questions re bailifs and your car

debt_doctor

mattannar wrote: »

Would you be saying that if you were the creditor?

Ive been on the receiving end of bad credit once or twice in my self employed days. I looked at it as a risk of business.
Fact is that this is a support site for bankrupts, would be and have been bankrupts, and I on this forum as in my job role am biased to their point of view.

DD

alastairq

nomoneytoday wrote: »

Why shouldn't a creditor get the value of the asset, as long as it's done before the B/R?

Why shouldn't a debtor do what they can to protect a perceived asset?

Both may have an entitlement [forget any moral issues here.... creditors often don't govern their actions according to any moral code.....neither should debtors......we are talking in terms of legal actions, plain & simple.]

vikingaero

OR's are well aware that if they seize/sell a vehicle that has minimal value, then the next thing to go will often be the BR's job as they may find it hard/impossible to get to work on time. So they can shoot themselves in the foot or allow the BR to have a form of transport to continue that employment.

Of course it is different if the BR has a £20k motor when a £2k motor would suffice.

mattannar

Surely if the OP is not going to get an IPA then surely it matters not to the OR if the OP has a job or not , so therefore does not need a car.
I am putting a point foward , I do not subscribe to this thought, but many on here try to avoid an IPA but want to keep a car.

alastairq

mattannar wrote: »

Surely if the OP is not going to get an IPA then surely it matters not to the OR if the OP has a job or not , so therefore does not need a car.
I am putting a point foward , I do not subscribe to this thought, but many on here try to avoid an IPA but want to keep a car.

As per the stickies at the top of this forum.......................for an undischarged BR to have their vehicle exempted as an asset, they must demonstrate , to the OR, a need.

Needing a vehicle to get to & from a workplace, due to either non-existent, or more expensive transport alternatives, is in fact but one of the reasons for exemption. [albeit, a major one]

It is not the only reason for seeking exemption.

Equally, having a job does not automatically mean a surplus-based IPA will be sought.

If there is no surplus identified on the BR's SOA, then no IPA will be sought.

Therefore it is perfectly possible and reasonable for an undischarged BR to not have a surplus-based IPA......and still have a vehicle exempted as an asset.

Furthermore, even if a BR fails to have a vehicle exempted, they can still purchase the OR's interest in that vehicle [thus retaining it]....however, they may not be able to claim precisely for its running costs.

[However, other transportation costs may be identified on the SOA.....and these may well exceed those that might have been sought otherwise for the car?]

The point I am making is, it is unwise to form opinions based upon generalisations and assumptions.
For, especially with BR, there are none.

forgotmyname

Insurers ask are you the owner AND registered keeper. So they do care more than you think.

If you lied they could increase your premium or even cancel your policy. You maybe with a company that only insure owner/keeper vehicles. Or charge 10x more if you are not the owner/keeper and main driver.

They have only to watch you for a few days and see you drive. Do you work? Regular hours? Easy target.

alastairq

Insurers ask are you the owner AND registered keeper

In recent years, on all my proposals, I haven't been asked 'am I the owner'....the insurers I've had dealings with have only required the RK information...since they wish to identify the 'main driver' [who may not be the RK]..

A company 'owning' vehicles may..or may not, be the registered keepers.

In all aspects of motoring Law and regulation, the important individual is the registered keeper.

It is to the registered keeper that all correspondence is sent.....initially.

Ownership, is something else entirely.