IPA Avoidance

kepar

If you had a surplus of over £100 you paid a % on all of it not what is over the £100. That is why so many tried to keep under the £100.

debtinfo

10 points for kepar

the way DD wrote it makes it sound that the new rules mean you lose £100 that you would have kept in that situation (obviously the bigger your surplus the less that bit matters) whereas you would actually have lost £50pm in that situation. Also at the same time as the change the IS officially brought in the £10 per person per month emegency fund that did not exist before, so for the average family (2 adults 2 children) you get an extra 40pm in expenses, so in that circumstance you only lost £10pm overall (again there are other circumstances where you would lose out more and i have picked this one as it was previously mentioned).


Also at the same time they reissued the guidance on IPA expenses which loosened some of them up, an example would be internet access which used to hardly ever be allowed and is in most circumstances now, also on thinks like SKY packages where there is a good economical reason to, Also on other things like adult children, supporting children at university, There was also a specific instruction to take extra care to make sure that ALL reasonable expenses were accounted for because there was no longer a percentage left for the bankrupt.

so as you can see it is no where as simple as simply saying we will take all the surplus and leave the bankrupt destitute

Gray-Fox

philnicandamy wrote: »

I agree with others the new IPA rules that came into force were totally unfair the older system worked better in my eyes BUT the insolvency office has to get its monies from somewhere hence the changes (its been in the pipeline for sometime anyhoo)

But i'll refuse anyone help who wants to defraud the system in anyway especially with the legal implications involved

Be careful how you use the term "defraud". Circumventing the system is not fraudulent or criminal in any way.

I'm fed up of people on here acting as though BR is some sort of punishment.

debtinfo

Gray-Fox wrote: »

Be careful how you use the term "defraud". Circumventing the system is not fraudulent or criminal in any way.

I'm fed up of people on here acting as though BR is some sort of punishment.

it is not, but it is also not a get out of jail free card, it is meant to be somewhere in the middle, it comes with roles and responsibilities.

Whilst is is legal to try and avoid an IPA by not working for instance, it is not by artificially inflating ones expenditure for instance, there is a fine line and whilst i would not expect anyone to work themselves into an early grave to pay back as much as possible, i do find it a bit self defeating when one puts their career on hold for the sake of 3 years of IPa payments, even though it is legal and entirely their choice,

on another point i presume that those that encourage the entirely legal pactice Ipa avoidance would also have no problem with the rich doing all they can to avoid paying tax for instance or those debt collectors that stay just inside the law with their techniques

Gray-Fox

debtinfo wrote: »

it is not, but it is also not a get out of
on another point i presume that those that encourage the entirely legal pactice Ipa avoidance would also have no problem with the rich doing all they can to avoid paying tax for instance or those debt collectors that stay just inside the law with their techniques

I'm sorry, but there is a MARKED difference between being stinking rich and paying tax (which we all pay in some way shape or form) and being flat broke and having no surplus.

Being filthy rich and circumventing tax is just plain greed.

Ineedaname

Gray-Fox wrote: »

and being flat broke and having no surplus.

Flat broke and BR? Flat broke and in debt maybe, most people are far better off financially once BR.

Gray-Fox

kepar wrote: »

The thing is GF you have only just gone br, you haven't spoke to the OR about your SOA yet, you do not know for sure how much you are being paid.

Before you make any more uncalled for comments why not wait to see what your OR has to say. You may be lucky and avoid an IPA, but you seem to be on the border so any pay rises or promotions will probably mean you pay an IPA.

How can I be on the border? I have £8.34 remaining, and that's me being modest with my estimations!

kepar

Gray-Fox wrote: »

How can I be on the border? I have £8.34 remaining, and that's me being modest with my estimations!

You do not know your income yet, you are only estimating, what if you are £20 out or more. What if the OR does not allow everything on your SOA.

Like I said you are close to the £20 limit for getting an IPA.

alastairq

I think you're all missing the OP's point...and the OP has a very valid one.

To start with, it is very easy for those of us contributing here, who have actually undergone the BR process, to pass judgement on the intentions of those who are BR under the newer rules.

The IS has moved the goalposts entirely, regarding IPA/IPO's.

And not particularly from the viewpoint of providing more from a BR estate for creditors, either.

Rather, a senior management knee-jerk response, as I have seen so many times recently, to meet budgetary constraints, amongst pretty much the whole Civil Service. [sack half the admin staff, and financially target the line of least resistance.]

There has been little consideration regarding the overall effect on BR of such a policy.

Nor,does it seem, is there any particular concern over the effect.

We have gone, overnight, from a beneficial process, to a punitive process!



Those kind words I received from the Judge can no longer be deemed applicable.


My view is, the OP is entirely right and correct in his/her assertion that, the environment is now ripe to consider avoidance of the risk of IPA if possible.

There is no encouragement from the Establishment to do otherwise.

The only way forward for the IS now, is to impose IPA's regardless of whether a surplus is present or not.....effectively extending BR beyond the current discharge point.

Which in itself would make the current AD system nothing but a token gesture....

Regarding overtime?

I have been advised that, if overtime is worked, but payment is delayed [so as not to show up as income, at that point in time]....then if the OR gets wind of it, post discharge, there may be a case for recovery and imposition, retrospectively, of an IPA.

The same situation arose with CSA payments.

I would advise avoiding,at all costs, any possibility of enhancing one's income pre-discharge, if no IPA has been agreed.


That advice is not given out of any wish to deprive the Treasury, but solely in response to the situation we currently find ourselves in, with regards to BR.


I cannot think of any job I have held, where promotion prospects are damaged by unwillingness to work overtime.

Also, let it not be forgotten that not everybody is enraptured with the falsehood of 'career enhancement'...in the current climate,simply having a job must be considered enough for now?


Another option not considered yet is simply to avoid BR, IVA, or any other formal arrangement.... and simply let the Courts arbitrate an agreement, and administer it for the duration?

If a debtor handles their case properly, the outcome won't be any worse than BR anyway?

Gray-Fox

Brilliant post Alastair.