BROs/BRUs

uther_2

Looking at examples of these at the insolvency service website it seems that a lot of people get hit with them for taking out credit that they had no reasonable expectation of being able to repay.Surely that is pretty much of a 'catch all' phrase if the OR is so inclined!
For example would'nt that cover just about anyone who used a cc for Br fee's?
Maxing out an overdraft before Br?
Now neither of the above apply to me,they are just examples,but it does seem that we are pretty much at the mercy of each individual OR.
Are BRU/BRO's getting more common as more people go Br?

rog2

Generally BRU/BROs are only given where there is a strong suspicion of fraud, or insufficient explanation of reasons for debt.

fermi

As rog2 implies, BRU/BRO's are reserved for people who do this for many £1000's. Not just BR fees and living expenses.

uther wrote: »

For example would'nt that cover just about anyone who used a cc for Br fee's?

Yes, but most OR's are human and turn a blind eye to this. Unless someone has committed 'other' offences, I have never heard of this resulting in more than a 'tut tut'.


Maxing out an overdraft before Br?

Again, a lot of people have no choice. If it is done in conjunction with other things then they won't like it, but otherwise as before.........

Now neither of the above apply to me,they are just examples,but it does seem that we are pretty much at the mercy of each individual OR.
Are BRU/BRO's getting more common as more people go Br?

Basically, the the OR will penalise willful intent to disadvantage a creditor, where a reasonable alternative was present. This means that most people in a tough situation will escape with a light slap of the wrist.

Remmer

Not at all, in fact getting rarer. It really doesn't make much of a difference to joe public

wherediditallgo

I agree. By the time you've ready to go BR, you've only got a few pounds to play with & the court & the OR know that, which is why some of the courts don't charge the court fee - I was actually told by them on the day that, if you're filing for your own BR, you've got no money, so that's why they don't take that from you whether you're on eligible benefits or not.

ORs almost expect you to use whatever means available to pay the court fee, so while they don't totally ignore you doing it, they're not going to slap a 15-year BRO on you for doing so. The people they slap those on are those who deliberately take on several thousands of debt, knowing full well either that they're going to go BR in a few months so won't be expected to pay it or that they can't pay their existing debts yet take on loads more. Some examples are those who get new credit cards & max them out, people taking on additional loans or HP agreements for large items. And also those people who've been BR before, were discharged & are then back before the courts years later in similar circumstances. Court fees are small fry by comparison.

fatbelly

I thought they were getting more common, but that the reason was that the OR can't take into account any conduct prior to 1 April 2004. As time goes on, that clause is blocking less and less of the 'misconduct'.

One thing I am aware of when completing the forms is not to put a very old date on the question 'when did you first have difficulty paying your debts?'

If you put, say 2005, the OR will ask 'why did you take out a load of credit in 2006 when you knew you were in difficulties. Better to put say Feb 2007