Assets under bankruptcy...

AdvicePlease

I thought usual case for assets under bankruptcy was that the OR would not be interested in anything with a value of under £1,000?

I have just had a letter from my OR stating that I must find some one to pay £250 for 4 items (2 ancient saddles and 2 ancient bridles) which I have for the horse???!!! This is the total value of 4 items, not the price for each item - is it my imagination, or is my OR being extremely unhelpful with this? :mad:

Flyright

You lose control of all your assets in bankruptcy (apart from those required for basic domestic needs). The OR may exempt a vehicle up to the value of £1000 but everything else you own falls into the bankruptcy. It's up to the OR as to whether assets are realised or not.

AdvicePlease

Ah so she is being unhelpful then :mad: That is no surprise based on my experiences with her so far :mad:

Thanks for the reply Flyright

fermi

It's not so much that the OR can't touch non exempt items worth under £1,000. They can.

It's more that in the vast majority of cases they just aren't worth claiming for the estate. i.e. the costs of collecting, storing, auctioning/selling mean that it's just not worth it. Plus most second-hand domestic items would only fetch a tiny fraction of their "new" value at auction, rendering them effectively worthless.

These saddles seem to be an exception to that. Presumably because they hold therer 2nd hand value well, and the OR thinks they are worth the bother of trying to sell?

Hard to say whether a different examiner/OR would make the same decision....

AdvicePlease

That is exactly what I find so annoying Fermi, that the whole process is so subjective and is determined by the whim/opinion of an OR rather than a set procedure which is applied to all nationally on an equal basis?

Saddles do hold their worth second hand but these ones are (a) in very poor condition as I cannot afford to have them repaired and (b) altered to fit the particular horse I ride. I am almost inclined to say to the OR that she can seize them, and good luck in getting any decent value for them!

I resent it more because it is absolutely the only asset I have (other than my car, which is obviously vital for getting to work) - ALL my furniture was donated by friends/obtained from Freecycle when I was forced to move out of a mobile home into my present house in January this year, my clothes are pretty much all from Tescos/Primark etc because I cannot afford anything else - perhaps she would like to sell some of that off as well, she might get £50 or so for it :mad:

debtinfo

AdvicePlease wrote: »

That is exactly what I find so annoying Fermi, that the whole process is so subjective and is determined by the whim/opinion of an OR rather than a set procedure which is applied to all nationally on an equal basis?

Im afraid that the problem seems to be that you missunderstand how assets are dealt with in bankrupty. There is a simple set procedure laid down in law, what you (and alot of other people btw) missunderstand is that procedure determines what is a bankruptcy asset on the basis of the catagory or asset first rather than solely on the value of an asset. That main rule being that an asset may be exempt on the basis of it being for the bankrupts reasonable and domestic need. If it is not then it is a bankruptcy asset regardless of its worth, It is a fairly simple rule, but as with any rule there will always be items that stray near the edge and a person needs to aduticate as to whether it fits that description (ie there cannot be a master list of every item ever produced with a definite in or out) and that person in the first instance is the OR who does so as an officer of the court

AdvicePlease

debtinfo wrote: »

Im afraid that the problem seems to be that you missunderstand how assets are dealt with in bankrupty. There is a simple set procedure laid down in law, what you (and alot of other people btw) missunderstand is that procedure determines what is a bankruptcy asset on the basis of the catagory or asset first rather than solely on the value of an asset. That main rule being that an asset may be exempt on the basis of it being for the bankrupts reasonable and domestic need. If it is not then it is a bankruptcy asset regardless of its worth, It is a fairly simple rule, but as with any rule there will always be items that stray near the edge and a person needs to aduticate as to whether it fits that description (ie there cannot be a master list of every item ever produced with a definite in or out) and that person in the first instance is the OR who does so as an officer of the court

So why have other OR's allowed other horse owners to keep their 'assets'? Even to the extent where they (the bankrupt) is the legal owner of the horse, so clearly the horse is an asset (which is not the case for me), yet the OR has allowed the owner to keep the horse and associated equipment? As I have said before on this forum, I know for a fact that this has happened - hence my view that it is a subjective situation

AdvicePlease

justjohn wrote: »

It open to interpretation one Or's decision/view may not be the next

Exactly - which leads me back to my original question, why is the administration of my bankruptcy subject to the whim/opinion of an individual rather than following clearly defined national guidance on such matters. I hardly think this will be the first time they have dealt with a case like mine, so previous experience should be used to inform future decision making - or, as it is known in my company, 'OPEX' - learning from operational experience

kation

A couple of things:

(1) I'm assuming the OR is not interested in the horses as they aren't racehorses and they wouldn't be economical to have them valued.

(2) If the OR won't let you keep the saddles for nil payment (did you offer the valuation to them?Was it realistic?) then I would offer to deliver them to the OR's office ASAP, unwashed and smelling alot of horse, in an old cardboard box. If they insist that they are worth something, let them sell them - it is not your duty to sell the asset on their behalf. They can't just dump them...

JCS1

I suspect that it is not a decision that the examiner has made alone, anything out of the ordinary (and this would be) they would tend to discuss with the Assistant Official Receiver assigned to your case first.

I would suggest writing to the AOR and set out your case for the valuation of them etc.

It is also worth noting that much smaller assets do get realised - £1 premium bonds get cashed in for example.

debtinfo

No 2 cases are the same, even if they seem superficially similar, that is why the OR is there, to make judgement calls.

I would add that all the OR's decisions are appealabe to the court if you feel that they are fundamentally contrary to a point of law.

I should also add that there are also occasions where an asset may lawfully be part of the bankruptcy. Ie it is not legaly yours to keep but where the OR may use their discretion to allow the person to keep it