Advice needed soonest re I+E Please

empty_wallet_2

Bald_Runner wrote: »

For you info and peace of mind we owed egg over 20K. A company called Grant Thornton represent them at the creditors 'meeting' but Grant Thornton also represented Co-Op Visa (12k)and Capital One.(2K) Therefore Grant Thornton voted for three creditors but it was Egg who objected, and i am told that GT rejected on behalf of the three

At least I can tell the OR we tried...

Thanks.

She has a debt with Capital One too, so hopefully that wont tip the scales, i dont think i will tell her that though as it will only worry her more.

As you say at least you tried, sounds like GT are not really working to the best interests of their clients, sounds almost like Egg are trying to recoup loses from other clients from you and this from a company who was recently in the news for cancelling customers credit card accounts that didnt have balances on month to month as they made no money on the people that settled their accounts every month.

Best wishes during your BR proceedings

fermi

List the hairdressing separately. £20 (ish) pcm to cover both of you.

If you list something as "Entertainment" the it will almost certainly be disallowed. But I suppose it might make an examiner feel they are doing their job if they cut it out.;)

The £350 for food/housekeeping is probably OK. Don't lower it.

While some benefits (CB and DLA) shouldn't be included in an IPA calculation, others can as long as you are receiving significant income from another source.

Toon_Dave

apologies about the housekeeping being high, i must have missed the part regarding dietry requirements, you are right in having to show reasons for higher costs to the OR.

With regards to the TV companies that over to clear 75% debt, they are just money grabbers and to be honest any of the free debt charities can sort out the same deals without having to lay out any dosh up front.

I would'nt touch any of these 'SPECIALIST' companies with a barge pole as they are interested only in no1 and not your interests at all.

Dave.

Toon_Dave

i spoke to someone from Grant Thornton yesterday as recommended by the CAB. They couldnt have been more helpful. i guess it depends if they are working for these bigger companies getting as much back for them or if they are advising you on your situatin as to what they see the goals set at.

She was extremely nice and didnt recommend iva etc as she knew it would cost me far more in the long run and therefore wouldnt be applicable in my situation.

Dave.

Toon_Dave

regarding EGG and wanting 100% return. If you go bankrupt i wonder if their insurance etc pays them for losses gained via BR so would get full return more quickly...not sure but just an observation as otherwise it is a cut your nose off to spite your face from EGG.

Dave

Bald_Runner

fermi wrote: »

While some benefits (CB and DLA) shouldn't be included in an IPA calculation, others can as long as you are receiving significant income from another source.

Are there any guidelines that cover in relation to which benefits are to be included?

fermi

Bald_Runner wrote: »

Are there any guidelines that cover in relation to which benefits are to be included?

This is not guaranteed to be 100% up to date, so read with caution.

From: Part 2 - IPAs Assessment of real disposable income (paragraphs 31.7.6 - 31.7.39)

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.

Bald_Runner

Thanks Fermi, unless i'm not looking hard enough, it does not seem to specify DLA or Incapacity Benefit ? Seems to go on a lot about Child Benefit

fermi

Bald_Runner wrote: »

Thanks Fermi, unless i'm not looking hard enough, it does not seem to specify DLA or Incapacity Benefit ? Seems to go on a lot about Child Benefit

It used to list DLA as being excluded, but it has recently been removed.

I personally haven't seen enough people on DLA with significant other non benefit income to say whether that represents a change in policy or is just a quirk of the re-write. People who have queried it with the IS have even had contradictory answers back, so we will have to see.

I think DLA should still be excluded, but it's not as clear as it once was.

gambit_2

Hi, I just want to say that I receive DLA for my daughter and haven't been able to find the answer to the IPA/DLA question anywhere. My food costs are extraordinary as my daughter eats all day due to her condition (I should have shares in Tesco!!).

I have my OR telephone interview on 31st March and will try to post as soon as possible afterwards to give an insight from what happened on my side.

I have other income of, salary £1300, maintenance £290, so I may be able to answer the question of significant other income.

(If I don't post - it's at 11.00am, can someone pm me to remind me??)