Important info re insolvency and benefit overpayments

debt_doctor

fermi wrote: »

I would assume it would be treated in the way that arrears of benefits normally are?

i.e. cannot be claimed as an asset, but can effect an existing or new IPA?

yes but that changed (somehow?) a while ago and now allows such arrears of benefit to be claimed............

debtinfo

so i imagine the only people that would be affected are

1) either still in bankrupty or IPA

and

2) have a non benefit source of income

and

3) will with the returned money have a surplus of income

fermi

debt_doctor wrote: »

yes but that changed (somehow?) a while ago and now allows such arrears of benefit to be claimed............

I think what changed is the policy on claiming it under an IPA. As discussed above. Not that they could claim it as an asset in it's own right?

I could be wrong, but can't see any ref to claiming as an (after acquired) asset in the TM/CHM?

debt_doctor

fermi wrote: »

I think what changed is the policy on claiming it under an IPA. As discussed above. Not that they could claim it as an asset in it's own right?

I could be wrong, but can't see any ref to claiming as an (after acquired) asset in the TM/CHM?

Just digging.......... give me a few minutes!

fermi

That's the thing. I have a niggling half memory of it being more than just the IPA part? Was it and they backtracked? Or was it just idle speculation on some thread here? Or can I just not find it in the TM?

debt_doctor

debt_doctor wrote: »

Just digging.......... give me a few minutes!

Been checking and I think Ive managed to confuse myself!:o

I think the position is as you describe and only relevant within the scope of being placed alongside earned income.

DD

debt_doctor

fermi wrote: »

That's the thing. I have a niggling half memory of it being more than just the IPA part? Was it and they backtracked? Or was it just idle speculation on some thread here? Or can I just not find it in the TM?

Exactly my thoughts so I looked back to a thread I answered on the subject where Tigerfeet had posted a letter of yours regarding the payments being exempt as an asset and not vesting in the trustee.
In that thread I highlighted the TM quote as from DI earlier in this thread. It is that addition to the TM that was the change -
Confusion over:o;)

fermi

lol. I'm probably (badly) recalling the same thread.

debt_doctor

debtinfo wrote: »

so i imagine the only people that would be affected are

1) either still in bankrupty or IPA

and

2) have a non benefit source of income

and

3) will with the returned money have a surplus of income

Yes, I would go with that.

DD

debtinfo

I think what you might be remembering was that they used to lump the whole repayment as income in one month which would give the bankrupt a large surplus in that month which usually ended up with 70% being taken as a one off ipa

So sort of halfway between looking like an asset or income