Our BR Diary, from start to finish......

Scarlett.1974

<feeble wave>

Thanks all

Stomach is in absolute knots

Just want it over with now.......

53 minutes to go (not that I'm staring at the clock or anything).

lookingforhelp_2

Good Luck Scarlett to you and hubby x

philnicandamy

good luck to the both of you for later

Scarlett.1974

24 minutes.........

Oh yes, forgot to say - we were in the local paper on Tuesday :rolleyes: , 2 weeks and 1 day after BR. That came as quite a shock! I was on the bus coming home from town when I saw it. Promptly went beetroot and spent the rest of the journey completely paranoid that everyone was looking at me :rotfl:

ccastley

Oh no to the local paper! That must've been awful...

We'll hopefully be in a different area where no-one knows us by the time it happens to us.

Good luck to you and potless. Look forward to hearing how it went. Just get a caffeine IV and a nicoteine mask set up!

Crystal

X

betterlatethannever

Good luck from me too.:D

It should be well under way now.

Hope its all ok.

Scarlett.1974

Well, that was hard work. We both feel pretty drained. The OR was nice, he was polite and not judgemental at all, but it didn't all go well unfortunately.

He spoke to Potless first and was VERY thorough, especially in regards to the poker playing (which was only to be expected of course), they were on the phone for about an hour and 20 minutes. He went through all his debts individually but didn't even mention the I&E to him. Potless asked him about the possibility of an BRO/U but he said he didn't know about that, his exact words were "they might not be doing them this year" whatever that means.

Then my turn...... we spoke about my debts but only quite briefly, about 5 minutes. He asked what I'd used a couple of my CCs for and seemed quite happy with my explinations of "general living expenses".

Then onto the I&E It was quite a horrible shock when he told me that DLA, child benefit, working AND child tax credits could ALL be included as income, none of them are exempt when working out an IPA. When I questioned this he told me that the reason they could be included was because they weren't my only source of income, that it was because I had a wage coming in too. He disallowed my £20.00 for birthdays/xmas and also my £20.00 for personal expenses. He then told me I'd be looking at an IPA of £160 per month. At which point I burst into tears

Once I had composed myself, he then went on to confuse me by saying that some of my outgoings seemed a bit low, but he didn't say which ones He said he would be getting one of his colleagues to look at my figures and would write to me with confirmation of the IPA

I did tell him at the beginning that my wage would be dropping quite dramatically in the next 2 weeks due to my hours being cut at work and he asked for confirmation of this, which is no problem, I've had a new contract from work that I can send him.

He then ummed and ahhed a bit at the end and said that with my income dropping he would have to look into the IPA a bit and see whether I'll get one

So, I kind of feel a bit in limbo now. Am gutted at the thought of such a large IPA and even more gutted that money that I thought would NOT be counted, most definitely will be

ccastley

Oh Scarlett...*hugs*

I think you'll be OK. When your living expenses have been recalculated and you provide evidence that you will be bringing less in, I think the IPA will either go out the wondow or be a lot less, especially as the main reason they were even looking at the DLA, etc was because you had another income...

Things happen for a reason and maybe that's why your hours have been cut...to get you out of the IPA!

Did they say when they were coming back to you?

Crystal

X

fermi

That's a pain about the IPA.

The child benefit should be excluded, but everything else is open to interpretation.

Some examiners/OR's seem to included CTC, while others do not.

Someone successfully challenged the inclusion of child benefit a while back by getting the examiner to refer the case to a superior who overturned the decision.

See: http://bankruptcy.informe.com/possibly-ipa-what-restrictions-does-that-hold-on-me-dt264.html

The general position on benefits is given as below, but it is correct to say that not all benefits should be excluded IF there is sufficient other income.

But they are "guidelines" not "rules".

Once the circumstances have been reviewed, then you might find it isn't so bad. Especially if you take into account the drop in wages.

Keep us updated when they get back it touch with the real figures, and then we will see what can be done.

31.7.9 State benefits

An IPA should not be sought where the bankrupt's only or main source of income is state benefit payments without any other significant source of income [note 3]. This applies even in the rare circumstances where the official receiver's analysis of the bankrupt's income and expenditure discovers sufficient surplus for an IPA arising as a result of the income received by the bankrupt which either solely or chiefly comprises state benefits. The official receiver should consider that it is always open to the bankrupt who wishes to contribute, to make voluntary payments. If the bankrupt was minded to contribute on a voluntary basis, having been informed that their income appeared to be sufficient to produce a surplus taking in to account their reasonable domestic needs, a voluntary agreement could be incorporated into an IPA, but it would have to be clearly noted that no enforcement action would be taken if the bankrupt failed to make agreed voluntary repayments.

This does not mean that the official receiver must exclude all benefit payments received by the bankrupt when calculating available income for an IPA. The person making the calculation (usually the examiner) should first consider whether there is income paid to the bankrupt not comprising state benefit . If this is the case, an IPA may be a possibility, and any calculation of income should include all available income, including state benefits which are paid to an individual for the general benefit of that individual and their family. The notable exceptions to this rule when dealing with state benefits is child benefit. The High Court has stated as a matter of public policy that child benefit and similar benefits should not be included in the statement of income when applying for an IPO and there is no reason why this point should not be extended to cover IPAs. Whilst it is acknowledged that in the figures for expenditure there may be outgoings for the benefit of the children, at least to the value of the child benefit received, to ensure that there is no risk of them being deprived of it, child benefit should not be included in IPA assessments. The Department of Work and Pensions website provides useful information regarding allowances and benefits currently in force and can be accessed at http://www.dwp.gov.uk/

Where the bankrupt is in receipt of benefits and other sources of income, the total income should be established (see other income sources at paragraph 31.7.7) and the bankrupt's reasonable expenses deducted (see paragraph 31.7.19). An assessment can then be made as to whether the bankrupt is in receipt of income surplus to his/her reasonable domestic needs. If there is a surplus of income, this surplus should be less than or equal to income from the source other than benefits in order for an IPA to be sought. It should be remembered that whilst the bankrupt's total income including state benefits should be included in the calculation of surplus income, it is the income from sources other than the benefit(s) which is providing the payments under the IPA/IPO, the surplus income from which an IPA is sought should not be comprised of state benefit.

betterlatethannever

Aw Scarlett, what a messy interview.

I'm sure there is some confusion about benefits being included and i think Debt Doctor wrote a piece on it a while ago.

They might not be doing BROs this year is a really odd thing to say though.

Lets hope you hear something soon and try to keep your chin up. You've been so strong through all this.