moonbeaver/IPA!

IF

Ineedaname wrote: »

Handy for some if they get a pay rise though.;)

Indeedy!! :beer:

kepar

But as I stated in an earlier post not handy if they get a pay cut.

fermi

kepar wrote: »

But as I stated in an earlier post not handy if they get a pay cut.

Not really.

You are confusing any binding "duty" to notify of an increase in income under the IPA, with the general ability of the bankrupt to seek variation of the IPA amount if their circumstances change.

If you get a pay cut then you notify the OR and ask for the IPA amount to be varied.

You have a right to ask for that at any point, regardless of the wording of any IPA agreement. You also have the right to seek variation of the IPA amount by the court should the OR/trustee not agree with this.

kepar

also I fully understand that up until the last IPA payment has been made that you have to inform them of change of circumstances/pay rises etc, but so far the only letter we have had says "Up until discharge" we must inform them, not any time during the 36mth ipa.

I agree with what you say fermi, but it surely works both ways up until discharge and then by the wording you cannot change it.

fermi

kepar wrote: »

I agree with what you say fermi, but it surely works both ways up until discharge and then by the wording you cannot change it.

No. The wording in that IPA agreement explicitly states.

"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."

That is very clear that it only applies until discharge.

fermi

Admittedly, it is an odd contradiction, which is presumably what prompted the change in standard IPA wording that most offices have adopted.

I also have a sneaking suspicion that if push comes to shove the OR/trustee might be able to argue on some level that a duty continues to exist; based perhaps on the pre-existing duty to deliver up information pertaining to your bankruptcy to the OR and cooperate.

Would perhaps be a hard one to argue though, given the explicit statement in that IPA wording.

I think any court would rightly say to the OR:

"If that's not what you meant, then why on earth did you write it in the agreement? Or inform the BR otherwise somewhere else?"

As said, taking all the BR paperwork you are required to read and sign on face value, it would seem reasonable to take that statement at face value.

fermi

For reference, to the best of my knowledge, these are the two different wordings.

Old wording.

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.

New wording.

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.

hisandhers1978

That's for the great replies to this post, it's is clearly a wording issue and maybe we have been sent an old version!

This is the whole reason I wondered what moon beavers involvement was, for eg, do the send a new ipoq out for eg around AD time as then I'm sure they would state the obligations on there're paperwork.

What experience do people have on here, what do moonbeam ever do between discharge and that 36th payment?.

davidgmmafan

Mine definitely refers to the term of the IPA, but as its only for the tax I would've paid its unlikely to change unless I get some windfall or increase in salary. If either happens then the IPA wouldn't be a worry as I have (justabout) enough to live on now.

I do think if the wording is wrong nobody could be blamed for believing it. You can't say this is a legally binding document, and then say actually it was worded wrongly, after everyone has signed it...

I would've thought the bankrupt, as a lay person, is entitled to expected the people dealing with the insolvency to be competent. Not you problem if that turns out not to be the case...

hisandhers1978

Does anyone know what letters are sent out from either OR or moonbeaver before discharge?

I mean will the OR want a pre discharge IPOQ doing before discharge and do moonbeaver need one.

Has anyone with an ipa just been left alone from going BR until the end of the IPA?