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

Scarlett.1974

peachyprice wrote: »

Scarlett, I think it all goes back to Potless gambling, I wonder if they're getting at he was gambling so you were having to use CC's more than you would have?

Well, you see, the thing with the gambling is this - he wasn't actually doing it for "fun", he honestly thought he could make a living out of it. At the beginning it did actually work........ the first few months he did do rather well. Then (of course) it all went a bit pete tong and he had to start borrowing money to 'play' with. That was the start of the slippery slope. The OR knows all of this, we were totally honest. Maybe I was stupid to 'allow' H to do it...... to honestly think he could make a living out of playing poker - but he genuinely thought he could and he convinced me too.

rog2

Scarlett.1974 wrote: »

They have to allow 3 hours per person, so book the room for 4 "just in case" :eek: Good lord, I can't go for that long without a fag....... I can't even go that long without needing the loo

If it's any consolation, Scarlett, my OR interview lasted for 3 and a half hours, but I WAS given coffee and the examiner did say that if I wanted/needed a 'comfort break' at any time, to just ask - I did, and had to go outide, for my 'fag' along with half the staff of the Insolvency Service.

Also, if there are queries on certain 'credit card spends', I am sure you will have nothing to worry about, unduly - I'm sure that you were not contemplating bankruptcy at the time of such 'spends' and can only think that if you did any 'balance transfers' this may, but only may, be possibly interpreted as giving 'preferential treatment' to one creditor.

Scarlett.1974

blind-as-a-bat wrote: »

Which may be easy for you to explain once he asks, just cos they think there is something, doesnt mean there is;)

And Peachy may have a point maybe they think some where to support Pottless,s gambling, so may be disapointed once you explain

Oh god........ _pale_

I've just remembered something <smacks self hard>. I got out a loan. A pretty small one, but only last year. For H. To play with. Yes, I KNOW it was stupid, but he convinced me that he could 'turn it around' and I so desperately wanted to believe him that I did it. He made the repayments though, not me.

OMG, I've been tying myself up in knots all day and it's literally just come to me now. How effing stupid am I? It's got to be that..... it must be.

Before anyone asks - yes, it was on my forms (I'm not that forgetful) and I did tell the OR all about it at the interview. Odd though...... he knew all about it back in March and is only just getting me in for a face-to-face now

Scarlett.1974

rog2 wrote: »

If it's any consolation, Scarlett, my OR interview lasted for 3 and a half hours, but I WAS given coffee and the examiner did say that if I wanted/needed a 'comfort break' at any time, to just ask - I did, and had to go outide, for my 'fag' along with half the staff of the Insolvency Service.

Also, if there are queries on certain 'credit card spends', I am sure you will have nothing to worry about, unduly - I'm sure that you were not contemplating bankruptcy at the time of such 'spends' and can only think that if you did any 'balance transfers' this may, but only may, be possibly interpreted as giving 'preferential treatment' to one creditor.

Thank you rog Hope it's decent coffee

I may well be guilty of being stupid, careless and living beyond my means....... but not one penny that I borrowed did I think I could not repay and I just have to keep telling myself that

rog2

Scarlett.1974 wrote: »

Hope it's decent coffee

Actually, Scarlett, it was pretty disgusting 'vending machine' coffee, but it was nice to be offered. :rolleyes:

Again I wouldn't worry about the 'small loan' that you took out a year or so ago - same thing, really, you di not think that you were going to end up in the bankruptcy court at the time you took out the loan and, as you have said, you have already declared this to the OR.

Scarlett.1974

rog2 wrote: »

Actually, Scarlett, it was pretty disgusting 'vending machine' coffee, but it was nice to be offered. :rolleyes:

Again I wouldn't worry about the 'small loan' that you took out a year or so ago - same thing, really, you di not think that you were going to end up in the bankruptcy court at the time you took out the loan and, as you have said, you have already declared this to the OR.

Thank you for the reassurance rog

Hmmmm, wonder if there's a Starbucks near the OR's office?

rog2

Scarlett.1974 wrote: »

Hmmmm, wonder if there's a Starbucks near the OR's office?

Perhaps you should take a flask? :rolleyes: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Scarlett.1974

rog2 wrote: »

Perhaps you should take a flask? :rolleyes: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Lol....... and some sandwiches in case I get hungry? :rotfl:

maxmycardagain

watch out for thumbscrews, they hurt, and ive not played the violin since


dont ask, just walk into the interview together, on both interviews, and converse with each other over every question, MAKE it a joint interview, well, 2 joint interviews, hack em off

coolcait

maxmycardagain wrote: »

watch out for thumbscrews, they hurt, and ive not played the violin since


dont ask, just walk into the interview together, on both interviews, and converse with each other over every question, MAKE it a joint interview, well, 2 joint interviews, hack em off

But, tempting though it is, is that really the best approach? To 'hack em off'?

I don't claim to know the ins and outs of people's rights when it comes to these interviews. However, commonsense suggests that - if the interviewer is trying to find out how much each party knew about the situation - then they have to be interviewed separately. Common humanity suggests that it's not unreasonable for the interviewee to have the moral support of someone who's there 'for them', but is independent of the whole process.

The rules and regs may say otherwise.

Also - and this is a general thought, absolutely NOT a comment on the OP'
s situation - in a domestic abuse sitution, or a case where there has been coercion, for example, there are very strong arguments in favour of both parties being interviewed separately.