silly question i know but ....

desperate_mum_3

after you have been discharged is that it ??? does life go back to normal or are you still beholdant to the OR for 5 - 6 years ? Only reason I ask is if you are left anything by a relative do you still have to tell the OR every little thing ..

Remmer

Only if you have an IPA and then only for the duration of it. Once the IPA is fulfilled and providing you are discharged it's all yours

owetoomuch

Sorry Remmer can you clarify, if you have been discharged but still paying an IPA do you have to tell the OR of any changes in circumstances? I thought once discharged you continued to pay IPA but did not have to tell the OR of any changes in your circumstances, unless of course you couldn't meet the IPA?

Remmer

Yes you do. It works both ways. If your income goes down you'd want a reduced IPA wouldn't you? Only when the IPA is fulfilled are you really free,

desperate_mum_3

Many thanks ....

rog2

desperate_mum wrote: »

after you have been discharged is that it ??? does life go back to normal or are you still beholdant to the OR for 5 - 6 years ? Only reason I ask is if you are left anything by a relative do you still have to tell the OR every little thing ..

Hi DM - Your obligation to report changes in financial circumstances finishes the day that you are discharged.
If a trustee has been appointed, to deal with your assets (in my case - the matrimonial home) then you still have to co-operate with the trustee.
As far as I can see you do NOT have to report any unexpected windfall, or inheritance, after your discharge.

wherediditallgo

Remmer wrote: »

Only if you have an IPA and then only for the duration of it. Once the IPA is fulfilled and providing you are discharged it's all yours

The IPA agreement that I signed says:

"Until I am discharged from bankruptcy, I shall notify the Official Receiver or other trustee of any increase in my income within 21 days of becoming aware of the increase. I understand that the Official Receiver or trustee may claim any increase in income for the benefit of my creditors. I acknowledge that my obligation to make payments under this agreement does not end when I am discharged from bankruptcy and that failure to make payments can affect the date upon which I am discharged."

The clause is badly worded. It gives the impression that you don't have to notify the OR of any increase in income once you're discharged. I don't see how that can be right, when you could still have at least 2 years of your IPA still to run after you're discharged, & your IPA is based on surplus money you have after your income & outgoings are taken into account. It would be interesting to see what happened if someone was discharged, came into some money, didn't tell the OR & when the OR found out about it used this clause as the grounds for why they didn't notify the OR of it.

fermi

This is such an annoying grey area.:mad:

Firstly the primary insolvency legislation says that you must inform the OR of changes in circumstance after discharge if you have an IPA/IPO.

However, the OR's seem to rarely enforce this, unless you suddenly receive a an obscene amount of money. The reason seems to be that the OR's are so busy that they don't want to be informed of every little change in your income, as they would need to re-do the IPA calculation. It would enormously increase their workload to have to do this for another 2 and a bit years, and would realise relatively little for creditors and the OR compared to increased costs.

wherediditallgo

I agree with you, Fermi - I've spoken to other people about this, & the consensus seems to be that the OR is trying to cut down on his workload, so that they don't have to deal with the admin because someone's told them about a few hundred (or even a few thousand) pounds after they've been discharged. I don't see how anyone could be blamed for going by the terms of the agreement that they signed, regardless of what they may have seen on other bits of paper, on websites or been told verbally by others.

I suppose if you came into enough money that you could clear your debts completely & barely make a dent in the original sum, it would come down to whether you felt morally obliged to disclose it, even if you had no legal obligation to do so.

fermi

wherediditallgo wrote: »

I don't see how anyone could be blamed for going by the terms of the agreement that they signed, regardless of what they may have seen on other bits of paper, on websites or been told verbally by others.

Exactly. Many people may not have access to that info, or think to question the wording of the IPA agreement. You certainly couldn't blame them for taking it at face value.

desperate_mum_3

well unless i win the lottery i won't worry ... thanks all ...x