IPA - change of circumstances after discharge

Johnpj

A question I have wondered for a while, and linked to this question. When discharged, is the income payment fixed, or do you still have to inform the OR of changes in circumstances. Obviously prior to discharge the answer is yes. I have heard advice of both yes and no, just wondering what the official answer is.

fermi

IPA payments can be varied after discharge.

Either by agreement between you and the OR/trustee, or upon application to the court by either party.

The more recent IPA agreements state.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Until the end of the term of this agreement I shall notify the Official Receiver or other trustee of any increase in income within 21 days of becoming aware of the increase. I understand that the Official Receiver or trustee may claim any increase in income for the benefit of my creditors. I acknowledge that my obligation to make payments under this agreement does not end when I am discharged from bankruptcy and that failure to make payments can affect the date upon which I am discharged.[/FONT]

If you sign that, you are bound by that.

Whereas IPA agreements issued up until a few years ago said:

Until I am discharged from bankruptcy, I shall notify the Official Receiver or other trustee of any increase in my income within 21 days of becoming aware of the increase. I understand that the official receiver or trustee may claim any increase in income for the benefit of my creditors. I acknowledge that my obligation to make payments under this agreement does not end when I am discharged from bankruptcy and that failure to make payments can affect the date upon which I am discharged.

Which left an arguable loophole, as there was nothing in the insolvency legislation regards IPAs to say that you had any duty beyond that.

So that is probably why there are confused answers floating around on that issue?

Saying that, every so often we still see an OR using the old template/wording. :cool:

kepar

When my wife got her IPA nearly three years ago(nearly there) the OR only asked to be informed if her income remained above the agreed amount on a permanent(as in a pay increase) or because she did irregular shifts and it remained higher for more than six months. So 3 years ago, you had to tell the OR then if you had a change in income.

fermi

It was at least 3 years ago that they formally changed the wording if I remember correctly.

2007 or 2008 perhaps?

The OR usually "told" people that they had to inform them of any regular increase income before that anyway. There was just that technical mismatch between what they told you, and what the agreements formally required in writing.

Also doesn't stop the OR/trustee requiring a periodic review of your I&E throughout the IPA.

Johnpj

I asked, as I never had an IPA, so had nothing to go on. But I do hear some confusion. But thank you that cleared up where the confusion was. Many thanks for the info. I went through the process of creating the IPA but it was felt not appropriate in my case.

Johnpj

Not sure who moved this set of replies to it's own thread, but good idea, thanks.

Ineedaname

Johnpj wrote: »

I went through the process of creating the IPA but it was felt not appropriate in my case.

That's confusing. Every BR submits an SOA with their BR forms. The OR will then decide if an IPA is required and 'create' the paperwork for the BR to agree and sign, then again to have it set up.

What is this process you went through to 'create' an IPA before your OR even said whether you would be subject to one or not?

Johnpj

Ineedaname wrote: »

That's confusing. Every BR submits an SOA with their BR forms. The OR will then decide if an IPA is required and 'create' the paperwork for the BR to agree and sign, then again to have it set up.

What is this process you went through to 'create' an IPA before your OR even said whether you would be subject to one or not?

My process was in 2005. I completed all my forms. Was ordered bankrupt, and then had an interview with the OR (examiner actually). I had quite strange circumstances which caused my banktruptcy, and it was felt that the case should be closed ASAP. I had a call from the deputy OR to confirm this and to clarify a few things that the examiner had raised. The examiner sent me a form to detail my planned income and expenditure, which I returned. The letter said this to work out how much I should pay towards my debts (IPA). At almost the same time, I was offered an early discharge, after about 2 and a bit months. The OR office again asked me to complete the income and expenditure forms, in order to obtain my early discharge. However they had already told me this was a formal process as I could not be discharged early until I had completed the forms, but nothing would happen with them. I was then given an early discharge after 3 months, with no IPA.

Ineedaname

So to clarify, you had no surplus therefore no IPA was put in place. Had nothing to do with ED as that can happen even with an IPA in existence.

Johnpj

Actually it was nothing to do with surplus either one way or not, but if you read between the lines you will understand what happened. If you read my first post on my bankruptcy experience you will get the picture.

Johnpj

It is why I asked the question. I was told that once I was discharged an IPA could not be ordered. I am assuming, had an IPA been setup, even with a small amount, it could have been revised afterwards, hence why I asked the question.