Obligation to work during bankruptcy

alastairq

hi....before any decisions are made concerning work, whether to cease working, or whether to attempt improvements in pay....someone facing the prospect of BR needs firstly to establish a Statement of Affairs..{SOA].

Coupled with this, advice needs to be sought from the debt charities...if for no other reason than to make oneself fully aware of the implications of petitioning bankruptcy. A Judge will not grant BR until this advice has been sought...this ensures the Petitioner has been made fully aware of the consequences, obligations, duties and rights under BR....the Judge does not want someone coming back later, claiming that their BR should not have been granted because they weren't aware etc etc...

Once the [relatively generous] so-called 'allowances' on an SOA have been thrashed out [on here, as good a place as any??]....then...and only then, will a value judgement be possible as to whether it is worth sacrificing income, work, etc for the sake of a possible IPA..or not, as the case may be?




As has been recently pointed out by experienced posters on here recently....that [£10?] emergency fund thing is new......[ie, not allowable in my day]....and should be viewed as being on top of what can be relatively generous allowances for other items.

Just because one is allowed a certain amount for, say, feeding the family..doesn't mean one has to spend that amount each month.

If a BR individual manages to meet domestic expenses, with some left over, compared to the claimed allowance, then what becomes of that little surplus?

Why?.....Prime fodder for boosting that emergency fund, perhaps?

How many BR's claim the allowed £10 [maybe more now?] per month for haircuts?

When in reality they are bald as coots?

Oooops, another tenner to the fund, perhaps?


Belts may have to be tightened in some respects?....

Lifestyles changed or adjusted, maybe?

But..think on.....?

Pre-BR, where was that emergency fund going to come from?

After all payments had been met?

Bills paid, and whatever left used to put stale bread on the family's table?

The lack of any sort of surplus income is perhaps the reason for BR in the first place....?

Is there an emergency allowance available when claiming Jobseekers?



As again has been mentioned recently, OR's have been recently known to make increases in allowances, to reduce the risk [or amount] of a potential surplus-based IPA.....


I think we need to think much further along the tracks here.....?

mandyl

paul0096 wrote: »

Thanks Mandy, I do understand I am actually quite lucky to have a job and be in good health. I won't give it up lightly. Hope you feel better soon anyway.

Paul

thanks paul. all the best xx

alastairq

Sorry...another point I'd like to make, concerns the reluctance of many to relinquish what they see as a 'social life'....?

Or..perhaps ...the 'ability' to go out for a few pints every week....or perhaps a meal with the spouse, etc?

Question...how was this 'social life' funded pre-BR?

When..after [reasonable?] living expenses were deducted, debt payments needed to be made?

If making payments on those debts..or not, as the case may be, left an individual so short of readies, they considered BR as the only option...what was funding those occasional nights out?


Socialising is funded under the monthly household expenses...food, clothing etc.

It must stand to reason, that if a night out is planned, funding for it must result in economies elsewhere?

That surely happens under any circumstances?

Unless one is lucky enough to have sufficient surplus income, that one is hard-put to decide what to spend it on?

Oh yes, is that not a contributory reason for ending up with excessive debt in the first instance?

Bankruptcy.....isn't just about fiscal change...it is about an ideological change.

Bankruptcy allows us, in effect, the opportunity to become self-reliant.

Able to survive solely within our means.

This must result in a change of expectations?

Otherwise, we simply end up going down the road that led to BR in the first place?

Or...end up simply using BR as a tool to better utilise debt?

An approach I think many of us find morally abhorrent?

freddy911

Heres my take on this, obviously nothing anything anyone says on these forums will make you change your mind but anyway ill add my opinion.

I went BR 2 months ago and originally was told I would not have to pay an IPA, this is with alot bigger salary than £450 a month that you say you earn, I was determined not to to get an IPA after this but was struggling not to take overtime that would rise my income and may lead to an IPA. A few weeks back I posted a thread called IPA Avoidance which raised a few eyebrows to say the least. Anyway a few days affter this I was given a promotion that would undoubtedly lead to an IPA. Putting my career first I took the promotion and informed the OR, I have just signed my IPA agreement and have got to say my experiance is the allowances are very fair, I added £100 ontop of what I was already earning which the OR allowed and then they only asked for 50% of the surplus. While I admit this is not everyones experiance im very pleased with the outcome, added to this is the loss of the stress and worry I was going through over getting an IPA in the first place and the sence of peace that comes with knowing that your doing the right thing and at least contributing to the debts to some extent. I'm far better off than I was with the debts both financially and mentally.

Is it really worth been out of work for 12 months and risking not getting employed again? for a minimal IPA? but with your income I would really be suprised if you got one anyway.

Why dont you post up your income and expenditure for the experts to take a look at?

andyf1980

I can see both sides of the IPA avoidance thing. Sounds as though you've been really lucky with the 50% IPA Freddy911 :T

I've not been around long enough to know if there were similar discussions about IPAs under the old rules but I guess there will always be people who try and avoid one.

I was unemployed when I went br and was lucky enough to get a job in the first month having been unemployed for nearly 6 months. My income was not enough to be given an IPA - living in a really expensive part of the country :mad:.

I certainly wouldn't have wanted to be unemployed for the whole year; not good for my sanity. It has made me think twice about taking on more responsibility though. IMHO it isn't worthwhile taking on extra stress/responsibility when all extra money will be taken for the next 3 years. I really do think I would have thought differently about this if I'd received a 70% ipa under the old rules. Maybe that's a bit of a short term view and I understand why people disagree but it's how I feel!

LL30

Might be worth remembering that if you quit your job you will be sanctioned up to 26 weeks by the JCP so wouldn't receive JSA during that time.