| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
panicked-mum
New Member
United Kingdom
52 Posts |
 Posted - 14 September 2010 : 15:41:24
|
| My husband and I have both been discharged from BR early but hubby still has an IPA. He has an increase in Tax credits to declare (joint claim) but could I now say I don't contribute as much of my wage, extra income towards the household expenses? I don't have an IPA. |
|
|
gettingoutofdebt
forum expert
2418 Posts |
Posted - 14 September 2010 : 16:53:06
|
| Yes, there is no problem with this. The OR cannot force you to contribute a certain amount and, as you were also BR, you could say that you are using your wages to put some money aside for savings, holidays, etc. if they do query the amount you contribute. |
 |
|
|
panicked-mum
New Member
United Kingdom
52 Posts |
Posted - 14 September 2010 : 17:30:20
|
| Thanks for this. It will be nice to finally have a bit of extra cash around and start looking forward again! |
|
|
|
debtinfo
forum expert
2826 Posts |
Posted - 14 September 2010 : 18:04:50
|
| Actualy the OR will expect you to pay a fair share of all the household outgoings, so if you get 40% of the income they expect you to pay 40% of the household outgoings, that is what your contribution should be. If you are unwilling to disclose all of your income then the OR will presume that you pay 50% of the outgoings and so only allow your husband to pay 50% of the outgoings leaving the rest assessable for an IPA |
|
|
|
gettingoutofdebt
forum expert
2418 Posts |
Posted - 14 September 2010 : 18:28:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by debtinfo
If you are unwilling to disclose all of your income then the OR will presume that you pay 50% of the outgoings and so only allow your husband to pay 50% of the outgoings leaving the rest assessable for an IPA
And what would happen if this didn't leave enough to live on after the IPA was paid? If the non-BR/IPA person only wants to contribute a certain amount then the OR cannot force them to do otherwise. If the non-IPA person refuses to pay, what the OR deems is, their fair share of the household contributions will they then happily let the person with an IPA struggle and maybe even fall behind in their IPA payments? What purpose would this serve?
There have been numerous posts on this and other forums about 1 person being BR and the other only declaring some of their income as they have their own debts to pay, other financial priorities, etc. Although the OR may want/expect all parties in the household to pay their share of the household bills based on their income this doesn't always happen and there is nothing that the OR can do to force the non-BR/IPA person to pay more than they want.
Declaring BR is a chance for people to have a fresh start in their financial life. If the OR forces/expects someone who doesn't have an IPA to contribute 50% of their income to household expenses then they are pretty much implementing an IPA on 2 people and this is well beyond their powers.
|
|
|
|
debtinfo
forum expert
2826 Posts |
Posted - 14 September 2010 : 18:45:31
|
| The OR only expects a fair share ti be paid as they would have to pay into any household, If they cannot afford to do this because of their own debts then it is not the OR taking their money it is simply that they do not have enough money to support themselves which is a problem that they would have t address themselves. If the bankrupt person pays more than a fair share based on their income then in effect this is taking money away from the IPA unfairly. The OR will assess the IPA in the way i have described and if necessary enforce it through the court and by an attachment of their earnings. The none bankrupt person has a responsibility to pay for their own keep and board if they have the income to do so. In this case the OP has really stated that they dont want to disclose it so that they can built up some cash |
Edited by - debtinfo on 14 September 2010 18:46:10 |
|
|
|
gettingoutofdebt
forum expert
2418 Posts |
Posted - 14 September 2010 : 18:51:10
|
OK, so let's say that, as in this case, 2 people were BR. One received an IPA and the other was discharged without an IPA. Pretty much everyone who declares BR has an old car that may or may not be reliable. Would the OR be ok with the non-IPA person saying that they wanted to save some of their income in order to buy a newer car as their current car is starting to develop expensive faults i.e. clutch, gearbox, etc?
I don't mean to be argumentative but just wonder how far the OR will/can go in order to force a non-IPA person to pay their share. |
|
|
|
debtinfo
forum expert
2826 Posts |
Posted - 14 September 2010 : 19:09:23
|
Basically they pay for a fair share of the outgoings and the rest of their income is theirs to do with as they like.
They dont make the none IPA person do anything they just allow what the IPA person can contribute and the other person has the option of paying a fair share or the bills not being paid |
|
|
|
panicked-mum
New Member
United Kingdom
52 Posts |
Posted - 15 September 2010 : 22:46:20
|
I seem to have started quite a debate! I only work part time (2 days a week) so my wage is minimal anyway. I'm not sure how our tax credits work, as it's a joint claim, I presume the OR will take the full amount into consideration in my husbands incomings? This is part of my income too.
I'm happy to state that a percentage of my wage is used towards bills, but I'd like to be able to reserve part of it plus my maintenance payment from my ex husband (which is in effect for my son and not my husbands creditors!) to start and save for christmas etc.
I guess we just want the same as everyone else on here...a little extra cash in our pockets for a change!
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
My husband and I have been discharged early
