IPA Avoidance

debt_doctor

debtinfo wrote: »

good point, lets make IPA'slast 5+ years, less flexible, only at the discretion of the creditors and give people their debts back if they dont make it to the end,

An IVA is a different method of insolvency that is appropriate to a different type of debtor.
It has advantages that BR does not in that you can exclude property that would be lost in BR. But also built in is reasonableness and fairness of the financial calculation that makes 5 years achievable and allows the IVA to do what it was intended to do ie not fail by being too restrictive.
BR is out of step and too restrictive.
DD

debtinfo

of course 30% of them do fail

debt_doctor

debtinfo wrote: »

of course 30% of them do fail

They do indeed, because peoples lives change over time in this modern world of in work - out of work - short time etc. An IVA is a gamble in some respects.

DD

debtinfo

whereas an IPA is more flexible, which is an advantage of them,

Of all the IVA's i have seen against IPA's even with the new rules, you almost never pay more in an IPA than an IVA, there may be differnt ways of working them out different bands, different percentages, but nowdays you will pay much the same into an IVA per month as you will into an IPA, you used to pay less into an IPA than an IVA which was the real injustice between the different types of insolvency, now that has been rebalanced to pay about the same which in my opinion is fairer

debt_doctor

debtinfo wrote: »

whereas an IPA is more flexible, which is an advantage of them,

Of all the IVA's i have seen against IPA's even with the new rules, you almost never pay more in an IPA than an IVA, there may be differnt ways of working them out different bands, different percentages, but nowdays you will pay much the same into an IVA per month as you will into an IPA, you used to pay less into an IPA than an IVA which was the real injustice between the different types of insolvency, now that has been rebalanced to pay about the same which in my opinion is fairer

Then to make it completely fair, we should exclude the family home as an asset in bankruptcy, remove restrictions from employment, remove the ability for life changing restrictions for up to 15 years, remove it from the London Gazzette for ever, prevent having an interest in all 'other' property forever.

Will that happen - no, of course not. Because the different insolvency methods are meant to be different, but they are all meant to be reasonable.

Is it fair that a car worth less than £1000 is always allowed in a DRO?

It could be debated for ever, and go round and round in circles with different points of view.
But thats good, this is a forum for people to give their views on BR and seek help with their BR.

No one is going to stop people doing that, thankfully.

kepar

Then to make it completely fair, we should exclude the family home as an asset in bankruptcy,

That sounds great, buy a house with a small deposit. Get as many credit cards/loans as you can by you or you and partner. Pay off as much as the mortgage as you can. Declare br, not lose the house. A few years down the line sell the house. nice profit without any house price rises.

I don't think that Idea will catch on somehow.

Gray-Fox

debt_doctor wrote: »

Quite right Freddie, I completely agree with you. The 'old' rules would have given you that fairness and the new ones do not. Bankruptcy is now massively out of step with all other forms of insolvency, and it needs putting right.

DD

QFMFT.

Ignore all of the supine posters on here. As long as it is lawful, I advocate avoiding an IPA ANY WHICH way you can.

dojoman

How much surplus are you allowed in an IVA?

Gray-Fox

kepar wrote: »

With you filling in your SOA, you haven't been through it yet. How do you know there is not going to be an IPA for you?

Well firstly, I'm trying to ensure that all of my costs can be linked into my profession, thus making them entirely reasonable. I will fight this in a court of law if I have to.

Also, I'm living in London. If the OR isn't worldly enough to realise the living cost of London is higher than other places (even though I'm on a below average salary for the whole country, never mind London) then they're even stupider than I thought.

I'm confident a judge will see my SOA as reasonable, if needs be.

debt_doctor

dojoman wrote: »

How much surplus are you allowed in an IVA?

An IVA is calculated via the common financial statement. (CFS) The CFS has 4 area's of discretionary expenditure; housekeeping, telephone, travel and other.
The 4 area's have 'caps' on each one based on the make up of the family.
So it allows some freedom of expenditure, many of which are not allowed in BR. Sky, general lesuire activities, and others are allowed. It was drawn up and is promoted with the full support of the British Banking Association,and all their members must accept it. All the lenders you will have heard of are members.

BR used to overcome it's ridgidity by allowing a surplus £100, and a percentage after that.

So flexibility (reasonableness) was achieved by one of two methods in insolvency; The CFS or the 'old' BR rules.

DD