Why an IPA? Especially when someone has hardly any surplus?

debt_doctor

Grumpy_Shunter wrote: »

Would I be better off going on the dole before I start my IPA? After my AD, Jan 4th 2013, I would be free, wouldn't I?

and sad but true, that is something I hear asked more these days as people feel so negative about IPAs......
Think carefully, if you simply give up your job without a 'justifyable reason' as far as the DWP are concerned, then your JSA could be sanctioned, probably for 6 months.
If your IPA has already been agreed, and you are outside the 14 day cooling off period then it (the IPA) will be suspended I would have thought, rather than cancelled, so could pop in to life again within the 3 year period.

DD

Grumpy_Shunter

My IPA hasn't been agreed or even looked at yet. My OR is sending the forms out at the beginning of April, with a view to starting my IPA at the end of April.

You're right - giving up my job would not benefit anyone. My job is well paid and pretty safe - (famous last words!).

The thing that grips me is that I have worked out my expenditure list already and it looks as if I'm going to be paying around £550/month IPA. Now, if I could have just a little of that for a few niceties per month I'd be happy. But no - they want it all, Sheesh!

debt_doctor

I would advise you to build in £100 - £150 pm to cover what you need - Tell the IS you want more for your housekeeping and other expenses - hold out and say no until you get what you want - worst case senario the courts will decide - if the IS decide to pay for it.
DD

alastairq

. Now, if I could have just a little of that for a few niceties per month I'd be happy. But no - they want it all, Sheesh!

I am surprised such expenditure cannot be found from within your SOA?


Do you have hair?


Have you allowed for holiday savings?


The upside of an IPA is, as I mentioned before,, it is entirely flexible.

Something which debt re-payments, for example, are not?

This forum has thread wherein someone who has had an emergency to deal with, and pay out for, has been able to negotiate with the OR for a break, or holiday period, using the IPA payment for the emergency need.

Imagine trying to do that with an MBNA loan?

BR really is about starting afresh.

Not trying to retain as much as possible of the old lifestyle.

But, there is nothing wrong with 'playing' the system, such as it is.

It is much harder to get agreement to increase an allowance, than it is to agree to slightly reduce what is claimed?

Grumpy_Shunter

alastairq wrote: »

I am surprised such expenditure cannot be found from within your SOA?


Do you have hair?


Have you allowed for holiday savings?


The upside of an IPA is, as I mentioned before,, it is entirely flexible.

Something which debt re-payments, for example, are not?

This forum has thread wherein someone who has had an emergency to deal with, and pay out for, has been able to negotiate with the OR for a break, or holiday period, using the IPA payment for the emergency need.

Imagine trying to do that with an MBNA loan?

BR really is about starting afresh.

Not trying to retain as much as possible of the old lifestyle.

But, there is nothing wrong with 'playing' the system, such as it is.

It is much harder to get agreement to increase an allowance, than it is to agree to slightly reduce what is claimed?

Do I have hair? I'll let that one go - for the minute.

I have put Holiday savings in of 30/month, but that's for a small break somewhere at the end of the year.

I read with interest, the scenario you put in your post about someone needing a break from payments because of an emergency. Tell me, do they have to make that payment up at the end of their IPA period?

alastairq

Tell me, do they have to make that payment up at the end of their IPA period?

I cannot stick finger on thread link at the moment...but I believe, if a break in payment is requested, it can be made up at the end of he IPA period...either as a whole, or by continuing the monthly payment.

The ORs are not unapproachable.

Neither is it their personal intention to seriously disadvantage the BR.

The hair thing?

I assume the haircut allowance has been claimed [much depends on number of folks living in household and supported by the BR individual?

[I claimed £10 a month....in reality, I probably got my hair cut every two or so months......and it wouldn't cost me a tenner, either...but then, in my job, if my manager didn't like my hairstyle, they could 'do one', as they say...]

The main, underlying objective of the SOA is to demonstrate that, even by maintaining only a 'reasonable' standard of living, one was still insolvent..ie one used up one's income each month, just on living expenses.

I had, and have, a reasonable income..not brilliant, but not twee, either.

However, it has remained static over the past 5 years or so.

Even so, I managed to collate a reasonable monthly expenditure, such that I had less than £20 surplus. Admittedly I came under the old [£99] rules..but would still not qualify for an IPA under today's rules!

[The IS got their money's worth out of my NT IPA.....robbing Peter to pay Paul? The NT co-incided with a significant upsurge of overtime, due to a 'national emergency'.....but since I was a government servant, it still would have been 'out of one pot, into another.'.....!!!!!!!]

I suppose the point I'm making is.....if the BR person has a need for a small social expenditure, why on earth wasn't this included with the domestic living expenses?


Trying to separately itemise such expenditure is asking for trouble?

But then, trying to convince ourselves that certain expenditures were in fact smaller than what they really were, is part of the problem that led us to BR eventually?

SteveABC

My IPA is a tough one because my two sons, who are both over 18 live with me. One is on ESA and the other on JSA.

Because of the "other adults" the OR only allowed me 70% of my rent costs and all other shared housing costs (gas/elec/water rates/council tax etc.), as he decided the other adults should be contributing 15% each. I was also only allowed the food expenditure for a single person, even though, of course, I still shop for my family.

Whereas I agree they should make a contribution (nothing in life is free!), the 15% contribution for all those items of expenditure and them buying their own food and clothing etc. comes to significantly more than the benefit income they have!

Half way through the IPA now and, yes, it is tough and requires very detailed budgeting every month, but I just think that this is for 36 months only (17 months left!), whereas the unmanageable debt would have been for life!

My rent has gone up and my pay has also gone down, but I haven't even asked for the IPA to be varied - I have this irrational fear that they will ask me to pay more, so I'm just trying to hold out for another 17 months!

alastairq

My rent has gone up and my pay has also gone down, but I haven't even asked for the IPA to be varied - I have this irrational fear that they will ask me to pay more, so I'm just trying to hold out for another 17 months!

this really is an irrational fear.

AN IPA isn't a 'fixed' payment.[Have we all gotten into the 'fixed payment 'syndrome??]

It isn't a 'bill'.

It is an agreement whereby payment of surplus income is made into the BR estate.


If that surplus varies, then so does the amount paid to the OR.

It is vitally important to notify the OR of any change of circumstance.

It will be difficult to do so retrospectively....if not impossible?

Now, for most of us, we are so brainwashed into thinking its all about what happens when we earn more....we still think of the IPA like a credit bill.

It isn't!

Rent goes up?

Wages go down?

Other expenditure rises as well?

This needs to be brought to the attention of the OR's office.....immediately.

Who knows [if you've been doing your sums right, and keeping tabs on expenditure?}...the outcome might be a cessation of IPA payments altogether?

And, this will count towards the three years as well!


BTW, haven't the kids moved out by now?? [Hint hint?}

bruceingram1958

I woud like to add that IPA or income payments agreement is a binding agreement between you and your trustee that you will make contributions towards your bankruptcy debts and costs for a maximum period of 3 years. So, depending on your income and expenditure assessments, you may be repaying some of your bankruptcy debts and costs for 3 years. It is very important for you to know this before you go bankrupt.

alastairq

bruceingram1958 wrote: »

I woud like to add that IPA or income payments agreement is a binding agreement between you and your trustee that you will make contributions towards your bankruptcy debts and costs for a maximum period of 3 years. So, depending on your income and expenditure assessments, you may be repaying some of your bankruptcy debts and costs for 3 years. It is very important for you to know this before you go bankrupt.

And...the Official Receiver has a 'duty-of-care' towards the BR petitioner as well...but the OR has to know, if circumstances change...especially if they change for the 'worse?'