What is the purpose of this board? (bankruptcy)

gettingbackontrack

I see the thread I was commenting on has been closed.

May I ask, what the purpose of this board is? It seems to be "how to work the system to get away with with what you can".

Surely the starting point has to be paying back what you owe - either all of it, or -after bankrupcty - what you can as part of an IPA?

Sympathy and support is one thing, but advising on manipulating figures to affect an IPA seems very wrong to me.

For what it's worth, my parents both went bankrupt and it was a hugely difficult and emotionally challenging time for them - as it is for most people here. But some people seem to use bankruptcy as a free pass and then resent the OR's involvement which surely is to be discouraged not encouraged.

Edited for clarification:
This was posted on the bankruptcy board but it was moved as apparently the morality of bankruptcy laws and advice cannot be discussed there....

I was taking issue with the fact that a poster who went bankrupt and then moaned about having to have an IPA (and therefore pay creditors even a fraction of what he/she owed) was given advice on manipulating that IPA. When he complained he/she wasn't allowed £3,000 to take his/her children to France, he/she was advised that they should be allowed up to £2,000 for a holiday.

When I queried this, I was told holidays were allowed, they were not luxuries and the discussion was closed. Is MSE really about advice on hwo to avoid your debts so you can live it up on holiday?

alastairq

May I ask, what the purpose of this board is? It seems to be "how to work the system to get away with with what you can".

In plain terms, that is exactly what this board is about.

All of it!

Whether it's about how to take full advantage of the terms and conditions of various credit cards, or about how to rip Tesco's off.

We, as consumers, need to do it...and you can bet your boots the whole finance industry...and service industry, devote an awful lot of their time to doing it?

Good old fashioned 'integrity' is a thing of the past.

And really, is the Law an !!!, simply because it doesn't fit in with your moral code?

You started commenting fairly enough, but then went off on a tangent, by suggesting that a bankrupt person should eschew any sort of expenditure which they are allowed, for the sake of giving a few pence more to the BR pot?

If you discovered you were entitled to a benefit, would you refuse to claim, simply to ease this country's public debt burden?

Bankruptcy isn't about hair shirts!

It isn't a punishment.....unless the BR person makes it so themselves.

It isn't a criminal offence..at least, no more so than Divorce?

So, to pursue your argument, to suit your moral agenda, is really bound to get the thread locked.

gettingbackontrack

alastairq wrote: »

In plain terms, that is exactly what this board is about.

All of it!

Whether it's about how to take full advantage of the terms and conditions of various credit cards, or about how to rip Tesco's off.

We, as consumers, need to do it...and you can bet your boots the whole finance industry...and service industry, devote an awful lot of their time to doing it?

Good old fashioned 'integrity' is a thing of the past.

And really, is the Law an !!!, simply because it doesn't fit in with your moral code?

You started commenting fairly enough, but then went off on a tangent, by suggesting that a bankrupt person should eschew any sort of expenditure which they are allowed, for the sake of giving a few pence more to the BR pot?

If you discovered you were entitled to a benefit, would you refuse to claim, simply to ease this country's public debt burden?

Bankruptcy isn't about hair shirts!

It isn't a punishment.....unless the BR person makes it so themselves.

It isn't a criminal offence..at least, no more so than Divorce?

So, to pursue your argument, to suit your moral agenda, is really bound to get the thread locked.

Integrity is a thing of the past? I'm glad I don't live in your shoes. How sad to think the world is all take and grab.....

So let's see - someone running a business has debts, including £1,500 to Joe Bloggs's building firm, then decides to go bankrupt. You think it's OK for that person to avoid paying A PENNY to their creditors, even if it financially cripples Joe Bloggs? Poor Joe Bloggs can't take his family on holiday but the debtor is laughing all the way to the bank and gets a free pass to the sun.

Shameful.

For you, it sounds as if bankruptcy is a giggle and a game - let's cheat someone out of the money we owe! Let's live it up at someone else's expense!! What a hoot!

And I don't think I need your opinion on whether i commented "fairly". You're right that I have a moral code and that includes paying my debts not dodging them. I don't believe MSE was formed to encouraged people to dodge their responsibilities.

September_2012

gettingbackontrack are you or have you ever been bankrupt ?

gettingbackontrack

September_2012 wrote: »

gettingbackontrack are you or have you ever been bankrupt ?

No.

As I explained, my parents went bankrupt several years ago. For them it was a hugely difficult time, not a laugh and giggle and a chance to avoid what they owe, as it seems for some posters on the bankruptcy board. I've seen the pain and difficulty of bankruptcy and frankly it disgusts me to see it played for laughs and gain.

Six years ago, I realised I had nearly £53,000 of debt. I was earning about £30,000. Instead of trying to run away from this debt (never occurred to me), I started paying it off. Now I owe just over £10,000 and am likely to clear it all in a year. I haven't been able to spend £1,300 on a holiday, yet if I'd gone bankrupt apparently I would..... Is that fair?

I believe bankruptcy helps many people in desperate situations. There should be no stigma attached to people in such situations. Our system should help the needy - but not the greedy.

High earners who have mismanaged their money should not be allowed to play the system to avoid their debts (I consider myself in that category).

My concern is that too many posters on the bankruptcy board see it as a game, a get-out-jail-free card that allows them to maintain their lifestyle at someone else's expense. There is almost a sense of egging people on to go bankrupt, posters are encouraged to "add more" to their statement of affairs rather than have to reflect reality. People are told to add dry cleaning, for example, even if they never use a dry cleaner - anything to avoid an IPA or to lower the sum.

What about their creditors? They don't seem to count at all. In fact they're there to be sneered at and ignored.

But if so many people refuse to pay back what they owe when they can, we all pay in the end. Just as we pay higher car insurance premiums because of the fraud. Now the bankruptcy board tells me there's no place for morality which I find pathetic.

I think some of them are bankrupt in more than financial terms.

I realise these are strong opinions but I don't think it helps the cause of the needy to diminish the seriousness of debt.

Lou67

PMSL at this thread.

For your information OP. Me and my hubby went bankrupt in 2010 and our local CAB said they would do everything they could to make sure we didn't get an IPA. At the time our wages were crap anyway, and our rent high, so we didn't have one anyway. But I am glad we didn't, because I think once you have gone bankrupt, your debt is GONE: that is the idea of bankruptcy.

IMO, you go bankrupt to get rid of your debts. Why the hell should you be lumbered with having to pay back X amount of 100s a month for THREE YEARS after your bankruptcy. I would do anything possible to not get an IPA, and I don't think they should exist!

22bear

gettingbackontrack wrote: »

No.

As I explained, my parents went bankrupt several years ago. For them it was a hugely difficult time, not a laugh and giggle and a chance to avoid what they owe, as it seems for some posters on the bankruptcy board. I've seen the pain and difficulty of bankruptcy and frankly it disgusts me to see it played for laughs and gain.

Six years ago, I realised I had nearly £53,000 of debt. I was earning about £30,000. Instead of trying to run away from this debt (never occurred to me), I started paying it off. Now I owe just over £10,000 and am likely to clear it all in a year. I haven't been able to spend £1,300 on a holiday, yet if I'd gone bankrupt apparently I would..... Is that fair?

I believe bankruptcy helps many people in desperate situations. There should be no stigma attached to people in such situations. Our system should help the needy - but not the greedy.

High earners who have mismanaged their money should not be allowed to play the system to avoid their debts (I consider myself in that category).

My concern is that too many posters on the bankruptcy board see it as a game, a get-out-jail-free card that allows them to maintain their lifestyle at someone else's expense. There is almost a sense of egging people on to go bankrupt, posters are encouraged to "add more" to their statement of affairs rather than have to reflect reality. People are told to add dry cleaning, for example, even if they never use a dry cleaner - anything to avoid an IPA or to lower the sum.

What about their creditors? They don't seem to count at all. In fact they're there to be sneered at and ignored.

But if so many people refuse to pay back what they owe when they can, we all pay in the end. Just as we pay higher car insurance premiums because of the fraud. Now the bankruptcy board tells me there's no place for morality which I find pathetic.

I think some of them are bankrupt in more than financial terms.

I realise these are strong opinions but I don't think it helps the cause of the needy to diminish the seriousness of debt.

I have to say I do think you views are not based on reality and I'm speaking here as someone who has just petitioned for my bankruptcy 2 weeks ago and had my interview with the Official Receiver last week, so I speak from factual contemporary experience.

The Insolvency laws explicitly specifies what are reasonable expenses for someone going bankrupt can claim and gives figures for these items. The Official Receiver can and will ask for evidence of any expenditure claimed in the form of asking for receipts and other evidence of required need ( and, in my case, medical evidence)...if someone claims for dry cleaning then the OR WILL ask to see evidence of this expenditure so contrary to what you say (very much in error I think), no-one can claim unneeded expenses on their statement of affairs. I was asked to provide a years bank statements showing all my transactions and I also provided recent receipts for my expenditure that could be checked and cross referenced easily on my bank statements and I don't think that just happens to me! In the end, my IPA figure I thought was fair and manageable..and it will be reviewed in 10 months time to assess any changes in my circumstances

So your views and descriptions are certainly not recognisable to me from my recent experience of bankruptcy

Any advice given to would be bankrupts on this site is usually to make them think about their typical day to day expenses that many people might well forget to put down on a statement of affairs, especially things that cost maybe only £10-£20 per month that they might have taken for granted and forget to claim but they actually use or need. I've used this forum for a while now and I've never seen anyone being encouraged to claim expenses that were not considered reasonable...the Official Receiver's role is robust enough to check all that, I feel

coolcait

It was a thread started by a brand new poster.

One who shared several of the stylistic devices which are commonly seen in 'controversial' posts across MSE.

And that throwaway reference to the need for £3k to hire a car for a holiday to France...

You took the bait. I sympathise. Like you, I don't always cross the bridge when I come to it :D

Go back and look at the early part of the thread - before you bit.

The OP was told several truths by other forum members. You might have missed those.

Discussions about IPA 'allowances' can be difficult. However, it's also about budgeting. If you can feed your family on less than the amount of the food 'allowance', then that is good budgeting on your part, and it gives you extra money to use elsewhere.

The same principle applies to other allowances.

In my experience of the bankruptcy board, the posters there do generally get a good balance between the 'not judgemental' approach, and the 'you shouldn't do that'/'that's not quite true' approach.

The biggest problem, in my experience, is the pervasive view that you are 'debt-free' as soon as you are declared bankrupt.

You're not.

But that 'Now I'm debt-free' approach does play a part in some people's attitude towards paying an IPA.

And that is fertile ground for those who thrive on creating 'controversial' threads.

Try not to join them.

arcon5

gettingbackontrack wrote: »

Six years ago, I realised I had nearly £53,000 of debt. I was earning about £30,000. Instead of trying to run away from this debt (never occurred to me), I started paying it off. Now I owe just over £10,000 and am likely to clear it all in a year. I haven't been able to spend £1,300 on a holiday, yet if I'd gone bankrupt apparently I would..... Is that fair?

I believe bankruptcy helps many people in desperate situations. There should be no stigma attached to people in such situations. Our system should help the needy - but not the greedy.

What if you was earning (as was my situation) £10k/year, with £35k worth of debt at the time of BR + still legally bound to a commercial lease which will see another £30k added to the total figure by the time the break clause comes in (and after 14 months of trying to re-let the premises nobody was interested, especially after the way the economy went a few years ago, and still is).

This with a child to support.

How do you propose an individual pays this back? Even if one tried, then one couldn't ever afford to do any decent sort of home learning course or such in order to improve future prospects. In such a situation it would seem one is destined to a life time of severe stress and living on the bread line.

Yet, you see it as a get out of jail free card. Not really, before ending up in this situation I input every single penny I had in to it - about £12k, and 3 years of my life living on sub-£10k/year. In fact nearer the end, around £6k/year. If you've ever run a struggling business, having to pay staff, you will certainly know that it kills you emotionally, affects people around you and certainly isn't an easy ride.

Your point relating to the poster wanting £3k for a holiday to France has some merit, unfortunately I feel your stance on BR in general is flawed.

pelirocco

Lou67 wrote: »

PMSL at this thread.

For your information OP. Me and my hubby went bankrupt in 2010 and our local CAB said they would do everything they could to make sure we didn't get an IPA. At the time our wages were crap anyway, and our rent high, so we didn't have one anyway. But I am glad we didn't, because I think once you have gone bankrupt, your debt is GONE: that is the idea of bankruptcy.

IMO, you go bankrupt to get rid of your debts. Why the hell should you be lumbered with having to pay back X amount of 100s a month for THREE YEARS after your bankruptcy. I would do anything possible to not get an IPA, and I don't think they should exist!

Why shouldn't you pay back money to pay off debt if you have the money? Bankruptcy is there to protect those who through no fault of their own cannot pay their debt.

Why the hell should your creditors suffer because you think bankruptcy is a means to avoid paying what you owe

gettingbackontrack

Lou67 wrote: »

PMSL at this thread.

For your information OP. Me and my hubby went bankrupt in 2010 and our local CAB said they would do everything they could to make sure we didn't get an IPA. At the time our wages were crap anyway, and our rent high, so we didn't have one anyway. But I am glad we didn't, because I think once you have gone bankrupt, your debt is GONE: that is the idea of bankruptcy.

IMO, you go bankrupt to get rid of your debts. Why the hell should you be lumbered with having to pay back X amount of 100s a month for THREE YEARS after your bankruptcy. I would do anything possible to not get an IPA, and I don't think they should exist!

PSML? What a vulgar expression. No need to use foul language.

I do not find the idea of not paying debts amusing. Running away from them isn't funny or clever.

What about your creditors, or don't they count?