Very angry judge, is this normal?

Silian

dancingfairy wrote: »

A judge shouldn't really be there to judge you in my view,

Am I the only one who giggled a bit at this sentence

(Just want to point out that it is correct - the judge shouldn't be judging you.)

Sorry to hear you had a rough time, but I am glad to hear that your meeting with the OR went much better. It sounds like you have had a really rough time in general and I do hope that life starts getting better for you.

Good luck!

Blackjack_Davy

JanChris wrote: »

My husband went bankrupt yesterday and didn't have to see a judge..just had his forms given back signed. Must've been PMT!!

You just know it was a woman who posted that, if it had been a man he'd be labelled sexist, misogynist, disgraceful, etc, etc...:cool:

-taff

And lived for three years paying rent, food, clothes for 3 children and one adult, not claiming benefits until the money had run out.
Where do you think the 20,000 went? A 2 bed house would cost a minimum of £500 where I live, that's over 15,000 in rent alone over 3 years.....

Tiddlywinks

-taff wrote: »

And lived for three years paying rent, food, clothes for 3 children and one adult, not claiming benefits until the money had run out.
Where do you think the 20,000 went? A 2 bed house would cost a minimum of £500 where I live, that's over 15,000 in rent alone over 3 years.....

But... there was a suitable benefit to be claimed so the OP should have accessed the help.

JimmyTheWig

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

For your own sake you need to look back and see how you could have done things differently - then you will learn from that and not make the same mistakes again.

I'm not keen on a lot of the judgemental nature of this post, but the bit I've quoted I definitely agree with.
The worst thing would be to not learn from what's happened and repeat the same mistakes again.

debtorwithaquestion

I would hate for any of these people criticising OP over the reasons for bankruptcy / spending ect to come across hard times because it will hit you like a slap in the face.

Seriously, nobody is born into this world intent on racking up debt and ruining their credit record and declaring bankruptcy.

Yes, some abuse the system, some don't care at all about any of it, but many are living below the breadline and end up in a situation not entirely brought upon them because they thought they had 'entitlement' or 'NEEDED' Sky Tv and a mobile.

Seriously you lot, grow up and stop being so judgemental. You can have your opinion but keep it off the forum if it's just plain nasty. Of course you can question and pick points because people are here to discuss- but don't judge people when you have no idea who and why.

Can't stand this type of person who probably never went through any struggle before in their perfect, well-thought out lives (and probably a great surplus income every month).

alastairq

I can see where the judge was coming from - you spent a lot of money in a very short time and accrued debts whilst still subscribing to Sky (for example) etc - that's not the action of someone who has tried to cut back on her expenses

It is not the task of the Judge to be opinionated about what monies were used for. The Judge's task is to determine from the evidence whether the petitioner is in fact insolvent....[ie, cannot meet their debts as they fall due.] The Judge must leave the investigations into past assets to the Court's Officer, ie, the Official Receiver.

A reason for the Judge being a bit 'reluctant' could be, if the Judge was not entirely satisfied the petitioner had sought proper advice as to the duties & responsibilities that go with Bankrutpcy.

The last thing any Judge wants to see, is a petitioner going back to Court to seek to undo the petition, simply because they 'didn't realise what it all meant' !

As for the OP?

Perhaps it wasn't a good idea for you to pronounce justification for your past actions on what sadly amounts to an open forum.

You did what you did.....nothing can change that now, and you will not be 'punished' for it.

What you did probably has happened...or could have happened, to thousands who have been through bankruptcy before you [and been on here too?]

Nothing wrong with Sky.

They offer a good alternative package to the normally acceptable internet/phone packages...

Perhaps your Judge did as some who posted on here have done....presumed, out of ignorance of the facts?

It is also entirely possible the Judge had the onerous duty of seeing to petitions thrust upon them at the last moment....perhaps wanting to fly off to somewhere sunny, but couldn't?



MAybe it simply was a case of the paperwork not being entirely properly done....something the Judge would have expected the Court Clerks to have picked up on, and dealt with?

Who knows?

Judges do have to attend courses on how to present themselves, especially when dealing with situations like bankruptcy, etc...which can be a highly stressful time for the petitioner...and the Judge is required to conduct themselves accordingly, and carefully.

Gone are the days of Judge Jeffries!

My Judge was entirely sympathetic to my situation....which ..as it turns out, wasn't too far adrift from yours.

Thrugelmir

Brock_and_Roll wrote: »

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.

Name and shame the school. Though you wonder how much is learnt from simply Googling the answers.

alastairq

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Name and shame the school. Though you wonder how much is learnt from simply Googling the answers.

Sign of the times?

Cheaper than books?

coolcait

alastairq wrote: »

It is not the task of the Judge to be opinionated about what monies were used for. The Judge's task is to determine from the evidence whether the petitioner is in fact insolvent....[ie, cannot meet their debts as they fall due.] The Judge must leave the investigations into past assets to the Court's Officer, ie, the Official Receiver.

A reason for the Judge being a bit 'reluctant' could be, if the Judge was not entirely satisfied the petitioner had sought proper advice as to the duties & responsibilities that go with Bankrutpcy.

The last thing any Judge wants to see, is a petitioner going back to Court to seek to undo the petition, simply because they 'didn't realise what it all meant' !

....

I think that this is a very plausible explanation for the way that the judge appears to have acted. It's also a useful reminder that any investigation of the way the OP has managed her finances/money from the sale of the house is up to the OR, not the judge.

As for comments about the OP's expenditure, I think that a lot of them come from the fact that so many others areas of MSE are about 'moneysaving'. So there's a particular mindset about 'how to cut back' - and I'm a great fan of that mindset, which has taught me a lot!

On the Bankruptcy board, however, a slightly different mindset is needed.

When someone goes bankrupt, they have to provide full information on their income and expenditure to the OR (or Trustee, in Scotland). And things like a basic Sky package, internet, dry cleaning and so on can be included in the expenditure.

In fact, if you want to have a realistic picture of your expenditure, and any surplus income, they HAVE to be included.

At the stage when you're preparing your I&E, a lot of the traditional MSE advice is actually counter-productive. You could end up giving an I&E which is completely unrealistic, and unsustainable .

However, once your I&E has been agreed by the OR/Trustee, then the MSE forum has a huge amount of information on how to make your money go further - and how to budget for the future.