Reduce hours worked to avoid IPA?

ihavealotofquestions

Considering BR at the moment and regardless of the moral high ground of paying an IPA, I can't fathom the thought of pay an IPA of my surplus income for THREE YEARS. I will be 31 at the end of it and don't want to live off tinned food for 3 years so..

As I understand it, the OR can only appy an IPA whilst undischarged. So, when I'm discharged after a year, he can't apply one?

Would there be any problem with me reducing my hours with work so much that it is just enough to live off with no surplus so that an IPA wont be imposed a then when the year is up, increase my hours again?

tigerfeet2006

Point number one is the housekeeping allowance is fairly generous.
Point number two is I have never heard of anyone on this board living from tins with an IPA.
Point three is the housekeeping allowance will be the same whether you have an IPA or not.

Pop up your SoA and someone will look at it for you as an OR may look at it and give you some pointers.

egrescrimp

I don't live off tins of beans I have a very fair budget, I don't go without and can afford to have my heating on when I need it without worrying.

If you reduce your hours, which you are perfectly entitled to do it doesn't mean you'll escape an IPA. Remember the less you work, the less outgoing financial commitments you'll have like lunch money, claimable child care expenses etc.

HappyMJ

ihavealotofquestions wrote: »

Considering BR at the moment and regardless of the moral high ground of paying an IPA, I can't fathom the thought of pay an IPA of my surplus income for THREE YEARS. I will be 31 at the end of it and don't want to live off tinned food for 3 years so..

As I understand it, the OR can only appy an IPA whilst undischarged. So, when I'm discharged after a year, he can't apply one?

Would there be any problem with me reducing my hours with work so much that it is just enough to live off with no surplus so that an IPA wont be imposed a then when the year is up, increase my hours again?

Surplus income is just that surplus...you don't eat out of tins you will have enough to eat a normal balanced diet.

It will reduce the amount of money you have to spend eating out at restaurants, drinking beer every night and smoking. You'll still have enough to spend a little on luxuries but not a huge amount.

elljay

The allowances are hugely generous!!! I'm better off than I have been in years, have my heating on for the first time in 18 months today without worrying that I can't pay for it and housekeeping allowance is double my budget before I went bankrupt. The payment allowance is very flexible, can go up or down depending on your income - my firm has just stopped extra hours working so I just have to send in payslips and my payment will go down. For the first time too I will be able to save a bit.

However, the three year stretch does hang over you a bit I think, though I reckon you get used to paying it as you do your tax and NI each month when working - you just don't think about it. It also depends on whether reducing your hours might affect your career or chances of promotion and also, what will you do with the extra time you gain? If you sit around at home you will use electric/gas so your costs would go up anyway.

In my case, I'm glad of the IPA as it means that however little, my creditors are at least getting something back but appreciate that's a bit of a minority view!!!

There's a calculator you can use to predict your IPA on the CAB site https://nedcab.cabmoney.org.uk/bankruptcypoc.asp however my OR changed lots of figures from my calculations so it's only a guide.

EJ

woodformoretrees

You're allowed to earn less - they can't make you work longer hours, (as far as I'm aware).
You need to do what you feel is right for you.

National_Debtline

woodformoretrees wrote: »

You're allowed to earn less - they can't make you work longer hours, (as far as I'm aware).

That's right.

OP - you do need to think carefully before you act. I can't speak for your specific employer but it may be risky to assume that you could simply up your hours again in a year's time - a lot can happen in 12 months!

Dennis
@natdebtline

michael1983l

IPA's are vastly unfair anyway, each person should be treated exactly the same. Why is it fair for someone to enter a bankruptcy as unemployed, not get an IPA and then the day they are discharged get a 60k a year job and live a fantastic life. Where somebody else continues to struggle and work at say 30k and end up in a payment arrangement for 3 years and being worse off.

Bankruptcy's should only look at claiming back any assets and not future earnings.

ihavealotofquestions

Thankyou for all the replies - apologies for the spelling in my first post - it was late and I was tired!

In reply to above, my work contract states I am guaranteed to have my hours upped to full time if I request so after reducing them as long as I give 2 months notice and as long as I joined as a full time employee, whih I did so no problem them.

I would rather earn less for a year and not have an IPA at the end than just pay any surplus.

Just to confirm, after I am discharged, the OR cant somehow give me an IPA (spoken as if its an STD!) afterwards at any time?

debt_doctor

ihavealotofquestions wrote: »

Thankyou for all the replies - apologies for the spelling in my first post - it was late and I was tired!

In reply to above, my work contract states I am guaranteed to have my hours upped to full time if I request so after reducing them as long as I give 2 months notice and as long as I joined as a full time employee, whih I did so no problem them.

I would rather earn less for a year and not have an IPA at the end than just pay any surplus.

Just to confirm, after I am discharged, the OR cant somehow give me an IPA (spoken as if its an STD!) afterwards at any time?

Yes, you're correct, an IPA can only start whilst you are undischarged. If you are discharged from bankruptcy without an IPA then you can never ever get one, no matter how much your income my increase.

DD

dojoman

michael1983l wrote: »

IPA's are vastly unfair anyway, each person should be treated exactly the same. Why is it fair for someone to enter a bankruptcy as unemployed, not get an IPA and then the day they are discharged get a 60k a year job and live a fantastic life. Where somebody else continues to struggle and work at say 30k and end up in a payment arrangement for 3 years and being worse off.

Bankruptcy's should only look at claiming back any assets and not future earnings.

How can every case be treated the same? Every case is unique to that individual and has to be treated that way, I knew what I was entering in to when going BR and was more than happy to pay in to an IPA.