IPO v IPA?

AdvicePlease

Is there much difference, other than the obvious which is that one is a signed agreement and the other is imposed by the court? I have read the threads on this subject but still not clear about it

Basically I have challenged the OR about my IPA and have been told that I can have it assessed in court if I wish - quite honestly I cannot see the point, because I believe that the judge is likely to have the same attitude as the OR on my challenge But I wondered what the differences would be?

debtinfo

Thet are much the same, The main difference being that the IPA is by agreement so it is negotiated whereas the the IPO is ordered by the judge and that decision is binding be it more, less or similar to what the OR was offering.

The other main difference is that any future change has to be approved by the court as well and since an order is in place it is quicker and easier to apply for enforcement such as direct deduction from wages

debt_doctor

I wonder why you would dispute an IPA - Do you think the offered IPA is unfair?

If you think it is unfair then you should challenge it, but, potentially be prepared for what the Insolvency Service may or may not do.

Can you give us an example?

DD

AdvicePlease

With respect DebtDoctor, since it is certainly not you who have expressed the opinions I have already experienced in this forum, I dont think it would be worth me explaining in detail why I am disputing my IVA?

My objections are fundamentally connected with disputing what the Insolvency Service are prepared to accept as 'essential' expenditure, which I personally feel discriminates against those who have chosen (for example) not to have children but to make other choices in life..... but I have already been told in no uncertain terms that my view is not the 'popular' or 'acceptable' view in users of this forum?

But thank you to you, and to Debtinfo, for your replies - I think I am going to have to accept what I perceive as unfairness, and just make my payments for 36 months regardless.....

debt_doctor

You could always send me a PM with your thoughts or objections - or direct me to any thread of your choice.

DD

kepar

AdvicePlease wrote: »

With respect DebtDoctor, since it is certainly not you who have expressed the opinions I have already experienced in this forum, I dont think it would be worth me explaining in detail why I am disputing my IVA?

My objections are fundamentally connected with disputing what the Insolvency Service are prepared to accept as 'essential' expenditure, which I personally feel discriminates against those who have chosen (for example) not to have children but to make other choices in life..... but I have already been told in no uncertain terms that my view is not the 'popular' or 'acceptable' view in users of this forum?

But thank you to you, and to Debtinfo, for your replies - I think I am going to have to accept what I perceive as unfairness, and just make my payments for 36 months regardless.....

I am sorry that the OR doesn't agree with you

Maybe some of us on here know what will be acceptable to the OR, you put up your case. It didn't win us over and by looking at your comments you did not win the OR over either.
Maybe things are unfair, but you will find life as a bankrupt unfair. So get used to it.
Your life will take a long time to get where you want it to.

So the OR would not give you your allowance for your animals, why should they come before your creditors???????????????

debtinfo

Its worth pointing out that although the OR wins most IPO cases, they dont win them all, mistakes can happen or sometimes you just gets a judge that takes a particular view on a subject. Rarer than that but still occasionally happens is that the applicant convinces the judge to set a new precedent. This is because there is no real specifics set down in the insolvency act, simply that the expenditure be reasonable, everything else is set down by precedents in cases brought since, so whilst it is unlikely that a judge would agree with you it is not impossible

alastairq

Aside from the added difficulties in getting an IPO changed to suit subsequent [and probably unforeseen] changes of circumstance, there is little practical difference.

The Court is simply a binding arbiter.

However, if an individual not only feels they have an argument, but has strong evidence to support that argument, then by all means compel the OR to go to Court for a decision.

The Judge listens to argument, and decides, according to the evidence presented.

Simple...

What can the OP lose? [especially given their belief in the strength of their evidence?}

debtinfo

alastairq wrote: »

What can the OP lose?

Well again a slight note of caution, although it doesent happen very often i have seen cases where the judge has granted a larger IPO than the OR was asking for, doesent happen very often and was more common when the sliding scale was in place (ie the sliding scale was the OR's choice and not binding on the judges and some judges wernt fond of allowing a bankrupt to keep 50% of their surplus) so probably less likely nowdays but it is possible that the judge may not like some of the expenditure the OR has allowed.

but in general

OR wins is most common

Bankrupt gets a reduction is next most common

IPO gets increased is least common

alastairq

[especially given their belief in the strength of their evidence?}

Aptly put, DI....but the nub of my comment was as above..........?

AdvicePlease

kepar wrote: »

I am sorry that the OR doesn't agree with you

Maybe some of us on here know what will be acceptable to the OR, you put up your case. It didn't win us over and by looking at your comments you did not win the OR over either.
Maybe things are unfair, but you will find life as a bankrupt unfair. So get used to it.
Your life will take a long time to get where you want it to.

So the OR would not give you your allowance for your animals, why should they come before your creditors???????????????

Et voila, an excellent example of why I was not prepared to go into further detail about my thoughts - this user is someone who yet again is prepared to pass judgement on what they think the situation is, when they know none of the facts.

For obvious reasons I do not discuss my bankruptcy widely in real life, and when I found this forum I was seeking an avenue where I could ask questions/seek advice/gain support in an objective way and without being judged. This forum claims to be such an avenue, but unfortunately a few regular users (Kepar amongst them) appear to think they have carte blanche to be offensive, judgemental and narrow minded when they know none of the facts surrounding a situation.