what is the point to work hard when under bankruptcy and IPA?

dojoman

Lou67 wrote: »

This explains a LOT. :T

Could you please expand on what you mean by this remark?

fermi

kingdan wrote: »

I think the OR said although I was given IPA for 3 yrs but if I lost my job before my bankruptcy is discharged, the IPA will be stopped/suspended right away and if I can't another job before I was discharged and once I was discharged they can't restart the IPA again even I find a job after, is that correctly?

If that is the case what stopping me to lose my job then find a new one once I am discharged, so I only on IPA let say for 9 months instead of 3 yrs?

No. That is not usually the case.

The usual thing would be for the IPA to continue to run, but the payments due would be "varied" to £0 per month. Then if circumstances changed again, even after discharge, the IPA would still be running and payments could be reassessed and varied upwards again for how ever long the IPA has left to run.'

So most of the time when people refer to an IPA being suspended or stopped, in reality the agreement remains active and running, but it's just payments that have been set to nothing due to circumstances.

I say "usually" however, as there are cases where the OR/trustee decides that the will actually end the IPA agreement early. Usually when circumstances mean that it's not likely to ever be paid into again, e.g long term sick etc. Then the OR might take the pragmatic view that it's just easiest for them in the long term to formally end the IPA agreement and close the files.

alastairq

I cannot understand the argument that rotates around a BR 're-paying' creditors via an IPA/IPO.


The instant the BR petition is granted, the new, undischarged BR hands over completely, all their assets for the benefit of creditors.

The values are realised and equitably distributed, according to the Law, by the Official Receiver!

That will include any surplus of income...after the Receiver deducts reasonable living expenses.


The 'realisation of assets' seems to be forgotten by folk in the rush to claim the moral high ground...and the focus has become polarised on subsequent income!


Of course, part of the Receiver's remit is to calculate whether a nett return can be made on the realisation of assets.

And it is the glossing-over of this concept that leads to forgetting exactly what BR actually is.


The argument, moral or otherwise, is too focussed on the appearance, or perception of the effect of BR, rather than the driving force behind it.




With regards to comments focussed on the SOA, and the various allowances.....when I first started contributing to this particular forum, everyone was at pains to explain exactly why items such as 'holidays' and 'haircuts'....or, latterly, Sky, are allowed for.

It is along the very same lines that various benefits were aimed.....not for the advantage of the BR individual themselves...but that those who depend upon that BR were not disadvantaged by that one individual's situation.

In the same way the OR distributes the proceeds of the BR estate between the creditors, equitably...so that one creditor is not advantaged compared to another.

And the reference to Sky packages is easily explained.....when comparing to alternative telephone and broadband arrangements....

We forget what the regular expert contributors on here frequently remind us of.....?


That Bankruptcy isn't a criminal situation......therefore isn't /mustn't be considered as a punishment.


Anymore than Divorce!

rossireps

hey alistair your getting a thing about divorce

coinxoperated

I'm in a similar position in a DRO.

If my wage was to increase by just 2.5k a year (going from my 15k to 17.5k) I would have it revoked, receiving back £14,500 debt along with other charges and all the mess around it.

It's a great way to 'start again', but it does make you question something's and makes you unlikely to 'improve' your situation.

I could probably try really hard and get a 17.5k year a job. But then I would have outgoings of £600 + per month for the debts! So yes, morally the right thing to do is to take a better paid job and pay the debts off over the next 10 years....

Or I keep still, don't improve for another 6 months, and then get the better paid job.

The system is their to be worked.

Lou67

mildred1978 wrote: »

You have a 17 year old daughter. You're trying to tell me you never claimed child benefit for her?

Oh do me a favour! Is that the best you can do?! People on multiple millions a year have child benefit. It's not means-tested, as any person with a pulse knows! So your pedantic little comment holds no water! You know exactly what I mean: I mean before the age of 45, we never claimed unemployment benefit or income support. Now run along and pick on someone's spelling and grammar and post some pedantic comments that hold no water. That's what you seem to do when you have no valid argument.

Lou67

mildred1978 wrote: »

You must have heard that using "must of" destroys any argument you think you have????

Unbelievable. :rotfl:

mildred1978

Lou67 wrote: »

Oh do me a favour! Is that the best you can do?! People on multiple millions a year have child benefit. It's not means-tested, as any person with a pulse knows! So your pedantic little comment holds no water! You know exactly what I mean: I mean before the age of 45, we never claimed unemployment benefit or income support. Now run along and pick on someone's spelling and grammar and post some pedantic comments that hold no water. That's what you seem to do when you have no valid argument.

No longer true, but whatever! :rotfl:

Until having my son I could honestly say that I'd never claimed a penny in benefit OF ANY KIND. Child benefit is still a benefit - the clue is in the name. So is housing benefit, council tax benefit (not that I've claimed those, or JSA/IS/ESA etc).

How anyone is supposed to know that

Lou67 wrote: »

Also we paid our dues for 30 years and worked since we left school, and never took a PENNY in benefits for all that time

actually means

Lou67 wrote: »

I mean before the age of 45, we never claimed unemployment benefit or income support.

:huh:

Lou67

You know what "Mildred" you are clearly just spoiling for an argument, and are spouting any ludicrous comments that don't even make any sense to deliberately provoke. But you're making no real sense, so I am now putting you on IGNORE along with a couple of others who post very similar comments to you.. I won't see your comments now so don't waste your time speaking to me. I'm not wasting any more of my time reading the drivel you post. ta ta...

mildred1978

Lou67 wrote: »

You know what "Mildred" you are clearly just spoiling for an argument, and are spouting any ludicrous comments that don't even make any sense to deliberately provoke. But you're making no real sense, so I am now putting you on IGNORE along with a couple of others who post very similar comments to you.. I won't see your comments now so don't waste your time speaking to me. I'm not wasting any more of my time reading the drivel you post. ta ta...

I'd love to know what I've said that makes no sense. You're the one that says one thing but means something completely different. :huh:

Still, peace and quiet from your ranting? :dance: :dance: