We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Possible BRO and whether to fight it?
Comments
-
debt_doctor wrote: »Hi,
Thanks for your PM.
I would be inclined to do nothing until asked, but would be building my case in the background.
I see your point about the 'borrowing money with no reasonable prospect of repayment' as it appears that you could afford the repayments until the event(s) that quickly led to bankruptcy, namely homelessness and a drop in income.
Your bigger danger is if they claim you where involved in 'Rash or hazardous speculation' as if gambling was directly funded by the borrowing and was a significant portion of the BR debt then this could be relatively easy to demonstrate.
Both behaviours could bring about a BRU/O.
With the suggested behaviour in the ORs letter, then I think you should challenge their claim (when they get back to you), and see if they push that after your counter argument.
Sometimes the IS propose a BRU when they know they do not have the evidence level for a BRO through the courts. Obviously I can't tell if this will be accurate in your case.
The whole point of a BRO/U is for public and future creditor protection. If you have since received help with your gambling problem and you no longer gamble, then you could also make the point that the behaviour they are trying to protect against is unlikely to happen.
DD
Thanks DD, I've started putting bits and pieces together and have a full time line of things. At the time of taking out credit, I could afford to repay, it's only circumstances that followed which caused the real issues.
If it was for "rash or hazardous spending" as you said, I think I'd just accept it to be honest as I cannot argue, but the fact that they are pursuing for taking out credit with no way to pay is incorrect. So I would be arguing on a technicality.
I guess the next question is, if I successfully persuade them (or it goes through the courts and they decide I could afford the credit at the time), can the IS then come after me again to give me a BRO for a different reason (reckless spending) or do they only have the one chance and then I get to "walk free"?
Thanks!0 -
Just one other point to keep in mind if you decide to challenge a BRO in the court, is your case my be reported in your local newspaper if you lose on the day.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards