Going bankrupt with benefit fraud debt

RattyIrk

Playing Devil's Advocate on the question of the house you are married and have a child with your husband. If you were to split up the house would be an asset of the marriage and this would be the starting point. In your current case the OR effectively steps into your shoes and it is their interest to find you do have an interest. Just because he purchased the property before you met does not preclude you from having an interest. If you did split up any solicitor would be looking to try and establish you do have a beneficial interest.

I am not saying they would be successful but you would still need to back up your position so be prepared. In my case I could clearly show the intention was for me to have no interest in the property and had paperwork to further evidence this. As per my previous post I found them fair to deal with so don't overly fret over this. If your husband disputed there was any beneficial interest they would have to spend some money to pursue it. If you are prepared and can demonstrate you have no interest and there was never any intention for you to have any interest there is a good chance they would accept the position but they will ask questions.

gary83

Agree with the post above, could easily be argued you’d built up a beneficial interest in the house. Rather than bankruptcy, which would exclude the debts from the fraud, If your physically able to volunteer would you be able to progress from that to finding work in the future?

silvercar

Given that he had the house before you got together and he pays the mortgage and you don't earn your own money, I find it hard to believe that you could be seen to have a beneficial interest in it. They could investigate, but doubt they could prove a BI.

However, going bankrupt won't get rid of your debt.

It’s currently with bristow and sutor and I pay £30 a week out of the allowance my husband gives me. They want to put it up in 6 months.

You need to stand firm and hopefully a debt charity will help you do so. It seems wrong that your husband gives you an allowance that you use to pay the debts. Why is your husband paying debts you acquired before you were with him?

TheGardener

But as the OP's problem is not going to be solved by BR (so no point whatsoever in going BR) - any talk about the house and BI is academic ...

gary83

Exactly. The OP stole thousands from the rest of us, then thought it was unreasonable she might be asked to pay back more than £30 a week, which her husband is currently obliviously paying.

I know this is supposed to be a safe space, there but for the grace of god & that bankruptcy for some is the only & sensible solution, a chance to start again. However, on this occasion from the point of view of a taxpayer I’m glad that some actions have consequences & that you can’t just expect to wave a magic wand and for those problems to just disappear.

Minkym00

WOAH!


Benefit fraud cannot be included in bankruptcy if it is PROVEN. Hence my question (which the OP has not yet answered).


See here...


Debts that are not provable

The legislation provides a wide definition of debts that are considered provable. It has been held that the notion that all possible liabilities within reason should be provable helps achieve equal justice to all creditors and potential creditors in any insolvency, and, in bankruptcy proceedings, helps ensure that the former bankrupt can in due course start afresh.


There are, however, exceptions to this general principle, as follows:

• In bankruptcy, any fine imposed for an offence,
• In bankruptcy, any obligation (other than an obligation to a lump sum or to pay costs) arising under an order made in the family proceedings or any obligation arising under a maintenance assessment under the Child Support Act 1991,
• In administration, winding-up or bankruptcy, any obligation arising under certain drug trafficking and proceeds of crime legislation,
• In administration, winding-up or bankruptcy, any obligation arising from a payment made out of the social fund by way of crisis loan or budgeting loan

Categories of debts often wrongly considered not provable


Certain categories of debts are often wrongly considered to be not provable, as follows:

• Penalty charge notices in relation to motoring
• Penalty notice under immigration laws
• Overpayment of state benefits
• Lump sum payments in respect of family proceedings

OP have you been prosecuted or are you just paying it back?

TheGardener

Minkym00 wrote: »

WOAH!

Benefit fraud cannot be included in bankruptcy if it is PROVEN. Hence my question (which the OP has not yet answered).

I agree - I specifically said 'proven' at the start of this thread (#5)

TheGardener

gary83 wrote: »

...I know this is supposed to be a safe space...

Yes, it is.

Minkym00

“But as the OP's problem is not going to be solved by BR (so no point whatsoever in going BR) - any talk about the house and BI is academic...”

As we don’t yet know the answer, advice about going BR or not may not be suitable.

fatbelly

OP. Were the benefit overpayments ever:

• subject to a court case where you were found guilty
• admitted as fraud by you in an interview under caution
• subject to an administrative penalty which you agreed to pay instead of facing further action