Beware - they never forget.

Mike_St_Helens

davelacey wrote: »

That depends on general circumstances - i.e. the value of your interest in your house vs. the amount you went bankrupt for.

Today, I was told by the OR that the reason for applying a charge on my beneficial interest in our house was to protect their interest, and to free us to sell the property ourselves if we so wished.
In my case - they are pursuing the total debt I owe to creditors - they are not pursuing the whole of my beneficial interest in my home.

They are not forcing a sale of the property - they tell me that if we chose to do nothing, the interest on my debt would "simply" accrue compound interest at the rate of 8% per annum - and when myself and my wife died, then they would take their cut then.

I would strongly suggest, though, that you contact the OR to ascertain your own individual position.

Jeepers.. Thats harsh though isnt it !! 8%.. !!

davelacey

Mike_St_Helens wrote: »

Jeepers.. Thats harsh though isnt it !! 8%.. !!

Yes it is Mike - especially considering it's compound interest.
I hate to say it - but it looks like whatever circumstances one goes bankrupt in - sooner or later - money from the property - in whatever amount - will find it's way to the OR.

Interesting point came up during my latest convo with the OR though.

Considering that they're only pursuing me for my actual debt - what happens if lenders at time have "written off" those debts against tax relief.

Are those "written off" debts deducted from the amount that the OR is pursuing?

I'm still waiting on an answer from the OR on that.

*watch this space*

macsacel

Erikin wrote: »

…”trying to glean info on this IPA business post discharge”


When entering into an IPA you will be asked to sign a document which is a statuary contract. This binds you to the agreement which allows for its future change, variation etc., during its 3 years period even after discharge.

If for some reason you refused to agree to an IPA the Official Receiver will take you to Court and seek a court order for an IPO whether you like it or not. And likewise the court order can and will be changed / varied / updated if need be during its 3 year period.

So even if you are discharged from bankruptcy after 1 year, you can still be dealing with a trustee some 3 years plus a few months later - the few months accounting for the time of BO to setting up the IPA/ IPO.

Default means suspension of your discharge.

The OR has never discussed an IPA with me, His first contact with me since my interview with him in 2003 was In September last year. Does this mean that he can now enforce an IPA? I can't make head nor tail of it.

I don't begrudge them having the interest I had in a property at the time of my bankruptcy, but I do find it distressing that they can now presumably force me to make payments for the next 3 years from now, 2 years after I was discharged. And they are also harrasing my ex wife with regards her own home, one she bought outright in her own name after our divorce. Me having handed over my interest in our then home in a divorce settlement in 2000.

davelacey

macsacel wrote: »

I don't begrudge them having the interest I had in a property at the time of my bankruptcy, but I do find it distressing that they can now presumably force me to make payments for the next 3 years from now, 2 years after I was discharged.

Under the new rules, the "3 year period" is the amount of time the OR is allowed by law to deal with any beneficial interest you have in a property after your bankruptcy.

For those who went bankrupt prior to 1st April 2004 (which is when the Act became law), then an OR has until 1st April 2007 to deal with those people.

Erikin_2

Macsacel - there are two issues here.

Income Payments: The bankrupt must be undischarged at the time the Order is made or the Agreement signed. So as a discharged bankrupt income payments cannot apply to you.

Interest in property: Trustee has until 1 April 07 to at least start action to recover your beneficial interest. And really you should know if action is being taken by someone being served official documentation. But as an aside, not straight forward if funds are transferred prior to bankruptcy – trustee can go back in time before BO date to see if such transfers can be deemed as assets for the estate. That is where advice is needed.

macsacel

Erikin wrote: »

Macsacel - there are two issues here.

Income Payments: The bankrupt must be undischarged at the time the Order is made or the Agreement signed. So as a discharged bankrupt income payments cannot apply to you.

Interest in property: Trustee has until 1 April 07 to at least start action to recover your beneficial interest. And really you should know if action is being taken by someone being served official documentation. But as an aside, not straight forward if funds are transferred prior to bankruptcy – trustee can go back in time before BO date to see if such transfers can be deemed as assets for the estate. That is where advice is needed.

Thanks with regards the 1st. That's what I thought, so I'm not returning the income/expenditure form.

As regards the latter the interest in my property should, hopefully cover the cost of what I went bankrupt for. But no doubt the trustees fees will be huge.

danno_4

davelacey wrote: »

Yes it is Mike - especially considering it's compound interest.
I hate to say it - but it looks like whatever circumstances one goes bankrupt in - sooner or later - money from the property - in whatever amount - will find it's way to the OR.

Interesting point came up during my latest convo with the OR though.

Considering that they're only pursuing me for my actual debt - what happens if lenders at time have "written off" those debts against tax relief.

Are those "written off" debts deducted from the amount that the OR is pursuing?

I'm still waiting on an answer from the OR on that.

*watch this space*

Hi dave,the points you make are quite corect they will write off the losses they have acured.however they will still pursue there legal debt that you owe,i am quit amaised. that the OR could not give you an answer although not surprised.Regards the property was there much equity inthere,if so was your wife offered the chance to buy your part out.
regards
danno

davelacey

danno wrote: »

Hi dave,the points you make are quite corect they will write off the losses they have acured.however they will still pursue there legal debt that you owe,i am quit amaised. that the OR could not give you an answer although not surprised.Regards the property was there much equity inthere,if so was your wife offered the chance to buy your part out.
regards
danno

Hi danno.
Yes, my wife was given the opportunity to buy my interest out - sadly, though, that's not an option.

davelacey

The saga continues.

A letter from the OR details his breakdown of figures as shown below.

Comparison value of property: £115000.00
Less 3% selling fees: £ 3450.00
Estimate outstanding mortgage: £ 31006.99
Equity: £ 80503.01

Less: Mrs. L's 50% Interest: £ 40271.50
OR's Interest: £ 40271.50

Amount of charging order being
made, which is the amount of
liabilities in the bankruptcy
estate: £ 17200.64

The lettter opens as follows.

"It has not proved possible for me to realise your interest in 1, Animal Avenue, Muppetsville. Consequently I intend to apply to court for an order under the provisions of section 313 of the Insolvency Act, 1986, that your interest in the property shall stand charged with:

a) £17200.64 being the amount of your interest in the property at the date of application, plus

b) Interest on that amount at the rate of 8 per cent per annum form the date of the charging order, :eek: plus

c) All other amounts which are payable otherwise than to me out of the estate, that is the fees, costs, charges, and expenses of the bankruptcy proceedings."

Wow!!! Isn't that impressive!!! And it only took them 11 years to get round to doing this. :rolleyes:

Here's a question for anyone out there with some legal knowledge.

"It has not proved possible for me to realise your interest in 1, Animal Avenue, Muppetsville."
Why???

I'm awaiting an answer from the OR on this too - something else they couldn't answer over the phone.

Richard_S

davelacey wrote: »

Here's a question for anyone out there with some legal knowledge.

"It has not proved possible for me to realise your interest in 1, Animal Avenue, Muppetsville."
Why???

I'm awaiting an answer from the OR on this too - something else they couldn't answer over the phone.

Hi dave,

If your O.H had bought your equitable interest or the house had been sold then the O.R would have been able to "realise your interest". Given that hasn't happened "It has not proved possible for him to realise your interest".
The charge will stay on the house until such time as the property is sold and the O.R will receive whatever funds he is due after any first mortgage is paid.

Regards

Richard