How to Challenge an Income Payment Agreement

dojoman

Until you are discharged then an IPA can be set up, but as the others have said contact your OR and explain the situation to him.
As for someone calling DI provocative, what a joke that is, read his many posts and you will see all the help he has given to many many people on here, myself included. My IPA comes to an end in a few months, and I for one do not regret having to pay something back to my creditors.

coolcait

OP, if you don't agree with the IPA, you can challenge it. If your circumstances have changed since the last time you filled in the forms, you should let the OR know immediately - with details of the changes.

On a more general level, in terms of the thread. Anyone can post an opinion. It's helpful if they differentiate between the areas which are opinion and the areas which are fact.

So, whilst it may be someone's opinion that all debts should be written off at the date of bankruptcy, the fact is that this isn't how it works.

As I have stated before, although I can't now find the most recent thread where I made the point:

- you remain personally liable for your debts until the date you are discharged. Your OR/trustee takes on the responsibility of dealing with your creditors, on your behalf. But your liability for the debts has not yet been discharged.

- when you receive your personal discharge from bankruptcy, you are no longer personally liable for the debts. But they still exist.

- hence IPAs/IPOs. And the sale of assets.

- your debts are only truly "written off" once the OR/trustee is discharged.

Any post which suggests that debts are 'written off' at the date of bankruptcy is incorrect. Therefore, it should be challenged.

If the poster then builds on that 'misunderstanding' to make further arguments, those arguments should also be challenged - not least on the grounds that the poster has misunderstood the process. And is presenting a misleading account of how bankruptcy works.

I'm very sorry to learn that the earlier thread has been deleted. I read it all, and saw an opening post which was fairly provocative in its terms, IMO.

However, it was answered in a factual way, with a number of posters explaining how and when debts are actually 'written off' in a bankruptcy.

A couple of posters expressed their personal view that (paraphrasing) those who can pay something should pay. I have no difficulty with that view, and I saw no 'attack'.

One poster gave a personal account of the experience of a someone who was owed damages. However, the person who was found liable to pay the damages entered bankruptcy and (from the poster's point of view) put his assets beyond the reach of anyone.

As a result, the poster and his/her partner had difficulty managing their own debt, and are currently part of the way through a DMP. Again, I saw no attacks or judgements on the OP of that thread.

The OP on that thread posted a very long reply, alleging that others had judged and attacked. They had not, IMO. Others had corrected some basic factual misunderstandings on the OP's part, or provided a different opinion/viewpoint.

The OP also described the hardships endured by his/her family during the bankruptcy. Effectively, they described the life of any family living on a budget.

That description appeared to me to be at odds with the OP's description in other posts of the effects of bankruptcy on him/her and their family.

Unfortunately, the thread was locked at that point. Which meant that no one could challenge the OP's points.

So, in this instance, a lack of challenge doesn't mean that those who read the thread agreed with the OP.

coolcait

Opinions are one thing, facts are another. Sometimes the two get tangled up.

It is important that the factual information given on this board is as accurate as possible. Sometimes it's necessary to do some untangling.

So, when you say "I personally think when someone goes bankrupt, for the *first* time, that they shouldn't have to pay anything back at all, and even if you earn more income in that first year" that is pure opinion. It doesn't have the potential to mislead anyone about the way bankruptcy works.

However, when you say "IMO, once the debt has been bankrupted, it's gone" that is more complicated. It may be your opinion that the debt has gone. But, the fact is that it hasn't.

Your statement has the potential to mislead people about the way bankruptcy works. So, it is important to ensure that the facts are clearly re-stated.

Similarly, it is completely normal for people to get some kind of income & expenditure review form during the period of their bankruptcy. That is a fact. Your personal experience may have been different. However, it is important to ensure that the OP, and other readers, are aware that it is the norm to receive a review form.

If you are givng out erroneous factual information, or muddling opinion with fact, then that is not helpful. Nor is it helpful to treat a correction as an attack.

Flapjackman

Hope you all sort out your differences.

As an update..I have taken some independent advice. It would appear that I can challenge this and have a good case as there are a few things that have changed and also things I did not account for in my expenditure. I should basically ask for an IPOQ review and a breakdown of how they came to their decision..all of which the OR must provide.

I will update you on the OR's interpretation of the facts when I have a response.

debt_doctor

Flapjackman wrote: »

Hope you all sort out your differences.

As an update..I have taken some independent advice. It would appear that I can challenge this and have a good case as there are a few things that have changed and also things I did not account for in my expenditure. I should basically ask for an IPOQ review and a breakdown of how they came to their decision..all of which the OR must provide.

I will update you on the OR's interpretation of the facts when I have a response.

Yes indeed you can, I often do since the 'regime' change in Dec 2010. I challenged 3 IPA s last week alone.
Basically an IPA is an agreement, so agree or not.
If not, then point out your reasons for not doing so and await the reply.
The OR has a choice to withdraw / amend the IPA or not. The OR has a choice to go to court for an IPO or not.
In all the ones I have said no to, then so far, the IS have backed down, but no guarentee that they will next time or indeed a first time in your area - I deal with one office and one RTLU.
Good luck.

DD

kepar

Lou67 wrote: »

I have never heard of this happen, but then the only people I know who have ever been bankrupt are me and hubby and two other couples who rarely discuss anything. This sounds a bit unusual. I thought that if an IPA had not been decided by the OR after the bankruptcy, then that was it, unless you come into some significant amount of money (inheritance/lottery win etc...) We didn't have an IPA because we were so very poor and barely had a pot to pee in, and nobody ever asked us to fill in any forms 'after' the bankruptcy. All the income and expenditure was done prior to the bankruptcy, and the OR went off that for any financial info. I wonder why you're having to fill extra stuff in? Maybe things have changed.

I suggest you go to the CAB or contact the OR directly, and ask why you're being asked to pay £74 a month now. That is a big chunk of income out of MOST peoples' salary. And it does seem odd that it's just being asked for now, so close to discharge. Does it say how long they're proposing to take the money.. I personally think when someone goes bankrupt, for the *first* time, that they shouldn't have to pay anything back at all, and even if you earn more income in that first year, as IMO, once the debt has been bankrupted, it's gone, but obviously not everyone is going to agree with that.

Have to say, what is being proposed with you, sounds unreasonable and unfair. It is definitely worth challenging; no WAY should you be paying anything, especially THIS close to discharge.

You cannot go off the one or two people you know. Hundreds have posted on here over the years and some have been given IPA's sometimes days before their discharge. If the OP declared a surplus with his new SOA then the OR can and should issue a SOA for three years. The OP should have informed the OR of any changes since that date.
The problem as I see it is that even if the OR changes the spare amount to possibly £0 will that cancel the IPA or will it still be allowed to stand.
The process has started and the OR could defer the discharge date until this matter is settled.

By the way £74 is pretty low for most IPA'S as most br's could lose that in their allowances, if they claim the correctly. It is those with £200+ who have the most trouble and end paying that.

wildheart83

OP just to let you know I was in a similar position whereby my circumstances changed, the OR (well trustee since I'm north of the border) wanted to set up a ridiculous IPA, and I queried it. My circumstances changed again about 5 weeks before discharge. I was still negotiating my IPA with the trustee and my AD date came and went and an IPA was never given.

Lou67

kepar wrote: »

You cannot go off the one or two people you know. .

I know that. This is why I said, 'I have never heard of this happen, but then I haven't known many people go bankrupt;' I didn't say it was a fact that this has never happened. Just that *I* had never heard it happen.

After reading the posts here, I now know that you CAN get an IPA right up to the day before your bankruptcy ends. Hopefully the OP can get things sorted and not end up having to pay £74 a month for potentially up to 3 years. As DebtDoctor said - you can challenge it, and I ruddy well would if I were you flapjackman!

Have to say I find Debt Doctor's posts very useful and helpful and informative.

mysterio_2

Lou67 wrote: »

you can challenge it, and I ruddy well would if I were you flapjackman!

Have to say I find Debt Doctor's posts very useful and helpful and informative.

challenge by all means but a surplus is a surplus and anything over £20 left a month after living expenses the receiver will take for the next 3yrs....remember though if the receiver refuses to budge it'll then go to court and become an IPO in front of a judge to decide

Lou67

mysterio wrote: »

challenge by all means but a surplus is a surplus and anything over £20 left a month after living expenses the receiver will take for the next 3yrs....remember though if the receiver refuses to budge it'll then go to court and become an IPO in front of a judge to decide

The OP has nothing to lose by challenging it. If the opportunity is there, why shouldn't he challenge it? Some people have challenged an IPA and won. As Debt Doctor said, the I.S. *have* backed down in the past few cases they have dealt with. If the opportunity is there to challenge it, one would be a fool not to.