Family member has to pay back given to her

mwarby

maybe, but if the OP couldn’t afford it the OR will seek to recover it if possible. Of course depending on what it was used for this maybe easier said than done

The OR is likely to be suspicious that the money may be returned after the bankruptcy completes. Obviously none of creditors are going to be happy in that event, as it’s effectively denying them assets. It’s much like giving your expensive car away just before bankruptcy, with understanding it will be gifted back later.

ighorsewoof

Does anyone know if the OR will give my daughter time to pay say 12 months she has spent the money on a extension 
she knows she has to pay it back it’s just how long she will be given 

mwarby

The OR will want it to repaid as quickly as possible, but I'm sure if she needs time to pay a reasonable payment schedule will be worked out. I dare say a year would be ok, if she needs longer she maybe asked to demonstrate why

Minkym00

mwarby said:

I suspect many who have been insolvent would fail both tests at some point on the road to insolvency(no assets, but juggling loans until reality hits), but few would suffer consequences, this AFAIK is more for the more blatant cases (eg was in debt, no savings, lost job, took out another loan for big holiday)

For corporate insolvency there is I believe an assumption that the corporate has someone competent managing the finances and so should know when they risk failing those tests. 

For personal insolvency while it’s still technically misconduct I think there is less assumption of financial competence and allowances made, the assessment then IMHO becomes did the debtor know or strongly suspect that they would be unable to repay the loan 

You misunderstand. Meeting both those tests of insolvency is not a misconduct. It is further your indebtedness whilst meeting the test that is the misconduct. 

mwarby

Minkym00 said:

mwarby said:

I suspect many who have been insolvent would fail both tests at some point on the road to insolvency(no assets, but juggling loans until reality hits), but few would suffer consequences, this AFAIK is more for the more blatant cases (eg was in debt, no savings, lost job, took out another loan for big holiday)

For corporate insolvency there is I believe an assumption that the corporate has someone competent managing the finances and so should know when they risk failing those tests. 

For personal insolvency while it’s still technically misconduct I think there is less assumption of financial competence and allowances made, the assessment then IMHO becomes did the debtor know or strongly suspect that they would be unable to repay the loan 

You misunderstand. Meeting both those tests of insolvency is not a misconduct. It is further your indebtedness whilst meeting the test that is the misconduct. 

I realize that, even if I perhaps wasn't clear. Yes the misconduct is not being insolvent, but taking on new debt (or increasing existing debt, by say using a credit card) while insolvent.

The severity of the misconduct and if/how it's dealt with will depend on more than the basic test, there is a clear difference between a technical misconduct of say continuing to purchase food on credit while unknowingly insolvent, misconduct where it's known you were insolvent but desperate to keep roof over heads food on table etc, and knowing your insolvent and decing to have one last blowout by taking as much credit as you can and living it up

DCFC79

ighorsewoof said:

Does anyone know if the OR will give my daughter time to pay say 12 months she has spent the money on a extension 
she knows she has to pay it back it’s just how long she will be given 

To be honest it's only a question the OR can give.

mwarby

DCFC79 said:

ighorsewoof said:

Does anyone know if the OR will give my daughter time to pay say 12 months she has spent the money on a extension 
she knows she has to pay it back it’s just how long she will be given 

To be honest it's only a question the OR can give.

it's the OR (or the agents they use) who will decide, but the OR will need to take the daughters circumstances into account and balance the probability of recovering the money at reasonable expense.

In theory maybe the OR could take it as far as making the daughter insolvent, but I'd hope long before that a reasonable offer of repayment would be looked on favorably. It's much easier for the OR or the recovery agents they use, to accept 12 bank payments or cheques than it is to start legal proceedings.

ighorsewoof

Once the OR have accepted an offer on an asset can they ask for more money if the ccc do not like the offer 

[Deleted User]

macman said:

Doesn't this rather depend on whether the daughter acknowledges the debt at all? If this was the usual informal 'pay me back when you can' style arrangement, with presumably nothing in writing to prove it, then she may view it as an open-ended gift?

It's not the daughter who loaned money to the OP.  The OP took out a loan and appears to have gifted the money to the daughter.

mwarby

ighorsewoof said:

Once the OR have accepted an offer on an asset can they ask for more money if the ccc do not like the offer 

By CCC do you mean the creditors ? as far as I know once an asset is sold that's it, but for complex cases the creditors do have  say in appointing a trustee to deal with the assets. For most creditors they have very little control in the process (in the complex cases the larger creditors will have more say in what trustee is appointed )