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

Scarlett.1974

coolcait wrote: »

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.

Sorry Max, but I do agree with this. The very last thing I want to do is annoy him anymore than he possibly is already <gulp>.

Dez-Titute

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

Just hope its not




If the questioning gets tricky use the magic phrase




Hope all goes well Scarlett


Cheers DEz

coolcait

Scarlett.1974 wrote: »

Sorry Max, but I do agree with this. The very last thing I want to do is annoy him anymore than he possibly is already <gulp>.

Hiya Scarlett

Obviously my own instincts are not to annoy the OR (or I wouldn't have posted, lol!).

However, I do think that there's a strong argument - for common humanity's sake - for you to have some kind of independent 'moral' support. And if your interview is AFTER OH's, I can't see how it could prejudice the OR's enquiries. (Arguably, if they're not interviewing you one after the other, so you have no time to consult, they're not too worried about prejudicing their enquiries!! :rolleyes: ).

I can't see that it would do any harm to see if someone was willing to accompany you. If you find someone, then why not phone the OR and say that you would like this person to be present at the interview. Emphasise that the person will not intervene, or speak on your behalf.

Projecting my own 'nervous traveller' fears onto you, I might tell the OR that since I am a nervous traveller (IIRC correctly, it is some distance to the OR's office), I am worried that the journey will unsettle me too much to be able to deal with the interview as professionally as I would like. It would therefore be extremely helpful if I could have x present as this would help calm me. This would no doubt also be to the OR's advantage in conducting the interview as professionally as possible...

You will, no doubt, have your own reasons to put forward for wanting to have someone accompany you. (And please don't laugh at me for being a nervous traveller! I'm not the only one, I assure you!)

Good luck whatever you decide to do.

Scarlett.1974

coolcait wrote: »

Hiya Scarlett

Obviously my own instincts are not to annoy the OR (or I wouldn't have posted, lol!).

However, I do think that there's a strong argument - for common humanity's sake - for you to have some kind of independent 'moral' support. And if your interview is AFTER OH's, I can't see how it could prejudice the OR's enquiries. (Arguably, if they're not interviewing you one after the other, so you have no time to consult, they're not too worried about prejudicing their enquiries!! :rolleyes: ).

I can't see that it would do any harm to see if someone was willing to accompany you. If you find someone, then why not phone the OR and say that you would like this person to be present at the interview. Emphasise that the person will not intervene, or speak on your behalf.

Projecting my own 'nervous traveller' fears onto you, I might tell the OR that since I am a nervous traveller (IIRC correctly, it is some distance to the OR's office), I am worried that the journey will unsettle me too much to be able to deal with the interview as professionally as I would like. It would therefore be extremely helpful if I could have x present as this would help calm me. This would no doubt also be to the OR's advantage in conducting the interview as professionally as possible...

You will, no doubt, have your own reasons to put forward for wanting to have someone accompany you. (And please don't laugh at me for being a nervous traveller! I'm not the only one, I assure you!)

Good luck whatever you decide to do.

Thank you colcait

H will be taking me over there (you're right, it's a 60 mile round trip) because I don't drive....... so I might see if he can come in with me, just to be there for moral support. Not sure though if he'd be able to 'keep quiet' if the OR was 'badgering me' - he's very protective :rolleyes:

maxmycardagain

dont ASK if your OH can go in, just walk in, if the OR objects then you have cause to object, dont be intimidated.

Addicted2Chocolate

You can have anyone sit in on the interview with you for 'moral support'. But the interviewer should not let the 'observer' discuss the questions/answers, or answer the questions on your behalf. If the observer causes problems, such as interuppting the interviewer's questions, or repeatedly attempting to answer questions on behalf of the bankrupt, they will be asked to leave the interview.
Scarlett, reading between the lines, its sounds to me like the examiner has obtained copy statements from credit cards and or loan agreements, and will want you to ask to to explain how debts were incurred, or justify how you thought you could repay partyicular debts obtained closer to the BO date.
The concern is that, when a person ought to have known they were unable to repay their debts (eg unable to make min payments, in arrears, maybe creditors getting CCJ's, change if circumstances eg unemployment or drop in income), this is called knoweldge of insolvency. If after a person ought to know they cannot repay their debts, the person gets further into fresh debt (not for consolidation of existing debt but making their position worse) then the conduct may be considered for a BRO. This particular allegation is called No Reasonable Prospect (of repayment) it is fairly common and would be a lower bracket BRO/BRU (2-5 years but period decided by court unless undertaking BRU offered by the bankrupt person)
To put a BRO/BRU in context: prior to 2004 everyone was subject to bankruptcy restriction for 3 years, once size fits all approach. But from April 2004 automatic discharge 12 months, but many people may have been culpable (not necessarily dishonest or even blamelworthy) and these people who have contributed to their bankruptcy, maybe the court should consider if they should be subject to the bamnkruptcy restriction for longer. BRO/BRU's are still civil proceedings, not criminal. There is no exhaustive list of 'misconduct' for a BRO/BRU.
The Further Investigation interview means the decsion to submit a BRO report has not yet been made by the OR's office.
Scarlett, i actually think you may be better off with anothrr friend or family member in the interview with you. Someone who has not been involved.
I guess i am going to get flamed now?.....

tigerfeet2006

A2C it is good to see you posting again. Thank you for such a brilliant and informative post.

I must admit I agree with you that Scarlett should have someone with her but perhaps Potless should not be the one, they both have said on various occassions that he is protective of her as a good husband should be.

Scarlett.1974

Good grief A2C, no flaming from me. Thank you for such a helpful and informative post, it's really very much appreciated.

I think I see what you're saying - that it might be that my OR thinks I ran up debt that I probably should have known I could not repay? I guess all I can do is be as honest as I can be and hope that he believes me...... I swear, I never borrowed anything that I thought I could not repay

But thanks again for your time, it's very good of you

Scarlett.1974

tigerfeet2006 wrote: »

A2C it is good to see you posting again. Thank you for such a brilliant and informative post.

I must admit I agree with you that Scarlett should have someone with her but perhaps Potless should not be the one, they both have said on various occassions that he is protective of her as a good husband should be.

Yes, I think we'd have to gag him and tie him to his chair. That might prove a bit distracting......

I do have one friend who would be available on Monday and would be there like a shot, no problem. I'll see how I feel about it over the next couple of days I think and make a decision then

tigerfeet2006

It might be worth asking her tomorrow if she could be on standby. Maybe see how Potless goes on Friday. But having some moral support on Monday may be empowering for you.

(((hugs))