entry was actually REMOVED, rather than corrected, and I had a letter saying thank you for being so honest. This particular creditor is well known on the internet for being very stubborn about making changes, so you see it can work. Using the threat of sanctions and kicking butt as you put it would not have worked half as easily, caused much more stress, but I agree would have got there in the end.

In life I find it easier to play by the rules of others, but use them to your advantage, its quicker and easier. If all else fails make an appeal to their better nature, and ask for their help, almost everybody wants to help, they just might not want to be seen doing it.

Whilst writing this, I would also add that the companies which offer to clean up your credit file are something which you should not need. They are VERY expensive, and do nothing that you cannot do yourself. In fact if you do use them, it can put the backs of your creditors up, as your own personal touch is often the key, and slow the process down.

Was it the way I worded things that caused you to disagree, as I am sure we are saying the same thing?

Ineedaname

Johnpj wrote: »

In the end I wrote a pleading letter to the credit controller in the organisaion, very humble and apologising for their loss. The next day the entry was actually REMOVED, rather than corrected, and I had a letter saying thank you for being so honest.

I would not compromise myself just to appease their personal sensibilities.

If they don't play by the rules then I shall be forwarding paperwork directly to the Information Commissioner, no messing about, no grovelling. These big organisations think they can push us around and bully us into submission, but we should stand our ground so they learn we will not put up with their unacceptable behaviour.

I don't think you have done other BRs any favours at all in trying to get that company to comply in the future.