OR threats to benefits

[chris.g]

Hi again, sorry to keep banging on about the OR dealing with mine and hubby's bankruptcy, but I feel she is being quite unreasonable. I explained that I work term time only therefore my £180 per month is only when there is a full month academically, not very often so therfore my wage was more £95 on average over the year, she replied by threatening to take my child maintenance payment of £45 per month to cover part of the shortfall, also stating that by law they are allowed to include all the benefits that we claim. They are already including hubby's working tax credit, £180.99 monthly, in our income but we have always been told that they do not touch any benefits, although there is legislation allowing them to do so. I appreciate that they have a job to do and have to try to recoup as much back for the creditors as possible but feel that she is being a little unfair. If we have a review due to change of circumstance, ie. less income, we run the risk of the rest of the benefits being included, therefore worse off.
Also, can some one clarify if they take into account all of the disposable income when calculating IPA's? I was advised that the first £99 of any spare income isn't included, only any amount above. We have £180 spare, proposed IPA £90. The spare income has come from using hubby's WTC of £180.99.........

[Adam Davies]

Hi
I think that you have been landed with a jobs worth and will need to go through the correct procedure[both of you] in having your cases reviewed by someone higher up the Insolvency chain.
Heres a section from my blog following my meeting with Andy Woodhead of the governments Insolvency Service

'Andy also highlighted that the Service does have an easily accessible complaints procedure (http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/) that is also published on its website and that if the complaint could not be resolved by the Service it could end up with an independent adjudicator.'
Regards

[chris.g]

How would we actually do that? I feel that I may run the risk of making matters worse-they might include the child benefit, CTC and maintenance, then we would have more disposable income on paper. She said that the figures had been passed by her manager.

[chris.g]

Doh.... only just seen the link you included!!!!! Thanks

[ianmillington]

Take a look here Chris - I think you'll find it dynamite.

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/freedomofinformation/
technical/incomepaymentordersagreements.htm

Your examiner is breaking every rule in the book. If your disposable income is £180 you should only have to pay £45 according to this. See also the High Court Comment about benefits.

Remember that this is straight from the Insolvency Service website - her employer!

I think your examiner is probably under pressure to reach a financial target given the very oppressive manner in which she is treating you. As previously stated, I think you should go to one of the Assistant Official Receivers

ian

[Adam Davies]

Hi
You won't make matters worse,just state that you are not happy with her findings and would like to have your case reviewed by someone else and that you would also like to have details on the complaints procedure.
Regards

[ianmillington]

Oops! sorry

Having re-read the link, I think it could be interpreted as follows:

if your disposable income is £99 you pay nothing.
if your disposable income is £100 you pay £50.

Ian

[chris.g]

Thanks for that Ian, I did make her aware that I had been advised that is was £100 or more and she told me that was incorrect!!! As Andy says, I think she is a jobs worth, and she is probably under pressure to hit her targets.

[chris.g]

If that's right then, that seems really unfair, your worse off if you have a disposable income!!!!! Surely that can't be right????

[jane.l]

I am sorry you have still not resolved your problem, it’s a constant worry, isn’t it?

We went bankrupt in August, all along the examiner we had then kept saying “we want an IPA, go and try to claim some benefits then we can take the IPA from hubby’s wage” Well, I tried and am not entitled to any benefits. Months have dragged by and now we have been presented with an IPA of £52 per month by slashing the food bill, no house insurance and no optician costs

I have posted a letter today saying we do not think the IPA is sustainable, it equates to £3.23 per person per day for food and toiletries and so we cannot agree to it!

I woke up this morning thinking “what have we done? Have we just made things ten times worse for ourselves???”

I am really scared now we may have to go to court for an IPO and maybe have to pay more! I am sick of living in fear like this, I am freezing, I daren’t put the heating on, it has been –8c here this week at night but I daren’t go over my allowed gas expense.

I shout at anyone who is leaving lights on and using too much water. Eating budget, value food is awful, the kids moan all the time about it. I have turned into a moaning, raving skinflint!

I am just so worried right now, I dread the phone ringing or the postman coming[:(!]

[ianmillington]

If that's right then, that seems really unfair, your worse off if you have a disposable income!!!!! Surely that can't be right????

It's not entirely clear is it Chris? The immediate conclusion is that you pay 50% of £100-£240. However, upon further scrutiny it can then be interpreted as saying that if your income is between £100-£240 you pay 50%. The second one is inherently unfair, so I would imagine that the first interpretation is right but I just don't know[?]

Ian

[ianmillington]

Jane

From the other thread I had concluded that your financial position was probably even tighter than that of Chris. Again, I think you need to go above the head of the examiner.

[chris.g]

'NB An IPO or IPA would not be sought where the bankrupt’s only or main source of income is state benefit payments. The High Court has also 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.'

'Income includes all payments the bankrupt gets, including income from self-employment, PAYE employment, benefits (including child benefit and child tax credit), working tax credit and any payments under a pension scheme'

These are from the same form. Does anyone else see the contradiction??? You do include benefits/you don't include benefits....
There is no wonder that there seems to be so much blurring of what can and can't be used and how there seems to be so much variation in what an OR decides to use. It seems as if it is a game of chance, submit your petition and hope for the best........

[ianmillington]

What that does suggest to me is that if it went to an IPO application the OR would not be able to take into account benefits. The direct contradiction on child benefits is well noted.

However, WFTC is means tested. Surely that ought not to be taken into account?

As you say, there is some subjectivity here. Still think it's worth your while taking it further though.

[chris.g]

Yes, I will be. Seems unfair that you have to make all this noise to get fair treatment. I do appreciate the creditors should be paid as much as possible, however, including benefits should not happen. After all, some are in place to top-up incomes to Government set levels tp prevent living below the breadline.