Very angry judge, is this normal?

tomtontom

egrescrimp wrote: »

In the grand scheme of things, if you are in the position of needing to go bankrupt £12.12 or £27 for sky isn't really going to cover your financial commitments.

Once bankrupt those debts are then gone, it's then down to the OR to decide what is reasonable and what isn't. They will allow a TV license but most OR's probably won't allow Sky.

I'm discharged from my bankruptcy, I now budget properly and hope to never find myself in debt again. I've learnt to get by now without any form of credit, if I can't afford it then I don't get it. I have the basics in life and nothing more, which is the case with most bankrupts.

^^ Is the attitude that gets/ keeps people in debt. £27 a month is £330 a year that could go towards a debt. £60 on mobiles is £720. That's over a grand paid off with change for a basic pay as you go.

I won't even comment on the waxing, dry cleaning ...

fermi

Please report posts via the button on each one, or email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com rather than replying.

Littlebettyboop

I do feel sorry for anyone who has gotten themselves into a sticky patch financially and who has lost control of their debts, and as has been highlighted here, there are many different circumstances that lead to bankruptcy; so I would never judge, or say 'serves you right for being bankrupt because you have sky tv and a mobile phone!'

However, I am struggling with this one, because the OP said she had the proceeds of her father's house only 3 years ago, and claims that she didn't pay off any debts because they were 'small and manageable;' yet now she is going bankrupt. :huh:

I just don't understand what the OP can have done in such a small frame of time, to have warranted going bankrupt; there must have been some severe spending and loaning and credit-taking going on to be going bankrupt now, after having really small and manageable debts only 3 years ago. And where is the proceeds of her father's house?

If she did have bigger debts than she is making out, and didn't use the proceeds from her father's house to pay them off, then I think the judge had every right to be annoyed, and even refuse the bankruptcy. Bankruptcy - as a rule - is for people who have lost control of their debts and have tried every avenue to pay them off; but from what the OP says, she acquired a substantial amount of money from the proceeds of a house only 3 years ago, and is now going bankrupt. As i said, what happened to all the money from the house sale??? And why does she have so much debt now if she had such 'small' debts 3 years ago?

I think the judge acted quite reasonably.

egrescrimp

tomtontom wrote: »

^^ Is the attitude that gets/ keeps people in debt. £27 a month is £330 a year that could go towards a debt. £60 on mobiles is £720. That's over a grand paid off with change for a basic pay as you go.

I won't even comment on the waxing, dry cleaning ...

I agree about the mobile part, £60 would be excessive and that money could be spent better elsewhere.

Dry cleaning, aren't bankrupts allowed to have clean clothes or is that an exclusive part of being solvent? I don't use a dry cleaners myself, I have a basic washer and tumble dryer, is it ok for me to own those in your opinion?

Thrugelmir

The Judge could simply be cross because there's more important matters that the Court should be dealing with. Than discussing Sky and mobile phone subscriptions. Judges hate having their time wasted.

Cobalt77

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The Judge could simply be cross because there's more important matters that the Court should be dealing with. Than discussing Sky and mobile phone subscriptions. Judges hate having their time wasted.

Judges are just ordinary people (who sometimes wear wigs and funny dresses, even if they are men!).

So, they have good days and bad days. They probably have rows with their husbands/wives/staff, and moan about the state of the country/government/paying taxes/getting an appointment to see a GP.

The most important question here is: "Who gives a flying !!!!?"

The only person's opinion who really counts at this point in time is the OR's. You weren't being charged with a criminal matter (i.e. a "real" crime), so the Judge's behaviour means diddley squat.

On a positive note, it will make an interesting story to tell your friends in a few years when this is all behind you

Wasabi74

I wish BettyBoop you had read my original post before commenting. It is not my father's house that was sold but the family home when I left my marriage. Equity after paying off family debts was only 60k which was divided equally between my ex husband and I. With that money I bought a second hand car (he kept the family one), furnished a whole home for four people and paid off £10k on my one and only credit card at the time, leaving a balance of 4k. So not much money left from the sale of the house as you can imagine, just a couple of thousands which as mentioned before were used to live off for a year until they ran out and I had no option but to start claiming benefits.

The current debts are due to a very expensive divorce (over 15k in legal fees) as well as day to day stuff like expensive car repairs etc which benefit amounts unfortunately can't pay for as they're just about enough for basic living expenses.

Not sure why I'm getting a hard time on this, when all I've done is to deal with an impossible situation (unable to work until my youngest starts school) in the best possible manner.

phillw

Wasabi74 wrote: »

Not sure why I'm getting a hard time on this, when all I've done is to deal with an impossible situation (unable to work until my youngest starts school) in the best possible manner.

You were upset and you vented, but it came across as entitlement.

When my father was unemployed in the 1970's and tried to claim benefits they sent someone round that said he should sell his car and piano. Imagine how he would react to your complaining that the judge made you feel bad by highlighting how much you are spending on sky and mobile phones each month (he still doesn't have sky and uses about £5 a year on pay as you go).

We got addicted to spending money and keeping up with the Joneses and the country is a mess. MSE is like a recovery group and people shouldn't judge, but if you turned up at an AA meeting asking people to accept that your continued drinking is justified then you would likely get sharply brought back down to earth.

If you came here saying that you mishandled your money and now you are stuck in contracts that would be just as expensive to get out of than continue paying them & you chose not to work so you could look after your child then you would likely have not received the comments that you did.

I personally don't care what you did and what you do from now on, but you're more likely to find empathy and also become a better MSE if you take responsibility for the decisions that got you to where you are today.

I wouldn't expect to receive empathy on these forums though, I would only expect to hear opinions on money saving advice and even then I wouldn't expect to like what I hear.

-taff

phillw wrote: »

You were upset and you vented, but it came across as entitlement.

When my father was unemployed in the 1970's and tried to claim benefits they sent someone round that said he should sell his car and piano. Imagine how he would react to your complaining that the judge made you feel bad by highlighting how much you are spending on sky and mobile phones each month (he still doesn't have sky and uses about £5 a year on pay as you go).

...you chose not to work so you could look after your child then you would likely have not received the comments that you did.

I wouldn't expect to receive empathy on these forums though, I would only expect to hear opinions on money saving advice and even then I wouldn't expect to like what I hear.

Peronsally, I wouldn't work if childcare costs outweighed what I would receive if I was working either, as that just means you'll get into debt much sooner...which is noted in one of the OPs posts....

I very rarely post on this board, I was here on the offchance because someone posted a PPI query.

Having been here briefly, I can confidently say that if I was going bankrupt and I had asked a specific question, I would like that question answered, not receive a load of censure from new posters who post just to condemn someone who is not in the position that they are.

Your fathers story is his story, and the OPs story is her story.

She asked about judges, not about whether people had sympathy for her situation or censure for her situation.

True this is a public forum and anyone can post just about anything they like, but unnecessary censure is still unecessary censure and if I want to post highlighting my disgust with it, then I can.

Brock_and_Roll

Aside from the issue here, I find it outrageous that a school is insisting that 13 year old need smart phones to do their homework etc.