IPO Avoidance - OR View

Johnsmith2016

Hello,

Just curious after reading an article on google that only 1/5 actually get a IPO. That would translate to 80% do not. I find this number extremley high to be honest.
Apart from those on benefits, I would say quite a lot more than 20% would be liable to pay an IPO? With the bankcruptcy amount anywere from 20k upwards generally, surely the cost of servicing this amount of debt will amount to a good few hundred a month - then with this amount suddenly gone there in theory should be a surplus in a lot of cases, apart from people who have not been paying or making token payments.
Just interested to see peoples experiences, I have also read about people taking a lower paid job or going to uni to avoid it - what is OR view of doing this is it unethical?
Just wondering peoples thoughts on why its so low? Also does it sugguest there is foul play going on with false SOA? How does the OR validate or check these figures with HRMC or do they take your word for it? Some cases ask for wage slips but not always from what I have read on here.

For the record I do not have an IPO due to disability benefits.

debt_doctor

Johnsmith2016 wrote: »

Hello,

Just curious after reading an article on google that only 1/5 actually get a IPO.IPO's are much more rare than that - I presume you mean an IPA. That would translate to 80% do not. I find this number extremley high to be honest. I can't confirm or deny those figures regarding IPA's but I also don't see how you can make a claim that this non IPA section is "extremely high" - you would need all of their personal circumstances to demonstrate that.
Apart from those on benefits, I would say quite a lot more than 20% would be liable to pay an IPO? Why? No evidence. With the bankcruptcy amount anywere from 20k upwards generally, surely the cost of servicing this amount of debt will amount to a good few hundred a month - then with this amount suddenly gone there in theory should be a surplus in a lot of cases, apart from people who have not been paying or making token payments. As you say, people are not paying those contractual amounts as they can't afford to because of an income shock caused by redundancy, relationship breakdown, accident, illness etc, or in the case of those who were making minimum contractual payments I find that they were getting by spending next to nothing on food and essentials to service the debts.
Just interested to see peoples experiences, I have also read about people taking a lower paid job or going to uni to avoid it - what is OR view of doing this is it unethical? It's up to the bankrupt whether they work or not, the OR has no say in it - so whether the OR thinks it is 'unethical' doesn't come in to it. It is a matter for them - I find that some people use the 'leveller' of bankruptcy to pursue a new career - good for them.
Just wondering peoples thoughts on why its so low? Also does it sugguest there is foul play going on with false SOA? No, I think it suggests that most people in bankruptcy do not have sufficient monies over and above there reasonable domestic needs - which is the test for an IPA.How does the OR validate or check these figures with HRMC or do they take your word for it? Some cases ask for wage slips but not always from what I have read on here. it is taken at face value in the first instance unless the examiner thinks it is worthy of more scrutiny at which point proofs will be asked for. It's also worth noting that to deliberately fib to the OR is a criminal offence.

For the record I do not have an IPO due to disability benefits.

They are my comments - personally, I think there are too many IPAs in place as the ORs office have become tax collectors for the government in proposing unfair IPAs - something I challenge rather a lot.
Having a thorough knowledge of the law on IPAs as I do, I do not think anyone in receipt of any means tested benefit (including housing benefit or tax credits) should be in an IPA - it is simply bonkers for one government department (DWP or Tax credits) to say this person doesn't have enough money to live on so we're going to top up their income - only for another government department (BIS) to say - you.ve got too much money, we want some.
Please also remember that in the vast majority of IPA's - the creditors see none or very little of that money - it goes to the government first in OR fees and secretary of state fees.
Thank you.
DD

A4445

I didn't get an IPA I was on disability benefits at the time of bankruptcy. I did however get BRU for delaying bankruptcy and living off credit for a year with no way in paying it back. This was only for 3 years but it was fair enough I did deserve it. I didn't pay a single penny back. Even after 6 year and 3months I still feel bad about it, I feel like I've stolen the banks money but my attitude to money is completely different now!

mwarby

One factor which i suspect leads to the 20% IPA, is the existence of IVAs and DMPs. Those that have money are perhaps more likely to be steered in this direction, which leaves the average bankrupt with less disposalable income to use in an IPA

NotEvanAPot

I go in the crowd of no IPA/IPO due to loss of job just before BR. I saw it as an opportunity to retrain and completely change career, and the examiner handling on behalf of OR was full of praise, wishing that more people saw BR as an chance to turn things around.

Currently looking for a part time job to work around course, and examiner has simply as for my budget at present, to record any large changes of circumstances and to inform if my training leads to a full time role with the 12 months.

Certainly think that a pinch of salt is needed when reading individual articles. I tend to give faith the long term posters here, info on the IS website and official channels only. Statistically, most statistics make statisticians look ill-informed and their data highly inaccurate.