Hi
I have been considering BR, but due to the changes of IPAs it doesn't seem worth taking such a sever route anymore. My question is, if you start an IVA but are not a home owner, therefore no equity to release, does that make it a 6 year IVA to compensate?
I suppose it would depend on what percentage you are paying back.
It would be up to your creditors at the end of the day. They may ask for it but they may not.
Occasionally with low dividends we see creditors requesting an extension to 6 years, but I got one accepted last week at 12p in the £ with a 5 year duration, so there is no consistency really. I guess the difference is now 3 years vs 5 years, and you have to decide if avoiding bankruptcy is worth paying for an additional two years. Many people do.
I think a lot more people will now choose to go for an IVA rather than bankruptcy now that there has been such a tightening up with the IPA.
Sharing from experiences of dealing with debt
The greatness of a man is not in how much wealth he acquires, but in his integrity and his ability to affect those around him positively.
Bob Marley. http://kallis3.blogs.iva.co.uk
I believe there is a tightening from the beginning of December, or so I have read.
Sharing from experiences of dealing with debt
The greatness of a man is not in how much wealth he acquires, but in his integrity and his ability to affect those around him positively.
Bob Marley. http://kallis3.blogs.iva.co.uk
I agree with the Major as many people are bullied by the Insolvency Service into accepting IPAs. It is often worth fighting this and let them go for an IPO if they want as I have often found judges to be sympathetic to debtors.
Absolutely and if there is a change of circumstances an IPO can be varied/ terminated by the debtor anytime by applying to the court for a hearing and giving the trustee 28 days notice of course the trustee can also do the same to the debtor, either way you are still bankrupt it cannot fail.
I most definately do not see that more people will plump for an IVA rather than go bankrupt. The three year limit to payments can still be seen as an advantage to people who have no assets to protect.
What we are bound to see is a swing of focus from the bankruptcy assist companies towards challenging IPA payments. I am sure they will be encouraging bankrupts to challenge the OR's assessment, perhaps for a cut of the savings. I gather that a lot of OR examiners are not happy with being told they now have to seek 100% of the DI, so any reasonable challenge to an IPA may well result in a relaxation of the amount set, as no party will want to spend time in Court seeking endless IPOs.
The focus on Bankruptcy Assist companies should always be challenging IPA orders, the Bankruptcy assist company fee should always come from savings to the client, so in essence it can be a totally free service although I do understand some of them charge for attending court and the interview a service promoted heavily on the sister site, and a service in my opinion of no value whatsover.
