IVA fraud - undisclosed income, what to do?

lovinituk

UpToMyNeckInIt wrote: »

This is a fair comment (assuming we know for a fact that this is the case, which is questionable at this point).

However, when you are considering an IVA, you are advised to immediately cease paying any more money into any bank that you owe money to, in case they nab it using their right to 'set-off'.

You then have to open a new bank account with a non-creditor institution. If you are smart, you do this immediately because, once you are on the insolvency register, almost all banks will refuse even basic bank accounts. (I personally, only know of 3 IVA-friendly high street names, and that may be no good if they are your creditors).

So it is not unheard of to 'use' a relative's bank account, or even ask a relative to open an account in their name - indeed it is cited as an option for some customers by their Insolvency Practitioners.

Thus even if the couple in question are using a relative's account, it may well be all above board, or a temporary measure until they can secure alternative banking. That's the point though: we just don't know enough to determine if this is 'cloak and dagger' or not.

True that we don't know if its factual or not, but based on the information given it certainly sounds dodgy. I guess it matters not to any of us on here at the end of the day. Its ultimately up to the OP to decide on their actions.... if their account is truthful.

arcon5

There's some poor logic going on here... His far does it extend.... If we see a neighboughs house being burgled shut the curtains and don't get involved, if we see an innocent member of public lying dead on the ground walk past. If we see somebody defrauding a creditor by hiding assets ignore it.

If the receiver wishes to ignore it or the guy turns out to be innocent then fine, no harm done.

alastairq

True that we don't know if its factual or not, but based on the information given it certainly sounds dodgy.

Certainly the information given by the OP.....on their own admittance, is uncertain, without evidence, therefore nothing more than hearsay.

It is this sort of urban myth that plagues all too many BR's and others in a similar situation.

It is hard evidence that is needed, not supposition based upon appearances.


Those who receive benefits will know the situation...''everyone on benefits lives the life of Riley'...and so on.

Or the BR individual with a nice new car on the driveway....[of course, nobody would dream of thinking the BR's Mum had just bought it for them both to use, would they?]


I should have thought the very ethos of this particular forum was one of fact and, if possible, accuracy?

Not forgetting support?

Yet here we are, asked to provide a viewpoint based upon a moral issue, about events which currently are without basis or evidence of wrongdoing.


Indeed, one contributor has posted information regarding IVAs which is fully supportive of the anecdotal 'evidence' the OP provided....showing that is is more than likely no wrongdoing whatsoever has been done.


So.. as I have posted earlier, if the OP feels strongly about the situation they should write to the IVA administrator, noting what they perceive they know.

If the 'information' leads to an investigation, which proves a wrongdoing, then justice is served in everyone's eyes.

If, on the other hand, the IVA administrator is fully aware, and as made due allowance for, all that the OP purports to be happening, then would it not also be fair, in the interests of 'justice' being served, that the OP receive a round ticking off to boot?

or would that be a case of 'snottfair?'

UpToMyNeckInIt

arcon5 wrote: »

There's some poor logic going on here... His far does it extend.... If we see a neighboughs house being burgled shut the curtains and don't get involved, if we see an innocent member of public lying dead on the ground walk past. If we see somebody defrauding a creditor by hiding assets ignore it.

If the receiver wishes to ignore it or the guy turns out to be innocent then fine, no harm done.

Poor logic? Oh, you mean by distorting the issue like you are? Your scenarios are examples of prima facie evidence. That's a far cry from the OP's speculation: 'that person in an IVA has a rental property, that cannot be right, they must be hiding it from their IVA company'.

If one must poke their nose into someone else's business, waiting until there are reasonable grounds for suspecting wrongdoing based on prima facie evidence is prudent. NOT passing judgement based on malice, envy, jealously or hearing it from some bloke in the pub etc.

You've got to remember that Insolvency Practitioners are not idiots, they will credit check you to verify what you are telling them. Not to mention requiring the submission of bank statements, payslips and tax returns etc.

I find it inconceivable therefore that a second mortgaged property could be deliberately hidden.

Just my opinion though, based on going through the IVA application stage a few Months ago.

Mouse1812

This_Bloke wrote: »

At the end of the period the balance of the debt is written off (at the expense of the creditors of course).
Have I understood this OK so far?

Nope, the IVA agreement might be for 100% settlement, and you are not privy to that confidential detail.

thereafter the rest of this exchange is well ... pure speculation