We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Second O.R. Interview (face to face)
doseduk
Posts: 92 Forumite
Hey, I'd posted over the past fortnight having received a letter from the Insolvency Service informing me I was to attend, in person, an interview with an examiner for the Official Receivers in Stockton-upon-Tees. The mention of needing further explanation / clarification of my affairs leading up to my bankruptcy, the talk of it being 1-2 hours but more if complex, and mention of being examined in public in court if I didn't attend, all seemed pretty scary so I came here, got some excellent advice and insight as to what to expect, and reassurance on the matter. I promised to post back reporting on my experience, more just in case anybody else was in a similar boat and wanted a specific case example of what the second interview was like.
First off, to be clear what I'm talking about here... This wasn't the 'standard practice' interview that comes soon after the bankruptcy declaration, which is usually done by telephone within a few weeks (or something like that). This was carried out some 7 months into my bankruptcy, by a local office, while my bankruptcy is primarily being handled by the overflow office at Blackpool.. I just wanted to make sure people didn't end up thinking this is an account of the normal interview that people have.. although in some ways it was quite similar in some respects, covering some similar ground, it was also quite different in others, and much longer.
Anyway. For a start, the most stressful thing, by far today, was not the interview, but getting to the office. I was driving, I have no sat-nav, have never driven to, or around Stockton before, live half an hour along the motorway away from it, and was armed only with some directions I'd copied off google maps and a map of the area around the office block I needed to be at, but, I struggled for half an hour to locate myself on that map. Anyway, first plus - the I.S. didn't mind me being a little late, I'd rang at 11:30am when I was meant to be there, explaining I was just the other side of the river, could see the offices, but couldn't get parked.
I was not kept waiting more than a minute or two if that, before being greeted with a smile and handshake by the examiner, who took me through into a comfortable, spacious room with a desk and computer, and sat me one side of the desk. She apologised that she couldn't offer a coffee or tea (not sure if that was always the case, or just that day) but got me a glass of water.
We went over some clerical things about the procedure, who she was, fire procedures, explained I was welcome to breaks to stretch legs or go to the toilet if need be, and just explained a bit about what would happen.. that she would ask some questions, for maybe 1 or 2 hours, maybe more if it was a bit complicated, but it could be a lot less. She would be typing up a statement based on my responses. I had information on the Purgery Act brought to my attention, and had to sign a form showing I understood the law surrounding that (that things had to be true as far as I knew them to be... ie: don't lie or deliberately misrepresent things)..
The interview itself focussed almost entirely on events before I went bankrupt. We touched on issues during bankruptcy, I think more because things came to light that rang alarm bells, than that she meant to in the first place.. I'll get to that... but yeah, she started just by checking the figures I'd given on my statement of affairs still sounded correct (as I'd be signing a fresh statement later to say that they were) and also checked that they were about the same as maybe 6-12 months PRIOR to my bankruptcy, which was about January 2011. She focussed a lot on January 2011 figures, to get an idea of where things were at a little in advance of the more acute near-bankruptcy affairs. This was probably heavily to do with the fact that I was called up to go there, because a lot of debt was taken in a very short time, and so this was the relevant route of inquiry.
She had gone over my statements, both bank and credit accounts alike, and come up with accurate figures representing my debt affairs up to a notional time of Jan 2011... she later made clear that was to emphasise that after that, things became significantly worse, and by seperating the stuff before then from the stuff after, it was even clearer to see that I already had a deficit, and yet took out a great number more loans etc over the coming 12 months.
She didn't do this in an unreasonable or subtle manner as if to trick me into saying anything self-incriminating, in fact the entire interview was actually very pleasant, as was she. It was simply a case of really getting some factual evidence and looking at figures (since I am so used, with all this, to just, being quite vague and brushing off exact amounts as it was such a chaotic time... they don't do that, they have calculated full amounts, income/expenditure, etc and really at times did ask "how could you seriously have expected to be able to pay this back" - this wasn't being condescending, but because I'd said I felt I could... and they again wanted to know how that was possible, given things (even if it was because I simply was not thinking, not keeping track etc...).
I must add that what became quite laborious was that (to no fault of hers, of course, she is just doing her job in compliance with the law / IS86 and doing so very fairly and pleasantly) we had to go through a similar process for all 'bunches' of debts i had, so all the payday loans, all the creation finance via scan.co.uk, all the moneyway music equiptment loans, all the shopdirect catalogue accounts... we had to go through them, from before jan, then to afterwards, and run through not just what I used it for, what I took the credit out for that is, and what happened to say, items bought on credit, but also to run through the amounts being applied for, the other debts/income/expentiture I had at the time, and then keep answering the question 'and did you reasonably think you could repay them when you took them out' and similar things. I obviously didn't mind, this is my responsibility to comply with, but having to time after time, realise without any ability to deflect or brush it away, how irresponsible and reckless I had been, was not easy - but perhaps not a bad thing at all in terms of repairing my character and future practises.
Generally, it was clear she was interested in two main areas of misconduct, which I now can see I probably were applicable to my conduct on, numerous counts, perhaps across 20 credit applications. These were (I don't know the terms word for word, but am familiar) to do with obtaining credit which I could not reasonably repay, and also to do with selling items obtained through credit, without paying the proceeds back to the creditors while I had the cash. I thought the latter only applied after bankruptcy, but I guess the point is that if I bought a laptop, then sold it, then the good conduct thing to do, considering I was 'in the !!!!' and within a year would be bankrupt, would be to give the cash back to the creditor. Since this happened a lot, it contributed to my bankruptcy, rather than preventing it.. I see that now.
Towards the end, once we had gone over everything, we discussed a bit more, the issues regarding my insolvency. These surrounded alcohol and drug use. This had come up, because she wanted to know what I was spending the money I was obtaining / generating via credit, on. She was not in the slightest critical or judgemental about this, and in fact displayed a concerned and attentive attitude to the problem itself, whilst relevant to her work of course. She had asked some background about my addictions issues, how long I'd had these problems, the kind of help and support or advice I'd had during having these problems and so on, nothing unreasonable and approached sensitively and with full respect of my dignity. Having explained that I had managed to stop drinking and drug use prior to (around the time of) my bankruptcy, she did ask if I had relapsed at all since then (during bankruptcy). I immediately told the truth, which was a frank 'Yes'. She asked how long that lasted, I explained I had relapsed recently, for about a month, which ended (I stopped) about a fortnight ago. She also, concerned, carefully asked if I was currently in relapse, which I was pleased to honestly say I was not. Making insight into the obvious relationship, in my case, between substance abuse and obtaining credit, she asked if I'd obtained any credit while in relapse since going bankrupt. Again, I didn't hesitate in telling the truth, which was yes, I had, one payday loan a few months into bankruptcy, during the only other period of relapse since then, which had also lasted a month. The loan was for about £80 and was prompty repaid, I explained. She reminded me, for my own wellbeing and in the interests of her doing her job, of the £500 rule (not obtaining £500 or more without informing the creditor you are bankrupt) - she warned me of how strict and serious this is, that it is not a bankruptcy misconduct issue dealt with via BRO/BRUs but, a criminal offence that she has seen people get 12 month suspended sentences for, and again, emphasised the seriousness. She appreciated that an £80 loan was not illegal, but that the official receiver, when checking for any changes in income/outgoings toward the end of the bankruptcy, would not allow credit costs/payments to be considered as essential expenditure. I understood that and we were pretty much done.
She did explain what would happen next. She had obtained my statement, which I would check over and sign each printed page of, if happy it was all correct. She will produce a report, which she will take to the attention of the Official Receiver. They will then consider, based on the report, whether a Bankruptcy Restriction Order is something they think is appropriate to pursue. If they decide it is, the case would be referred to an independent body in London (I think she said, anyway) who would look over the case and make a decision as to what to do in terms of a BRO. If they decided to go ahead with a BRO, I would be contacted, she gave as an estimate, perhaps about January (between 1 and 2 months from now) with a detailing the decision. I could then either agree to it, sign it, and thus accept it as a Bankruptcy Restriction Undertaking, without any need to attend court, and slightly reducing the period for which the order would last. If I felt it wasn't fair or would really mess up my life, such as if I felt like I'd sorted my drug issues out, and had a realistic plan to run a company, etc.. and felt my intentions were reasonable and justified not having a BRO/BRU in place, I could choose to have it taken to court, where I would have to attend in person, in court, and give my side of things. Obviously, I guess the fact that a BRU can reduce the length of the restrictions, must mean that letting it go as far as court, if your take on things is not agreed with by the court, would result in a longer restriction period.
One other thing - they pointed out if they decided not to go ahead with the BRO/BRU, then I would *NOT* be informed of this. As in - I would hear nothing, and still perhaps be waiting thinking I might have a BRO round the corner. They explained this was to prevent them categorically stating a BRO would not be pursued, and then finding out evidence which contradicted this and meant they would then pursue it. She did say if I was nervous, to give her a ring, and she could at least say where things were at, and could over the phone casually explain whether or not, at that time, they intended to go ahead with one or not.
The interview lasted about 3 and a half hours. That was around the longest they said it would last (4 hours ish) - but literally 20 minutes was spent with me in the room waiting for the examiner to print off the statement once things were finished, due to a problem with the printer, which was fine really because the pressure was off, things were done and just, gave me a breather. Then about 10 minutes to read the statement (she would have allowed me longer if I needed it) and check it, and sign and date each printed page of it.
And that was it really - I have no idea whether that is useful to anybody, or whether it will slip down to the bottom of the list of threads on the last page without being seen or benefiting anybody.. I really don't mind, I was so grateful for the reassurance people offered, and promised this to at least give the opportunity to possibly be of use to somebody else.
Thank you again, all the best.
First off, to be clear what I'm talking about here... This wasn't the 'standard practice' interview that comes soon after the bankruptcy declaration, which is usually done by telephone within a few weeks (or something like that). This was carried out some 7 months into my bankruptcy, by a local office, while my bankruptcy is primarily being handled by the overflow office at Blackpool.. I just wanted to make sure people didn't end up thinking this is an account of the normal interview that people have.. although in some ways it was quite similar in some respects, covering some similar ground, it was also quite different in others, and much longer.
Anyway. For a start, the most stressful thing, by far today, was not the interview, but getting to the office. I was driving, I have no sat-nav, have never driven to, or around Stockton before, live half an hour along the motorway away from it, and was armed only with some directions I'd copied off google maps and a map of the area around the office block I needed to be at, but, I struggled for half an hour to locate myself on that map. Anyway, first plus - the I.S. didn't mind me being a little late, I'd rang at 11:30am when I was meant to be there, explaining I was just the other side of the river, could see the offices, but couldn't get parked.
I was not kept waiting more than a minute or two if that, before being greeted with a smile and handshake by the examiner, who took me through into a comfortable, spacious room with a desk and computer, and sat me one side of the desk. She apologised that she couldn't offer a coffee or tea (not sure if that was always the case, or just that day) but got me a glass of water.
We went over some clerical things about the procedure, who she was, fire procedures, explained I was welcome to breaks to stretch legs or go to the toilet if need be, and just explained a bit about what would happen.. that she would ask some questions, for maybe 1 or 2 hours, maybe more if it was a bit complicated, but it could be a lot less. She would be typing up a statement based on my responses. I had information on the Purgery Act brought to my attention, and had to sign a form showing I understood the law surrounding that (that things had to be true as far as I knew them to be... ie: don't lie or deliberately misrepresent things)..
The interview itself focussed almost entirely on events before I went bankrupt. We touched on issues during bankruptcy, I think more because things came to light that rang alarm bells, than that she meant to in the first place.. I'll get to that... but yeah, she started just by checking the figures I'd given on my statement of affairs still sounded correct (as I'd be signing a fresh statement later to say that they were) and also checked that they were about the same as maybe 6-12 months PRIOR to my bankruptcy, which was about January 2011. She focussed a lot on January 2011 figures, to get an idea of where things were at a little in advance of the more acute near-bankruptcy affairs. This was probably heavily to do with the fact that I was called up to go there, because a lot of debt was taken in a very short time, and so this was the relevant route of inquiry.
She had gone over my statements, both bank and credit accounts alike, and come up with accurate figures representing my debt affairs up to a notional time of Jan 2011... she later made clear that was to emphasise that after that, things became significantly worse, and by seperating the stuff before then from the stuff after, it was even clearer to see that I already had a deficit, and yet took out a great number more loans etc over the coming 12 months.
She didn't do this in an unreasonable or subtle manner as if to trick me into saying anything self-incriminating, in fact the entire interview was actually very pleasant, as was she. It was simply a case of really getting some factual evidence and looking at figures (since I am so used, with all this, to just, being quite vague and brushing off exact amounts as it was such a chaotic time... they don't do that, they have calculated full amounts, income/expenditure, etc and really at times did ask "how could you seriously have expected to be able to pay this back" - this wasn't being condescending, but because I'd said I felt I could... and they again wanted to know how that was possible, given things (even if it was because I simply was not thinking, not keeping track etc...).
I must add that what became quite laborious was that (to no fault of hers, of course, she is just doing her job in compliance with the law / IS86 and doing so very fairly and pleasantly) we had to go through a similar process for all 'bunches' of debts i had, so all the payday loans, all the creation finance via scan.co.uk, all the moneyway music equiptment loans, all the shopdirect catalogue accounts... we had to go through them, from before jan, then to afterwards, and run through not just what I used it for, what I took the credit out for that is, and what happened to say, items bought on credit, but also to run through the amounts being applied for, the other debts/income/expentiture I had at the time, and then keep answering the question 'and did you reasonably think you could repay them when you took them out' and similar things. I obviously didn't mind, this is my responsibility to comply with, but having to time after time, realise without any ability to deflect or brush it away, how irresponsible and reckless I had been, was not easy - but perhaps not a bad thing at all in terms of repairing my character and future practises.
Generally, it was clear she was interested in two main areas of misconduct, which I now can see I probably were applicable to my conduct on, numerous counts, perhaps across 20 credit applications. These were (I don't know the terms word for word, but am familiar) to do with obtaining credit which I could not reasonably repay, and also to do with selling items obtained through credit, without paying the proceeds back to the creditors while I had the cash. I thought the latter only applied after bankruptcy, but I guess the point is that if I bought a laptop, then sold it, then the good conduct thing to do, considering I was 'in the !!!!' and within a year would be bankrupt, would be to give the cash back to the creditor. Since this happened a lot, it contributed to my bankruptcy, rather than preventing it.. I see that now.
Towards the end, once we had gone over everything, we discussed a bit more, the issues regarding my insolvency. These surrounded alcohol and drug use. This had come up, because she wanted to know what I was spending the money I was obtaining / generating via credit, on. She was not in the slightest critical or judgemental about this, and in fact displayed a concerned and attentive attitude to the problem itself, whilst relevant to her work of course. She had asked some background about my addictions issues, how long I'd had these problems, the kind of help and support or advice I'd had during having these problems and so on, nothing unreasonable and approached sensitively and with full respect of my dignity. Having explained that I had managed to stop drinking and drug use prior to (around the time of) my bankruptcy, she did ask if I had relapsed at all since then (during bankruptcy). I immediately told the truth, which was a frank 'Yes'. She asked how long that lasted, I explained I had relapsed recently, for about a month, which ended (I stopped) about a fortnight ago. She also, concerned, carefully asked if I was currently in relapse, which I was pleased to honestly say I was not. Making insight into the obvious relationship, in my case, between substance abuse and obtaining credit, she asked if I'd obtained any credit while in relapse since going bankrupt. Again, I didn't hesitate in telling the truth, which was yes, I had, one payday loan a few months into bankruptcy, during the only other period of relapse since then, which had also lasted a month. The loan was for about £80 and was prompty repaid, I explained. She reminded me, for my own wellbeing and in the interests of her doing her job, of the £500 rule (not obtaining £500 or more without informing the creditor you are bankrupt) - she warned me of how strict and serious this is, that it is not a bankruptcy misconduct issue dealt with via BRO/BRUs but, a criminal offence that she has seen people get 12 month suspended sentences for, and again, emphasised the seriousness. She appreciated that an £80 loan was not illegal, but that the official receiver, when checking for any changes in income/outgoings toward the end of the bankruptcy, would not allow credit costs/payments to be considered as essential expenditure. I understood that and we were pretty much done.
She did explain what would happen next. She had obtained my statement, which I would check over and sign each printed page of, if happy it was all correct. She will produce a report, which she will take to the attention of the Official Receiver. They will then consider, based on the report, whether a Bankruptcy Restriction Order is something they think is appropriate to pursue. If they decide it is, the case would be referred to an independent body in London (I think she said, anyway) who would look over the case and make a decision as to what to do in terms of a BRO. If they decided to go ahead with a BRO, I would be contacted, she gave as an estimate, perhaps about January (between 1 and 2 months from now) with a detailing the decision. I could then either agree to it, sign it, and thus accept it as a Bankruptcy Restriction Undertaking, without any need to attend court, and slightly reducing the period for which the order would last. If I felt it wasn't fair or would really mess up my life, such as if I felt like I'd sorted my drug issues out, and had a realistic plan to run a company, etc.. and felt my intentions were reasonable and justified not having a BRO/BRU in place, I could choose to have it taken to court, where I would have to attend in person, in court, and give my side of things. Obviously, I guess the fact that a BRU can reduce the length of the restrictions, must mean that letting it go as far as court, if your take on things is not agreed with by the court, would result in a longer restriction period.
One other thing - they pointed out if they decided not to go ahead with the BRO/BRU, then I would *NOT* be informed of this. As in - I would hear nothing, and still perhaps be waiting thinking I might have a BRO round the corner. They explained this was to prevent them categorically stating a BRO would not be pursued, and then finding out evidence which contradicted this and meant they would then pursue it. She did say if I was nervous, to give her a ring, and she could at least say where things were at, and could over the phone casually explain whether or not, at that time, they intended to go ahead with one or not.
The interview lasted about 3 and a half hours. That was around the longest they said it would last (4 hours ish) - but literally 20 minutes was spent with me in the room waiting for the examiner to print off the statement once things were finished, due to a problem with the printer, which was fine really because the pressure was off, things were done and just, gave me a breather. Then about 10 minutes to read the statement (she would have allowed me longer if I needed it) and check it, and sign and date each printed page of it.
And that was it really - I have no idea whether that is useful to anybody, or whether it will slip down to the bottom of the list of threads on the last page without being seen or benefiting anybody.. I really don't mind, I was so grateful for the reassurance people offered, and promised this to at least give the opportunity to possibly be of use to somebody else.
Thank you again, all the best.
0
Comments
-
That's really great doseduk. I don't think I could have explained it any better myself. And I'm glad you have come out if it unscathed. I'm sure that you found that it is intense but not necessarily unpleasant and I'm sure a lot of posters will be surprised by the depth and detail the examiners can go to when they need to and how much work is done in the background. Just wanted to add that although you did get reduced time if you sign th e BRU you shouldn't get an increased time if you did go to court as everyone has gte right to defend themselves if a genuine mistake has been made.
All the best for the future.
DIHi, im Debtinfo, i am an ex insolvency examiner and over the years have personally dealt with thousands of bankruptcy cases.
Please note that any views i put forth are not those of my former employer The Insolvency Service and do not constitute professional advice, you should always seek professional advice before entering insolvency proceedings.0 -
thank you for the reply debtinfo - yes, thank you for clarifying the restriction time length thing - I actually meant just, you'd have more compared to if you'd accepted a BRU, which is neccessarily obvious and I suppose went without saying.. confused myself a little but yeah, you put it in clearer terms
thank you again, and thanks for your advice specifically when I was unsure of how things would go.
thanks again x0 -
That was a good read and very open and brave post, its good to hear the experience and to re-inforce that the IS and the people there are human, also that the only way to handle the whole thing is to be open and truthful, good luck for the future every time I manage to get one more breath into this body, I will sing a song of thanks to you my brothers, my sisters, my friends, may your sleep be peaceful, and angels sing sweetly in your ears.0
-
Wow doseduk, a great post. yes it is of use to us, not only showing the powers the or and is have but just what you have been and still are battling with. keep strong we are all with you
K X X X X :T :T0 -
Just wanted to say thanks for this .. And your other posts. Just read nearly all of your posts dd, and following your timeline has been interesting and informative. ( And kind of exciting... lol. But good to see the progression. Hope all is still well. )
I'm at the waiting for a call from the OR stage.... Expecting BRU/O and just spent a few minutes looking at teh length of them. 3 years - 3 years 6 months, appears to be the minimum.. Seen a couple that were for 12!! But had company director as occupation.. So just assume they had there hands in the petty cash?? Jk.
Anyway. GL.0 -
david01010 wrote: »Just wanted to say thanks for this .. And your other posts. Just read nearly all of your posts dd, and following your timeline has been interesting and informative. ( And kind of exciting... lol. But good to see the progression. Hope all is still well. )
I'm at the waiting for a call from the OR stage.... Expecting BRU/O and just spent a few minutes looking at teh length of them. 3 years - 3 years 6 months, appears to be the minimum.. Seen a couple that were for 12!! But had company director as occupation.. So just assume they had there hands in the petty cash?? Jk.
Anyway. GL.
Thank you very much. I always become a little worried when I get e-mails about replies, as I just still worry people will be hostile or critical, as I feel quite self-conscious about it and sometimes feel like removing my posts even if by just editing them down to nothing.
So, its great to hear you had kindly taken the time to read them, and furthermore to leave just a nice comment.
I think BRO/BROs can be as short as 2 years, and up to 15 (I think, it is specified somewhere quite clearly and if I'm wrong there hopefully somebody will intervene to correct me ) - so if you think about it, they have 15 years as the 'max sentence' regarding it (although try not to see it as punitive... as the examiner reasonably said, its a logical and purpose-designed protective barrier if you like, to keep the risks of the credit market away from you, and to keep the risks of yourself away from the credit market alike, based on the events that may have occurred to have one imposed.)
So you'd expect yes, in a role where you are bankrupt because you failed to keep records as a director, or whatever, and you did this on a blameworthy basis (not because, i dunno, you fell sick and incapacited, i cant think of examples and am just guessing here..) and taking into account the responsibilities of a professional running a business, compared to the lesser expectations generally of an individual managing their own affairs, you'd think the 15 years (or even just plus 10) would be really held back for severe, quite grevious and calculated misconduct - just short of criminal fraud prosecution level of things I guess...
I'm second guessing my own misconduct to perhaps result in somewhere like 6 years... If I am very very lucky, perhaps they will see the influence of addiction, the nature of some creditors (payday lenders and their irresponsible lending to me and forthright attempts to push finance, perhaps..) as cause to give less (or, and i VERY much doubt it, none at all.. in a way I think a BRO would not be such a bad thing, and kind of expect them to think the same).
I do know however because there was so many individual transactions of credit (30 odd accounts in fact... 20 grands debt ran up in about a year, tens of expensive products bought for resale for cash generation... quite tactical misconduct, if not at least defended by the fact I did this with innocent intent (did not expect bankruptcy) - there is a chance I might be looking at more.
They told me I might be waiting til January to hear of a BRO being made, or not at all if one isn't imposed at this time, so I guess I shall have to try to not second guess it, and accept their reasonable and responsible nature in whatever they decide, I cannot for a second see myself not accepting it as a BRU etc..
Anyway - were you looking at the online records from the AIB (scottish insolvency service) online BRO/BRU archive? I had a look through that, but saw The Insolvency Service (England & Wales) no longer has an online search for them...
I guess just see how things go, sounds like early days and if youre on here getting a good insight into things, that sounds like a good and responsible start, but, I hope nothing I've mentioned has furthered or caused any sort of extra stress or worry, the one thing I was surprised at about the process, is how much each case is literally dealt with entirely on its own merits..
I realise now, I somehow doubt the bankruptcy fees remotely cover costs! Not sure how many human hours of work go into each case but, a lot of work is done, and in my experience, done to an incredibly high standard whether it impacts badly on me or not.. So whatever happens, it will be done professionally, and taking into account all that is relevant about your personal case, affairs, and situations - which really is helpful to know I think.
All the best, and hope to hear positive things back from you regarding your own situation soon
-A0 -
Hey sorry been a while.
I was searching the English insolvancy register and just picking up on all the entries that were red..!
Hope things still ok.. Especially the dependancy stuff. Look to moving forward. I know it's hard, I'm still turning.... when all you have seen is the past for so long.
I have seen a few posts that basically said.. " What do I do now I have nothing to worry about or lose myself in ".. I'm finding that hard.
But I think even tiny steps in the right direction, the little realisations, are better than revisiting your self destructive times.
D.0 -
yeah david, i'm certainly to some extent driven, or at least distracted and occupied by problems and little things to have to devote myself to sorting out... i got a speeding ticket today, and was actually pleased. Partly cos it sort of, gave me something to have to responsibly sort out, partly because i know all in all i can increase my student finance a bit to fund it as essential expense, and also because i thought for a moment it was the I.S. asking for income detail updates (tricky atm as until january its very hard to say, set in stone, what my income/outgoings are - i'm going to have to put my bills up to cover realistic usage in jan when i get student finance, and, so, its all a bit all over the place!
so, one of few people to be happy enough to see just a notice of intended prosecution!
i hope you find things easier, I'm sure you will in time and im sure speaking to people that have posted the posts that you're empathising with would probably do you both some good - I'm trying my best to relax until January, at least, when I'm expecting to hear of BRO intentions from IS, and when I have to really sort out my monthly in/outs to something realistic, bill covering, living-cost supporting but not excessive. fingers crossed!
I don't even know if they will send me an IPOQ before A.D. - its blackpool office as overflow, they said they might send one half way through things, but didn't... god knows - probably no help as if somebody told me they probably wont, but nobody could say for certain other than the official receiver there, then I'd still be left on edge!
Thanks for your reply, hope things are going okay!x0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.3K Spending & Discounts
- 243.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.6K Life & Family
- 256.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards