IPA review - 'allowable expenditure' removed?

AdvicePlease

If the OR allowed something as 'reasonable expenditure' at the commencement of my IPA, am I allowed to keep that throughout the term of the IPA?

I was allowed a small sum each month under my original IPA to save towards a car, as my existing car was not likely to last the 3 years of the IPA. As it is, my car was uneconomical to repair after only 6 months, so my dad has had to buy me an alternative car (which is a high mileage 12 year old estate car)

My IPA is currently being reviewed, and I see that the OR has now removed my 'allowance' to save for a new car - I suppose they now assume that my dad can keep bailing me out and buying me new cars every time one goes wrong, which is not the case! Are they entitled to do that?

arcon5

Will they allow an allowance for maintenance & wear and tear?

debt_doctor

AdvicePlease wrote: »

My IPA is currently being reviewed, and I see that the OR has now removed my 'allowance' to save for a new car - I suppose they now assume that my dad can keep bailing me out and buying me new cars every time one goes wrong, which is not the case! Are they entitled to do that?

Hi,

The allowance should be there for as long as it is needed. Do you infact now owe your dad money for this car - where would that come from but for your allowed car fund.
If you don't agree then say so. The IS would either have to agree with you or take it to court for an IPO (and fund it).
My guess is they wont do that - but I can't guarantee that.

DD

AdvicePlease

Thanks for the replies They do give me 35 per month for the MOT costs so presumably that is meant to cover wear and tear as well? I wish my car only cost 420 per year to maintain

They are already kicking up about allowing me 321 per month towards travel costs, despite me providing bank statements (and offering receipts if required) to show that I DO spend that or more purely on fuel each month

I'm not really sure I can face arguing the case with them about this too, although I suppose that is what they bank on to get people to sign their IPA agreement off

arcon5

debt_doctor wrote: »

Hi,

The allowance should be there for as long as it is needed. Do you infact now owe your dad money for this car - where would that come from but for your allowed car fund.
If you don't agree then say so. The IS would either have to agree with you or take it to court for an IPO (and fund it).
My guess is they wont do that - but I can't guarantee that.

DD

If they took it to court would they be able to recover any of these costs from the IPO payments or the bankrupt? What sort of costs are involved in them taking this to court?

debt_doctor

My understanding from speaking to people from within the IS is that costs are not claimable against the BR.
Costs would be the application and representation.(probably Moon beever)
I have never seen the OR take a disputed IPA to court and neither have my 7 full time colleagues in the last 7 years.

However, it still does not guarantee that it won't happen.

DD

JCS1

debt_doctor wrote: »

My understanding from speaking to people from within the IS is that costs are not claimable against the BR.
Costs would be the application and representation.(probably Moon beever)
I have never seen the OR take a disputed IPA to court and neither have my 7 full time colleagues in the last 7 years.

However, it still does not guarantee that it won't happen.

DD

Very rare indeed, think used to get 2 or 3 IPOs a year, and the office covered 5 courts.

fermi

JCS1 wrote: »

Very rare indeed, think used to get 2 or 3 IPOs a year, and the office covered 5 courts.

Stats from last year for whole of England & Wales are:

IPAs = 6,801

IPOs = 76

debt_doctor

Thanks JCS1 and fermi, that is very useful information indeed.

DD

arcon5

So what is the difference between an Income Protection Order (IPO) And Income Protection Arrangement (IPA)? I thought they was one and the same effectively or is one perhaps the order of the court and the other agreement by the bankrupt?

alastairq

AN IPO is sought by the OR when no agreement can be arrived at, with the BR, for an IPA.


In simple terms, the Court is used as an arbiter to settle the issue.

An IPO is binding on both parties.

Both parties can put their evidence supporting their argument before the Court, which then decides if, and how much, the BR will pay into the BR estate {IPO].

The IPO runs for the same time as an IPA.

However, if the BR's circumstances change during the three year period, the BR has to apply to the Court to get the IPO varied.

Rather than as, with an IPA, seeking further agreement directly with the OR.