| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
pix1
Average Member
689 Posts |
 Posted - 26 March 2008 : 11:24:48
|
| I know the possible reasons why someone might get a BRU or BRO and the things it stops you doing. Normally when a BR is discharged he/she can keep any assets he/she gets from then onwards. The standard date of automatic discharge is, of course, one year, and so those people could keep assets after a year. I was wondering does a BRU or BRO lengthen the period in which any assets you might get can be seized? |
|
|
JulianDonnelly
Junior Member
United Kingdom
325 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2008 : 13:15:06
|
Hi Pix1,
Yes it does any windfall or asset obtained would need to be declared to the OR as you would still be under the restrictions of Bankruptcy as with an undischarged Bankrupt
All the best
Julian Donnelly
Spokesperson for www.Bankruptcyhelp.org.uk |
 |
|
|
zchr1
Junior Member
196 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2008 : 13:59:10
|
| Hi there. I'm affraid I am trying to find out what the reasons for a BRO are. Can someone tell me? |
|
|
|
pix1
Average Member
689 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2008 : 15:04:03
|
| Does this mean that if you go abroad anytime prior to discharge, say to work, and buy a house or something you would need to declare this? Even though it would have been purchased after BR order date and be under a different financial jurisdiction? |
|
|
|
pix1
Average Member
689 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2008 : 15:06:07
|
To zchr1;
Take a look at the following link to the Insolvency Service Website to see what BRO's may be imposed for.
http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/guidanceleaflets/bro/bro.htm
You can also search people who have been issued BRO's (or BRU's) for Unfit conduct of various kinds. |
|
|
|
JulianDonnelly
Junior Member
United Kingdom
325 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2008 : 15:13:14
|
Hi Pix,
It is very unlikely that anyone would give you a mortgage whilst being subject to a BRO, also how would the deposit of purchasing a property be funded?
I question this as if you have a disposable income in which you are saving for the deposit this would have to be declared for the purposes of an IPA/IPO.
If you were to receive a lump sum from somewhere then this would have to be declared as a windfall as part of the restriction.
All the Best
Julian Donnelly
Spokesperson for www.Bankruptcyhelp.org.uk |
|
|
|
melanie_giles
Senior Member
1191 Posts |
Posted - 27 March 2008 : 23:12:41
|
Sorry to contradict here, but after acquired assets only need to be declared in the period prior to discharge from bankruptcy, and therefore assets acquired during the period of a BRU or BRO do not form part of the estate if discharge has already been received.
Discharge from bankrupty and the timing and therefore restrictions of a BRU or BRO are generally unrelated. |
|
|
|
Helpful Advice
Average Member
United Kingdom
646 Posts |
Posted - 28 March 2008 : 13:55:31
|
I don't disagree with either Julian or Melanie as it would depend on the conditions of the order imposed.
You are automatically discharged from Bankruptcy after twelve months and if this was to take place even though you are subject to a BRO/BRU you would not have to declare after acquired assets, however depending on your reasons for the BRO/BRU they could impose certain conditions within the BRO/BRU that you are to declare, this would be at the discretion of the court.
Your discharge on the other hand may not be automatic. The OR could suspend your discharge and I have seen a few occasions where this is done indefinitely, On the making of a BRO/BRU the undischarged Bankrupt would have to apply to the court for their discharge, but would still fall under the restrictions of the BRO/BRU and any special conditions imposed therein and until they are discharged they would still fall under the rules of an undischarged Bankrupt and would have to declare after acquired assets and any windfall.
As Julian say's, however under the restrictions of a BRO/BRU you are unable to borrow more than £500 without first disclosing your position being subject to a BRO/BRU and by doing this I can not see many lenders willing to lend to you regardless of where in the world you may be.
Julian also states that if you were subject to a IPO/IPA you have to declare your income and expenditure therefore you would not be able to save for a deposit for something like a property, however after the IPO/IPA completes you would then no longer have to disclose your income and expenditure so could start to save at this point, but again I think it unlikely you would be able to find a lender until you BRO/BRU has completed.
If you do not disclose your position then you will be in breech of the BRO/BRU which could carry nasty consequences.
So as you can see it would depend on the case in hand and the reasons for the BRO/BRU
I hope this helps
Kind Regards,
Brett England
Bankruptcy Specialist
England,Jackman & Spacey
WebSite www.ejands.co.uk
View my story at:
http://www.bankruptcyhelp.org.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=594
|
|
|
|
pix1
Average Member
689 Posts |
Posted - 28 March 2008 : 14:46:52
|
| If you left the UK to live in, say, Australia would you still have to declare the BRU/BRO even though it is a different jurisdiction and lenders there might only ask about Australian bankruptcies on their application forms? |
|
|
|
pix1
Average Member
689 Posts |
Posted - 28 March 2008 : 15:34:23
|
| But when you look through the Bankruptcy Restriction Search facility at the Insolvency Service website a lot of the reasons for a BRU/BRO look like the sort of problems a lot of bankrupts must be getting into. E.g. taking out loans when they already had debts. I suppose taking out a new mortgage when you already have debts might be a good reason to give a BRU/BRO. Even though someone might move to have extra space for a family and then find they cannot afford it soon after if they go bankrupt perhaps they would get a restriction for it. |
|
|
|
pix1
Average Member
689 Posts |
Posted - 28 March 2008 : 15:58:56
|
This is gewtting more and more worrying for myself and, potentially, my wife if she goes bankrupt shortly.
I have been in touch with the Insolvency Service and they seem to think that if, such as in our case, you have taken out a mortgage on a more expensive property after selling your cheaper, having debts at the time and then finding a few months later that you can no longer afford the more expensive property then going bankrupt that it is a classic example of grounds for a BRU/BRO. Even though your mortgage offer was on the correct income details at the time if your income falls a bit later and you go bankrupt you could be in trouble with the OR for taking out the mortgage in the first place. I suppose the OR would not be persuaded by any protestations that the mortgage broker concerned had oversold you to the mortgage company or you did not understand exactly what you were letting yourself in for he would stil consider it reckless and ask the court for a BRO (or offer a BRU). Does anyone know of any examples where bankrupts have overreached themselves in a house sale and purchase of a more expensive property and shortly after gone bankrupt?
I can't find any exact similar circumstances in a bankruptcy restrictions search. |
|
|
|
Helpful Advice
Average Member
United Kingdom
646 Posts |
Posted - 28 March 2008 : 18:51:34
|
Hi Pix,
Yes you would have to declare you are subject to a BRO otherwise you are in breech of the order!
unfortunately I am not in a position to comment regarding your case as although you have given a fair amount of detail I am unaware of the full details of your case.
It would depend on a number of factors your getting a BRO one of the biggest areas I have seen is not cooperating with the OR during the Bankruptcy.
They will look at your conduct prior to the Bankruptcy, and specifically what the money was spent on and over what time scale.
If your debts were incurred over a short period of and you do not give information as to where the money was spent then this will be seen as bad conduct.
The other reason I have seen BRO's given is for not declaring all information on the 6.28 statement of affairs and they later find out information has been withheld.
You will have to wait and see what the OR decides to do, you may find that if you are not subject to an IPO/IPA you may even be discharged within the year normally in months 6-8, so long as you have cooperated and supplied all information in relation to your case.
I hope this helps
Kind Regards,
Brett England
Bankruptcy Specialist
England,Jackman & Spacey
WebSite www.ejands.co.uk
View my story at:
http://www.bankruptcyhelp.org.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=594
|
|
|
|
melanie_giles
Senior Member
1191 Posts |
Posted - 28 March 2008 : 22:32:36
|
BRU and BRO procedures are relatively rare compared to the number of bankruptcies annually, and in my experience as a professional in this industry they largely unaffect the bankruptcy discharge - hence my earlier response. Suspended discharge is actually rarer, and generally only given if the bankrupt refuses to co-operate with the OR or his Trustee, or fails to disclose information when requested to. Most bankrupts are generally co-operative, especially if they are debtor's petition cases.
The reality is that no-one can confirm to you whether you will be the subject of a BRU or BRO, as this will be down to the ultimate discretion of the examiner and OR at the time - and this policy can be inconsistent across the country. If you want to view some examples of the conduct of people who have been awarded such restrictions, have a look on the BRU/BRO search option on the Insolvency Service's website. It makes interesting reading, and may give you a few examples to work with. |
|
|
|
introuble
Junior Member
United Kingdom
226 Posts |
Posted - 29 March 2008 : 14:40:08
|
Hi,
I must say a BRU or a BRO are starting to worry me slightly. I have looked through the Insolvency detail and I must say a vast number of them basically read like most cases, including mine.
Basically my history is as follows:
Had Good Job. Debt Free.
Re mortgaged to pay for conservatory. Spent a little.
Invested in a business.
Borrowed to pay for business operating costs.
Settled debts personal.
Debt Free then apart from ongoing business borrowings but being managed.
then as business started to struggle debts built up.
Sold house.
Settled Debt.
Debt Free apart from ongoing business but being managed.
Cracking start to business year. Confidence growing. Bought new equipment on history of recent times.
Hit a brick wall regarding non payments by debtors, debts increased. Fall out in relationship with Main customer due to non payments of their debts.
Sold equipment recently purchased to clear off the recent debt (secured).
Ongoing Struggle with work flow. Then sold up and settled more debt all correctly apportioned, then struggled for work and in breach of T & C's of Franchise Fees. Purchased new equipment on again promise of exceptional work volumes i.e exactly same as when I started business. Work flow not forthcoming bank, the end of the road.
So yes we have spent where shouldn't have but all through the last 4 years we have desperately tried to clear debt and start again only to go backwards every time. This is really strating to worry me as I really do not want to have a BRO on my name as the Bankruptcy is bad enough.
Anyway got that off my chest. Any thoughts anyone??
David
|
Edited by - introuble on 29 March 2008 14:46:28 |
|
|
|
melanie_giles
Senior Member
1191 Posts |
Posted - 29 March 2008 : 16:28:08
|
It's really down to the attitude of the OR at the time to be frank, but they will look very closely at your more recent transactions to see if you were borrowing money which you clearly could not afford to pay back, and if so they will want to know what this was used for.
I would not worry unduly, BRU's and BRO's sound scary, but in reality they are unlikely to affect you greatly. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
BRU/BRO
