| Author |
 Topic  |
|
kev.cy
Starting Member
23 Posts |
 Posted - 28 December 2009 : 12:15:06
|
How much should I tell the OR?
i.e. is it possible to be too honest? ... for example, I don't particularly want to lose my wedding ring, or my laptop (which I need for work).
How much detail should I give the OR? i.e. whilst I don't want to be dishonest, neither do I want to do myself a disservice!
In terms of household goods, do they look at purchase price or resale value, and is there any particular threshold (e.g. £500 or £1000)?
Anybody got any practical experience that they can share?
Thanks in advance,
Kev |
|
|
Skippy
forum expert
United Kingdom
3290 Posts |
Posted - 28 December 2009 : 12:48:31
|
You won't lose your wedding ring, and if you need the laptop for work then it will be classed as tools of your trade.
The OR has no interest in normal household items, unless they are worth a lot of money if they are sold.
Tomorrow is a mystery, yesterday is history, today is the present, a gift to make the most of.
View my blog at http://skippy13.blogs.bankruptcyhelp.org.uk/
29 IPA payments made, 7 to go - in single figures! |
 |
|
|
kev.cy
Starting Member
23 Posts |
Posted - 28 December 2009 : 13:04:02
|
Thanks Skippy,
however, what qualifies as 'a lot of money'?
Also, given that they don't come around with a clipboard & take a full inventory of your belongings, and given that I don't own anything of value, it seems to be a matter of personal discretion as to what to reveal?
I noticed in another post that there are moves afoot to bring IPA/IPO payments into line with IVA payments (i.e. 100% of surplus) ... do you have any information as to when this will take effect, and whether it will be applied retrospectively to those not yet discharged?
Thanks again,
Kev
|
|
|
|
debtinfo
forum expert
2826 Posts |
Posted - 28 December 2009 : 13:06:16
|
| 100% honest in my opinion, The OR does not take everything, they should leave you enough for a reasonable standard of living. If you have a normal gold band they wont take a wedding ring, if you have an extravagant £5k ring they may do, same with other assets, its only where there is a good return for the OR that they will take items. The main exception to this rule is where there is a liability to the OR such as certain vehicles |
|
|
|
debtinfo
forum expert
2826 Posts |
Posted - 28 December 2009 : 13:14:24
|
Generally i would go with put anything worth £500 or more at resale, apart from vehicles and monetary assets which should all be listed regardless of worth.
BTW, apart from this forum i have not heard from any anywhere else that they are changing IPA's including several friends who work in the IS |
Edited by - debtinfo on 28 December 2009 13:23:02 |
|
|
|
kev.cy
Starting Member
23 Posts |
Posted - 28 December 2009 : 13:22:05
|
Thanks DebtInfo
- helped to clear the fog a bit!
Kev
|
|
|
|
Skippy
forum expert
United Kingdom
3290 Posts |
|
|
kev.cy
Starting Member
23 Posts |
Posted - 28 December 2009 : 14:50:29
|
Thanks again Skip
|
|
|
|
debtinfo
forum expert
2826 Posts |
Posted - 28 December 2009 : 15:19:22
|
| Wishfull thinking from people who administer IVA's me thinks, I will of course come and eat humble pie if it happens though |
|
|
|
kev.cy
Starting Member
23 Posts |
Posted - 28 December 2009 : 15:50:18
|
Skippy - 'Personally I wouldn't even have thought of declaring a wedding ring' ... hence I may use some discretion in regards to what I do/ do-not declare!?
Where should I draw the line?
DebtInfo - I'm sure you're right re 'wishful thinking', although it shouldn't be one for me to worry about, unless they make it applicable to all undischarged bankrupts
Thanks again,
K
|
|
|
|
gettingoutofdebt
forum expert
2418 Posts |
Posted - 28 December 2009 : 16:30:34
|
I would not bother declaring any household items (laptops, rings, furniture, etc.) that is worth less than £1k.
We'll have to see what happens with the IPA payments. I'm only 6 months into mine so I'll have to see if I get another I&E from the OR/Moonbeever. Personally I can't see that BR's will have to pay 100% of their DI as, from what I understand, this low level of DI is why a lot of IVAs fail. People have unexpected bills and then they are unable to continue to make the IVA repayments. What would happen if this were the case with BR's? Would they start failing a BR???? |
|
|
|
debtinfo
forum expert
2826 Posts |
Posted - 28 December 2009 : 16:40:45
|
| One of the major reasons that it is set at 50%-70% is that it gives the bankrupt an incentive to keep working as they get to keep some of the surplus. If it went to 100% more people would just stop working or cut their hours back meaning the the IS would make less money not more |
|
|
|
Skippy
forum expert
United Kingdom
3290 Posts |
Posted - 28 December 2009 : 16:45:47
|
Well Melanie knows what she's talking about so we'll have to see - she's not usually wrong.
Personally I think that people in IVAs don't get the credit they deserve - it's much harder than BR and anyone who completes one has my complete admiration.
I presume if the system does change, if there are unexpected bills etc people would speak to the OR the same way that anyone in an IVA should speak to their IP and ask for a payment break.
Tomorrow is a mystery, yesterday is history, today is the present, a gift to make the most of.
View my blog at http://skippy13.blogs.bankruptcyhelp.org.uk/
29 IPA payments made, 7 to go - in single figures! |
|
|
|
kev.cy
Starting Member
23 Posts |
Posted - 28 December 2009 : 17:11:13
|
Thanks all :))
|
|
|
|
RHB
Senior Member
1159 Posts |
Posted - 29 December 2009 : 08:48:10
|
| People already hold off getting jobs when the IPA is set at a max of 70% though so I can't see it making much difference if it's 100%. i suppose if the discharge period is lengthened that would make a difference. |
|
|
|
gettingoutofdebt
forum expert
2418 Posts |
Posted - 29 December 2009 : 10:35:07
|
I agree that a BR period of 5 yrs with an IPA of 5 yrs would possibly push more people towards an IVA rather than BR. There is also a much greater chance of people having more than £99 DI at some point during their 5 yr BR rather than the 1 yr at the moment. Obviously some people don't have the option of an IVA due to limited DI but for those that do it may push them towards an IVA.
Once (if ever) house prices start to pick up again people will find themselves in positive equity so the threat of losing their house could also make them decide an IVA is a better option even if the BR restrictions remain the same.
I agree that people in an IVA are pretty hard done to compared with a BR. I am not too sure who decides the IVA/BR restrictions (government, FSA, someone else??) but I suppose it is up to them to decide how they want people who are insolvent to settle with their creditors.
From my understanding the IVA scheme was brought in as an alternative to BR but a lot of people don't see it as a viable alternative due to the very strict repayments and the repayment length. Add the negative equity that a lot of people have in their properties and for a lot of people a BR is much more attractive.
I suppose we will just have to see what (if anything) happens but, as Skippy mentions, Melanie Giles is very knowledgeable in this field. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
How much should I tell the OR?
