OR: what they have/have not allowed

Sunk

debt_doctor wrote: »

Then I would contact the OR and say that you wish to put at least £ 80 per month in for a holiday. Most families would try to have at least a modest holiday if they were working and a bankrupt should not be treat any different in this respect.

Did you allow at least £ 100 pm for clothing ?

DD

I only allowed £50.00 for clothes.
The OR questioned stationary at £20.00 per month, which I use for Home Education books/pens/ink cartridges etc, they will NOT allow this.
This is why I am peed off, I thought by not being greedy on clothes etc etc, they would let important things (to me) go, but they are not.
Should have whacked on more for clothes/holiday etc.

G-G_4

http://www.bankruptcyhelp.org.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=100

This is good link to search for what is allowed etc.. work out what you bring into the household and then try and get your outgoings to match with allowable expenses.

Best of luck x

nimbo

maxmycardagain wrote: »

Id put £30 a month for haircuts but if i get a face to face with the OR id have to do some fast talking and thinking...

that made me chuckle too!!!!

debt_doctor

I would send a letter to the OR along the lines of ......


Dear .....

Re Bankruptcy order no. ???? of 2008 in the ??????? county court.

I am writing to raise my concerns that I have restricted my outgoings to very basic levels rather than the reasonable domestic needs of myself and my family. I feel that if I were restricted to such levels then I could well be forced back in to debt which the enterprise act is supposed to protect me from.

You will note that I have now included £ 80 per month for a modest holiday and increased my clothing allowance to £ 120 per month.

My new monthly expenditure is now as follows.......

.......................................................................

..........................................................................


............................................................................


I shall not be able to agree to an IPA unless my reasonable domestic needs of myself and my family are met. I understand that if we are unable to agree then you have the option of not setting up an IPA or asking the court to decide via an IPO.

Yours ........

.................

Sunk

Thankyou dd for that.

To top it all the OR has just rung to say they want my car!!!...my old banger Austin Metro 1988...valued at pittance.
Bloody hell!!!...now I can't find a job, I'm rural 4miles to nearest shop, no bus service after 6.00pm.
I told them this.
They said I am not working at the moment so no car needed.
They look at the situation now, not future.
They said that a a family member can buy the car off the OR and then I could buy it back, surely this puts me into more debt.
Can't get my son to college now 18miles away, they are not bothered.
So remember bankruptcy doesn't only effect YOU, it effects those dependent on you.
I have had a crap day with the OR.:mad:

Sunk

Can I refuse to hand my car over???

blind-as-a-bat_2

Not working is NOT a reason to deny the car as exempt!!!!!

If you truly do live rural and you have no accsess to public transport then the OR has to weigh up the price of taxis etc against running a car so you need to asertain wich is cheaper If you can prove that there is no alternative but to use taxis and this would work out dearer then this would prove need rather than want;)


DD great letter.....your getting good at this:p

Mips

Did you rub them up the wrong way somehow?

I can't see why the hell they would want your car from you!

Well, not that Car anyway.

Very mean.

As for the Holidays, am glad you lot agreed as that's what has gone on ours.

debt_doctor

31.2.21 Bankrupt claiming vehicle as exempt property
It the bankrupt's responsibility to satisfy the official receiver that a vehicle is exempt property, i.e. that it is necessary for his/her use personally in his/her employment, business or vocation, or is necessary to meet the basic domestic needs of the bankrupt and his/her family. In the case of a claim for exemption to meet domestic needs the official receiver must be satisfied that the motor vehicle is necessary to the extent that no practical alternative exists, to meet a genuine need and not merely a matter of convenience.If the use of a vehicle does not meet the test for necessity the vehicle is vested in the bankruptcy estate and the official receiver as trustee should instead pursue with the bankrupt the option to make a reasonable offer for the purchase of the vehicle (see paragraph 31.2.34).
The bankrupt's claim should be dealt with at the initial interview in either the narrative statement or in supplementary questions to the PIQ.
The bankrupt needs to be able to satisfy the official receiver that the vehicle is both necessary for his/her employment, business or vocation and is necessary personally to the bankrupt. This does not mean that the vehicle must be used exclusively by the bankrupt but it must be necessary to him/her not just to the other users.
Whether or not a vehicle is exempt property is in some cases a difficult question. In such circumstances, official receivers will need to use their discretion and consider each case according to its merits within the guidelines issued to official receivers.In all cases official receivers should apply the guidance strictly and rigorously. It is for the bankrupt to convince the official receiver that any motor vehicle is necessary within the exemptions. The value of the vehicle is not a determining factor.
31.2.22(a) Bankrupt claims he/she needs vehicle for work
When considering whether to exempt a motor vehicle under section 283(2)(a) theprincipal points to be considered are;

• whether the vehicle is used by the bankrupt in his/her employment, business or vocation,
• that the bankrupt could not reasonably travel to and from his/her place of employment without a vehicle, due to lack of alternative transport,
• that the bankrupt’s prospects of obtaining employment would diminish without use of the vehicle, even though the bankrupt may not be in employment at the date of the bankruptcy order. In such cases, the official receiver will need to decide whether there is a reasonable prospect of the bankrupt obtaining work,
• that a self employed bankrupt who does not have work at the date of the bankruptcy order may be able to retain a vehicle as an exempt asset if he/she can satisfy the official receiver that there is a reasonable prospect of him/her obtaining work, and
• that the bankrupt’s prospect of obtaining work would diminish even if a vehicle requires repair but will then be used to travel to work or to seek employment.

The bankrupt must satisfy the official receiver that a vehicle is necessary. If the bankrupt cannot do so, and the official receiver has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is not exempt, he/she is entitled to treat the property as part of the estate and deal with it accordingly.
31.2.22(b) Bankrupt is a carer for a relative
Caring for others clearly can be a vocation and the means by which an individual earns their living (e.g. nurses, care assistants) there seems no reason why caring for another, who is in fact a relative, should be treated any differently. There are considerable number of "informal" and upaid carers in the country who would describe their "vocation" as that of a carer. Many may be eligible for a carer's allowance, an income maintenance benefit for those who are required to care for a severely disabled person. The allowance is a taxable benefit for informal carers, payable where the carer looks after a disabled person for at least 35 hours per week.
A bankrupt might therefore not be in paid employment and have no prospect of obtaining employment as a result of having taken on the care of a disabled relative (including a child). In considering whether the bankrupt has a "vocation" as a carer a material issue would be the time involved in undertaking the care, the receipt of any carer's allowance and the level of care required. For example the normal care of a child reasonably expected of a parent is not a "vocation" in this context but a parent caring for a disabled child would fall into this category.
In respect of a claim for a vehicle to be exempted under section 283(2)(a), the definition of "employment, business or vocation" has been widened following recent case law to include debtors who are informal, full-time, carers of a disabled friend or relative who would use the vehicle in connection with that role. The receipt of a carer's allowance is not essential but will be indicative that the debtor is pursuing a "vocation" as a carer.
31.2.23 Bankrupt claims he/she needs vehicle due to disability or for domestic use
A bankrupt may inform the official receiver that he/she suffers from a disability and that his/her motor vehicle is necessary for mobility or inform the official receiver that the vehicle is necessary for domestic use (e.g. to take children to school). The official receiver should treat such cases sympathetically but where the exemption provisions as laid down in the legislation do not apply the motor vehicle cannot be treated as exempt property by the official receiver (see paragraph 31.2.16.)
It is for the bankrupt to convince the official receiver that the motor vehicle is necessary, to the extent that no practical alternative exists, to meet a genuine need and not simply as a matter of convenience. If the use of vehicle does not meet the test of necessity the vehicle is vested in the bankruptcy estate and the official receiver should instead pursue with the bankrupt the option to make a reasonable offer for the purchase of the vehicle (see paragraph 31.2.34.)
For the purpose of determining necessity, a reasonably practical alternative does not mean no alternative. In most cases, a taxi service would offer an alternative to a private vehicle, but it should be borne in mind that the costs of regularly using such a service might well exceed the costs of maintaining a modest vehicle and thus compromise the debtor's ability to contribute to an income payments order/agreement. For example, a task that needs to be undertaken daily might be prohibitively expensive by taxi, but undertaking a weekly shop at the supermarket may well reasonably be achieved by using a taxi service rather than retaining the use of a vehicle.
Where a bankrupt claims to require a vehicle to transport children to and from school, he/she will need to demonstrate that there is no public transport alternative or that the distance to travel would make walking (or cycling) an impractical alternative. It is not sufficient for a bankrupt who lives in a rural area to claim a motor vehicle simply by virtue of distance from the school. The bankrupt must provide a statement that there is no transport alternative (e.g. a local authority school bus service) or, if there is more than one child, show that diverse locations makes it impossible to transport all the children to school by public transport. The practical problems such as organising children to walk to school, to travel with more than one child on public transport, or any general concerns expressed about safety are simply a matter of convenience and in such cases the vehicle is not necessary to meet a basic domestic need. However, if the children attend school in opposite directions and could not physically be delivered at school on time without the aid of a motor vehicle, it might be considered necessary to the household.
It is anticipated that the bankrupts most likely to benefit from the wider interpretation of exempt property, and the claims most likely to succeed, will be from bankrupts who suffer from a disability and state that the motor vehicle in question is necessary for mobility. In such cases, the bankrupt's disability would prevent them from seeking employment. Where this is the case, the official receiver must be satisfied that the vehicle allows the bankrupt a degree of independent living which would be impossible without the retention of a vehicle, and/or that there is no practical alternative to allow the bankrupt to undertake routine medical appointments or care associated with their disability.
In such cases, the vehicle should be used personally by the bankrupt and must not be a vehicle maintained for another's exclusive use with occasional assistance and transportation given to the bankrupt. If the bankrupt requires the assistance of another to travel, even in a motor vehicle, then the vehicle does not come within the exemption. Should this be the case, the main user of the vehicle should be invited to make an offer to purchase the vehicle (see paragraph 31.2.34.)
Bankrupts who live in an urban area with reasonable transport links are unlikely (other than as a result of disability) to be in a position to claim that a motor vehicle is necessary to meet a domestic need. For this reason, a decision that a motor vehicle is exempt property, unless the vehicle is required for employment (see paragraph 31.2.22) or is by reason of the bankrupt's disability, must be confirmed by an assistant official receiver.

31.2.24 Use of discretion
The Official Receiver should use his/her discretion to take action which is practical and expedient but which is also in the interest of the estate and of The Service in keeping administration costs down. The facts should be considered on a case by case basis.

I think a letter outlining and proving the need of the vehicle based on the above would be a good idea.

Best

DD

Sunk

Thankyou very much for that info dd.
I have penned a letter this morning.
My home education officer at the council is also penning a letter in support.
If I have no car, my son who is home educated, will not be able to regularly socialise or go on learning trips.

I have contacted the OR examiner again and asked for another SOA sheet as the last one would not be applicable as I want to add taxis/bus/train fares on.
She said 'well it might not come to your car being taken off you, send in an appeal letter & the decision then goes before a panel'.
Although I may be able to buy the car off the OR for a nominal fee.

Again thankyou for advice.