What is the purpose of this board? (bankruptcy)

PasturesNew

If somebody's gone bankrupt and not paid their bills, that might mean people lose their savings or their jobs. Sitting in a damp bedsit on £71/week JSA they'd not be best pleased to see the person who went bankrupt still managing to have [a] holidays very expensive holidays.

I often see many bankrupts on the board "allowed" amounts to live on much larger than many working people are earning.... and still moaning.

They had choices and whooped it up.... those hit by others not paying up didn't make choices.

gettingbackontrack

22bear wrote: »

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

My parents went through bankruptcy so it IS based on personal experience. I have stated this three times now but it's being ignored because it's convenient for the cheat-the-creditors gang to ignore it....

I have seen plenty of advice on how to avoid IPAs. Add this, add that, bump up your figures. Look at the advice on Saturday - you should get £1,300 for a holiday. WHAT?

No-one with an ounce of decency should think it's acceptable for someone to walk away from debts (leaving a creditor short) then fritter away cash on a holiday because the "kiddies shouldn't be punished". What next - they should get money for an iPad "cos the kids want one"? Or what if little Johnny or Jenny is nearly 17 - give them money for a car so they don't miss out among their friends.

For pity's sake, you owe money you pay it back. In exceptional circumstances that can't happen. Bu those cases are exceptional not everyday ones. You're paying back what you can which is all any right-thinking member of society would ask. Someone bragging that they "fixed" their accounts so they avoided an IPA is disgusting.

The needy not the greedy, I will say again.

gettingbackontrack

coolcait wrote: »

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.

There's no need to try to patronise me (not very well, either). What I saw on that thread was someone quite seriously say £1,300 to £2,00 would be OK for a holiday and someone who purports to be a debt adviser corrected that to "The lower end" of that sum. So £1,300, he or she stated, is allowable and quite right too.

I suggest you go back and look at that thread, and also look at some others as you may have missed the "how to avoid an IPA" advice. Or did you see the poster on here who sneers at those paying back their debts and who proudly and loudly proclaims that "integrity is a thing of the past"? Go back and have a little look - it would have helped really if you'd done so before commenting.

I've read the bankruptcy board for a while and I have seen a disturbing trend to "what you can get away with" and posters being egged on to go bankrupt - "it's great, I walked away £XX,000 of debt" etc. I think it's seen as a game by some people and that's not what the board should be. There are people who DO need help and sympathy and it's being twisted by some people into a cheat-the-creditors game.

Shame on them and shame on anyone who doesn't stand up against it. Or tries to bully other posters who don't agree with them

Try not to join them, eh?

gettingbackontrack

pelirocco wrote: »

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

Quite right, pelirocco. It's astonishing to read but this is a view you see posted AND ENCOURAGED on the bankruptcy board. Lovely or edifying it is not.

gettingbackontrack

PasturesNew wrote: »

If somebody's gone bankrupt and not paid their bills, that might mean people lose their savings or their jobs. Sitting in a damp bedsit on £71/week JSA they'd not be best pleased to see the person who went bankrupt still managing to have [a] holidays very expensive holidays.

I often see many bankrupts on the board "allowed" amounts to live on much larger than many working people are earning.... and still moaning.

They had choices and whooped it up.... those hit by others not paying up didn't make choices.

Well, isn't the part in bold the truth. Work hard, pay back your debts - that's for mugs. Well that's what i was told by a stalwart of that board. Integrity is a thing of the past, I was told.

Not a word about the creditors. They're just fodder for a lifestyle the bankrupt thinks they're entitled to it seems...

gettingbackontrack

arcon5 wrote: »

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.

I'm afraid I feel YOUR stance on bankruptcy is flawed (not to mention your acknowledgement that my response to a poster wanting £3,000 for a holiday has some merit! Some? Some?)

I think if you read my posts carefully you see I say people should try to pay off their debts. Not everyone can and in those circumstances, bankruptcy is a last resort. There are many losers in bankruptcy but the idea that the bankrupt is the only victim is an untruth being peddled by people who should know better.

There are many reasons people want to go bankrupt but the outcome is the same. What happened to the people you owed money to? Don't they count?

What if your bankruptcy meant someone else couldn't afford their bills? Couldn't afford to put food on the table for their children, let alone spend £1,300 on a holiday? They might have been struggling for years too, they might be on the edge and your inability to pay what you owe might be causing THEM severe stress and living on the breadline. Through nop fault of their own.

I empathise with your situation but why should that entitle you to a holiday instead of paying off your debts? I've worked VERY hard for years but that doesn't entitle me to a holiday. And not one at some else's expense.

I think anyone who dares to question the bankrutcy process on the that board is treated to a shrill, near hysterical "how am I meant to live then?" approach which isn't helpful. Just have a think for a moment - a read the stories of people who are living tough lives yet paying off their debts. Do these people deserve to sneered at the on bankruptcy board by people who brag that they don't have an IPA?

From your description it sounds as if bankruptcy was the only option in your case. That is what the system is there for. It is not there for middle-aged failures who've mismanaged their money and now want to walk away and live a high-spending life.

I don't know when you went bankrupt or if you had an IPA. I hope you tried to pay back what you could to your creditors before enjoying holidays. After all, an IPA is normally only for three years which is a lot less than most debt-management plans. And unfortunately there are many people out there who face years and years and years of struggling.

Being able to leave debts behind IS a debt-of-jail-free card. A necessary one in many circumstances but one being used by the greedy and well as the needy.

(I don't count you in that former category,by the way, but the system is being abused and I don't like seeing abuse being encouraged).

gettingbackontrack

I've decided not to post on this thread after this and I won't return to the bankruptcy board either.

It upsets me too much. I'm paying back every penny I borrowed and read about other people bravely doing the same. I also read about people living very tough lives who don't expect a holiday at someone else's expense.

To those for whom bankruptcy is genuinely the only option, good luck to you. I hope you keep your dignity and humility and recognise who fortunate you are that we have such positive bankruptcy laws, payign as much as you can on an IPA with good grace.

To those who run away from their debts and want the easy option, I hope you find a conscience and a sense of responsibility.

To those who help others abuse the system, I would like to think we reap what we sow and you will get your just desserts from someone, somewhere.

22bear

I think the final thing that I have to say is that, sure, people may come on here and say all sorts of things and moan about having to pay an IPA and ask questions about how to maximise their allowances...but at the end of the day, I have never seen anyone come on here after dealing with the official receiver and claim that they have got away with pulling the wool over the official receivers eyes and are getting away with paying an IPA much less than they should be or not paying into one at all when they should.

The Insolvency laws are what they are...they are explicit and transparent, no matter how any individual feels about them, whether they are too lenient on a bankrupt or otherwise. They state that a bankrupt must be left with a "reasonable" amount to live on and that will be a different amount for each and every individual who goes through this legal process, depending on their own circumstances

The OP who kicked off this discussion (noticeably gone very quiet since, I see!) who wanted £3k for a holiday for him and his dependants (3 kids) said himself that his OR would have none of it...and that really is the bottom line...the OR's role is to manage the bankrupt's affairs with the sole objectives of maximising the return to creditors and ensuring fairness and proportionality to the bankrupt themselves and also placing any further restrictions to the bankrupt if their conduct has been deemed inappropriate...my experience is that the OR does an extremely good job in realising these objectives and procedures are very robust

what folk may say on here about claiming on SOAs and minimising IPAs is one thing and of course might well annoy people who are not bankrupt and struggle to continue to pay their debts and sacrifice things in their life (like family holidays) to do so, but once the OR is involved, fairness prevails...for both sides!

22bear

Just to add about adults having to sacrifice family holidays to pay their debts: there is a very good argument to say that having to do this could amount to neglect of their children's well-being and happiness (not to mention as well as their own)...a break away from home and everyday routine and spending quality family time on a holiday is beneficial to ones health and well-being and that's why it is considered reasonable in the insolvency laws for a bankrupt to be allowed a modest amount to provide a holiday/break away for them and their families. Any parent who has taken on debts and makes repayments to the effect that they sacrifice this for them and their children, I personally think that they are doing themselves and their children a great (and potentially very damaging) disservice!

debt_doctor

It is very simple what I do on the bankruptcy board - I give guidance as to the bankruptcy laws.

That law is the Insolvency Act 1986 ("The Act")

The act says that a modest holiday is a reasonable expense - so that is what I say.

The act says that a BR is entitled to have sufficient funds to support their reasonable domestic needs - so that is what I say.

The act says that a redundancy payment will be seized in full as property when paid whilst un discharged - so that is what I say - I DON'T say - don't tell 'em and hide it under the bed mate.

The act says that cars will be seized as an asset no matter what its value unless you can PROVE a need for it not just a want - so that is what I say - I DON'T say - hide it, say you haven't got one / put it in someone else's name.

The folk on the BR board are a good bunch and very quickly bring to the attention of any poster if something is contrary to the law.

far from you holding any moral high ground, I find you a rather sad, bitter and twisted individual, your hopes that "we will get our just deserts" for giving our time for free to assist BRs and would be BRs to comply with the law speaks volumes about you.

DD