I'm almost there!

fermi

mandyl wrote: »

was hoping someone could re assure her that they wont actually make her get rid of them? i dont know if animals are sold as assetts?

They can't 'make' her do that.

Animals are only assets if they are very valuable ones and are not pets as such. i.e. pedigree breeding animals etc held for that purpose.

Reasonable pets costs are often allowed by the OR, including sometimes insurance. But on a case by case basis depending on individual needs and that they are not excessive.

As already said several times, if the OR reduces the amount allowed in an IPA calculation for pets, it just means that you need to find the difference somewhere else.

It's only disallowed for the 'calculation'. Not in any other way.

NeverAgain_2

Ineedaname wrote: »

Good point NA - brilliant cheap way to feed the dogs.

Fleur probably has meals for herself as part of her shift.

Will the OR be interested in that?

If not, what with food for the dogs as well, she could be in a good position when it comes to setting the budget.

mandyl

Ineedaname wrote: »

Please read my above comments again. It's most likely the OR would only allow a certain amount for pet care and then it would be up to the BR to find the rest of the money from within other allowances.

At the end of the day if anyone cannot afford to keep the animals they have then a decision needs to be made.

SORRY I SPOKE INAN!!
i was only trying to help a upset friend !!!

kepar

The thing is if she was on benefits it would not be an issue. As long as she had enough in benefits to cover her outgoings, then it would not matter to the OR where the money was spent. But because she has the audacity to have a job she may not be able maintain the upkeep of the pets. I feel sorry with her plight.

dojoman

I know all examiners are different, but I was allowed £25 per month for my dog, so hopefully you should not have a problem, fingers crossed for you:)


mandy, no need to apologise:) you have not done anything wrong.

Ineedaname

Mandy - wasn't having a go at you.

davidgmmafan

I tried really hard to find a figure but in the end couldn't because its not there. However here is what I found...

http://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov.uk/foi08/docs/Copy of Household Expenditur.xls

The relevent bit is here



"31.7.116 Assessing claims for family outgoings such as clothing, laundry, pets, hairdressing, holidays, sundries and emergencies etc.
Claims for the essential replacement and laundry of clothing (which may in some circumstances include dry-cleaning) should normally be included as a reasonable domestic need in any income payments calculation. What is considered reasonable will depend on the individual circumstances of the bankrupt and his/her family. Where a bankrupt records higher than average outgoings for clothing or laundry, when compared with the HES, he/she should be asked to provide further explanation/evidence as to why the higher amount is required. In deciding whether an amount above the average should be allowed to enable the bankrupt and his/her family to meet their reasonable domestic needs, the official receiver should consider whether the bankrupt’s household includes, for example, young children or a family member with a diagnosed medical condition, who require frequent changes of clothing or bedding etc. Other factors to consider are the nature of the bankrupt's employment and clothing requirements arising e.g. whether he/she is required by his/her employer to fund specific clothing relevant to his/her employment (see also paragraph 31.7.107).
Other general household expenditure such as hairdressing, family holidays and additional allowances for pet expenses: food, insurance etc. should be considered on an individual basis. No amounts should be included for these types of expenditure where it cannot be evidenced that the expenditure is fulfilling a reasonable domestic need given the particular circumstances of the bankrupt and his/her family. Where any household/family expenditure claimed appears above average or excessive, further explanation and evidence should be sought. Where no evidence is provided to the official receiver to justify the excess expenditure, he/she should either disallow the expenditure or, where appropriate, include a reduced amount for that item, referring to the average expenditure guidance for a similar sized family unit in the HES.
An allowance for sundries and emergencies of £10 per month for the bankrupt and £10 per month for each dependant household member may be included as an expense in all income and expenditure assessments commenced after 1 December 2010 for a new IPA/IPO. So for example, an assessment for a bankrupt living with a partner and 2 children in the same household could include an amount of £40 per month for sundries and emergencies."

Hope this helps. There is no hard and fast rule but remember the OR and the court have a duty of care, if you have been reduced to tears by the CAB appointment I doubt they would take a hard line...

Finally you comments about the CAB have given me a new perspective which perhaps I hadn't appreciated before. I would certainly recommend sending them some constructive feedback but I quite understand that you have more pressing concerns at this time.

mandyl

Ineedaname wrote: »

Mandy - wasn't having a go at you.

my apologies

~Fleur~

davidgmmafan wrote: »

I tried really hard to find a figure but in the end couldn't because its not there. However here is what I found...

http://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov.uk/foi08/docs/Copy of Household Expenditur.xls

The relevent bit is here



"31.7.116 Assessing claims for family outgoings such as clothing, laundry, pets, hairdressing, holidays, sundries and emergencies etc.
Claims for the essential replacement and laundry of clothing (which may in some circumstances include dry-cleaning) should normally be included as a reasonable domestic need in any income payments calculation. What is considered reasonable will depend on the individual circumstances of the bankrupt and his/her family. Where a bankrupt records higher than average outgoings for clothing or laundry, when compared with the HES, he/she should be asked to provide further explanation/evidence as to why the higher amount is required. In deciding whether an amount above the average should be allowed to enable the bankrupt and his/her family to meet their reasonable domestic needs, the official receiver should consider whether the bankrupt’s household includes, for example, young children or a family member with a diagnosed medical condition, who require frequent changes of clothing or bedding etc. Other factors to consider are the nature of the bankrupt's employment and clothing requirements arising e.g. whether he/she is required by his/her employer to fund specific clothing relevant to his/her employment (see also paragraph 31.7.107).
Other general household expenditure such as hairdressing, family holidays and additional allowances for pet expenses: food, insurance etc. should be considered on an individual basis. No amounts should be included for these types of expenditure where it cannot be evidenced that the expenditure is fulfilling a reasonable domestic need given the particular circumstances of the bankrupt and his/her family. Where any household/family expenditure claimed appears above average or excessive, further explanation and evidence should be sought. Where no evidence is provided to the official receiver to justify the excess expenditure, he/she should either disallow the expenditure or, where appropriate, include a reduced amount for that item, referring to the average expenditure guidance for a similar sized family unit in the HES.
An allowance for sundries and emergencies of £10 per month for the bankrupt and £10 per month for each dependant household member may be included as an expense in all income and expenditure assessments commenced after 1 December 2010 for a new IPA/IPO. So for example, an assessment for a bankrupt living with a partner and 2 children in the same household could include an amount of £40 per month for sundries and emergencies."

Hope this helps. There is no hard and fast rule but remember the OR and the court have a duty of care, if you have been reduced to tears by the CAB appointment I doubt they would take a hard line...

Finally you comments about the CAB have given me a new perspective which perhaps I hadn't appreciated before. I would certainly recommend sending them some constructive feedback but I quite understand that you have more pressing concerns at this time.

Thankyou very much for taking the time to post.. Tears are now dried, tho I still admit to feeling weak and anxious. I really liked the ideas regarding feeding the dogs via my work as a chef but it is not practical as we have hardly any waste :T and what we do have is not good for dogs!
Thanks all for your input, I really appreciate your help and advice