Bankrupt ex - Help please!

mystery07

Hi

My ex was made bankrupt last october. He's told me a few things, that dont seem to add up. If there is anyone who could clarify, this would help, thanks.

First of all, Im getting £140 pcm maintence from him. The CSA say it should be double this based on his salary (but they are yet to do anything!) He says that he cannot pay me anymore, because of the OR. Is this true? In effect, what I am asking is, could he approach the OR & ask if he can pay more?

Second, he says he can only afford to see our son every other weekend. (because he lives 40 miles away) And the OR wont let him have anymore money for fuel! Again is this true? The OR, has never contacted me or anything, to check what our arrangements are, which I do find a little strange!

Also, out of interest. If say, he wasnt to get contact, would the reciever allow him money to go to court for access?! This is just out of interest, as there have been some issues, surrounding him seeing our son!

One last thing, Ive checked on the insolvency website & it says he will be discharged in October 07. Does this mean, he then regains control of his finances?

If anyone could help at all, it would be much appreciated.

Many thanks, Jules. xxx

rog2

Hi Mystery - sorry I can't help much on the maintenance issue, but I did think that payments 'ordered' by people like the CSA would be included in an SOA and accepted by OR in their entirity.
On the other question - yes, once your ex is discharged he will 'regain' control of his finances.

mystery07

rog2 wrote: »

Hi Mystery - sorry I can't help much on the maintenance issue, but I did think that payments 'ordered' by people like the CSA would be included in an SOA and accepted by OR in their entirity.
On the other question - yes, once your ex is discharged he will 'regain' control of his finances.

Thanks for this. The CSA are only just making an assement now. Its taken them this long to find him etc. So no payment has been ordered by them etc. I just feel that £140 isnt enough & even more so now, the CSA have told me this. So just kinda wanting to know, what can be done now, that he is already bankrupt?! Maybe I will just have to wait for the CSA to run there course & get some more from him. As they have already told me, that bankruptcy, makes no difference to his payments to them.

Hope that makes sense. xxx

fermi

The OR's 'guidelines' say this:

31.7.32 Maintenance payments

An obligation arising under an order made in family proceedings or under a maintenance assessment made under the Child Support Act 1991 is not a debt provable in bankruptcy[note 15]. It is a continuing obligation, payable out of income.

Where a bankrupt continues to receive income after the bankruptcy order has been made, the official receiver or trustee in bankruptcy may consider an IPA under section 310A of the Insolvency Act 1986 for the benefit of the bankrupt's estate. When making an IPA/IPO assessment the official receiver or trustee must consider the provisions of section 310(2) [note 16]. For further information regarding reasonable domestic needs see also paragraph 31.7.4 .

Section 310(2) expressly prohibits a court from making an IPO which would have the effect of reducing the bankrupt’s income below that which appears to the court to be necessary for meeting the reasonable domestic needs of the bankrupt and his family. The term "family" is restrictively defined for this purpose in section 385(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 as meaning the persons (if any) who are living with the bankrupt and are dependent on him (or her).

In practice, a spouse/civil partner/partner or former spouse/civil partner/partner may be in receipt of a maintenance order, but not living with the bankrupt, and an assessment may have been made under the Child Support Act in respect of children not living with the bankrupt. In these circumstances the obligations of the bankrupt arising from any such order or assessment would not have to be included as reasonable domestic needs of the bankrupt’s "family" to comply with the provisions of section 310(2) because the term "family" is defined in section 385(1) [note 17] as encompassing only dependants living with the bankrupt. However, when assessing the bankrupt's ability to pay under an IPO, the court has previously held that such obligations are reasonable demands upon a bankrupt’s income and has taken full account of the obligations arising from a maintenance order or a Child Support Agency assessment such that it would not make an order for an amount which would limit a bankrupt’s ability to meet those obligations [note 18].

For this reason the amount payable by a bankrupt under a maintenance order or Child Support Agency assessment should be taken into account when calculating the amount which a bankrupt is able to pay under an IPA, but should be identified as a separate item.

An simple explanation regarding the provisions of the Child Support Act and the formula used to calculate maintenance payments can be found at :
http://www.divorce.co.uk/legal/englandwales/legalcloserlook/finance/commonissues/childsupportact.htm
More detailed information concerning the child support agency and maintenance calculations can be found at http://www.csa.gov.uk/

Which would seem to suggest that he should be paying you the whole amount the CSA recommends, as the OR would deem it as a fair expense to be taken out of his income before the creditors get their share.

At least that's what I think it means.

mystery07

Thanks fermi. Thats what I would have thought, that maintenance, should be taken into consideration, before creditors. As yet, the CSA, still have not made an actual assessment, that I am aware of. But I think I will start pushing tham, since it has already taken them 3 years to find him.

Thanks again. xxx

Remmer

Can I just make a comment? I've been on the other side of this which contributed to my BR. CSA are idiots who don't listen to reason. I've given my kids more than a resident parent would have done but still they don't listen. I'm finding it hard to be be sympathetic to you.

rog2

Remmer wrote: »

Can I just make a comment? I've been on the other side of this which contributed to my BR. CSA are idiots who don't listen to reason. I've given my kids more than a resident parent would have done but still they don't listen. I'm finding it hard to be be sympathetic to you.

Hi Remmer - I don't think that ANYONE is trying to defend the ineptitude of the CSA, and I have every sympathy for what you say about them.
I don't think that Mystery's question does anything to enhance the CSA's already questioned reputation. It is aimed, primarily, at her Ex, who SHOULD be claiming the FULL amount on his SOA.
The CSA, knowing the position of the OP's husband, in relation to his bankruptcy, could have acted quicker, and more professionally, in order to safeguard both Mystery AND her ex.
Other than that, I think you have summed up the CSA quite well. :beer:

tosca5

CSA need to get their act together, a guy i know split from his wife and he has 3 sons with her. He contacted csa himself straight away to set up payments. This took csa all of one year to finalise it and tell him how much he needs to pay, £86. And backdated payments! Of £40per week on top of this, this left him very short of cash and most nights living off beans on toast.
Why on earth is it taking them so long?

Remmer

Because they are civil servants who are well underpaid, completely lacking in motivation, tied up in red tape that they don't really understand and constantly being kicked in the teeth by the politicians who employ them and by joe public. I was one of them many years ago. It doesn't change the fact that men are scapegoats in these cases and its about time the law was changed to redress the balance

user55

My sister's ex makes his payments to their kids through the CSA. For several months there were delays in receiving the payment, despite him having paid them. One month when my sis was in dire straits, and needed the money to pay the mortgage, she called the CSA and was told that just because her ex had paid them, wasn't a garuantee that she would receive the money! And when she expressed her need for it, they told her, sniffily, that the money was for her kids, not her! I'm sure most people would agree that kids need a roof over their little heads.

mystery07

Remmer wrote: »

Can I just make a comment? I've been on the other side of this which contributed to my BR. CSA are idiots who don't listen to reason. I've given my kids more than a resident parent would have done but still they don't listen. I'm finding it hard to be be sympathetic to you.

I havent asked for sympathy that I'm aware of. My ex was made bankrupt before the CSA ever contacted him.

You have no idea of what my ex is giving/taking. In actual fact, he has given very little other than a load of sh*t. Half the time he doesnt turn up to pick our son up. He doesnt phone our son, when he tells him he will. He lied to me about his bloody home address & even now, I know hes lieing, he continues to do so. And to add to that, Ive just found out through the CSA that his take home pay is around 2.5K per month. (Ok, so he is bankrupt) However, what he pays in maintenance per month, I pay in childcare for one week. There is no balance in responsibility there, if there was I would have no issues.

Anyway, all my questions were about the fact that he has told me, that he cant pay me more than he is doing because of the OR. I have found this hard to believe, hence Im checking it out.