With reference to my previous question, my point is this, is it inevitable that the payments must increase, or could one argue that the situation is the same financially, just that the income is coming from a different source.
If one party earns more and the other less the payments would remain the same. Creditors cannot force someone to earn more because if they did the chidcare costs would easily outweigh the benefits. The new I&E would show this and as you say the tax return/wage slips would verify it.
Michael perhaps you could please give the benefit of your experience. You say creditors cannot force a person to earn more but from what I have read on here they often have another tack - put pressure on for the expenditure to be reduced or simply demand more money or they won't vote for the IVA. Why do they do this when a reputable IP will only propose a realistic and honest expenditure list in the first Place? Secodly, an IVP is cheaper for the crediotrs than b/r then why do creditors reject an IVA knowing that they may force a b/r and get next to nothing for their efforts. Does not make sense to me.
It could well be that they think some people won't want to do bankruptcy, and will either agree to the higher payments or will do a DMP, which means they will get more money back.
Could be wrong though.
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 Jan. Some creditors seem to want IVAs to fail and propose DMPs instead and put ridiculous hurdles in their way. It seems to be backfiring though as we are seeing more and more clients not even trying an IVA. When we do an I&E based on the guidelines clients are telling us that they cannot afford to feed their children at that level. Given the amount of negative equity clients are petitioning whereas if the guidelines were more realistic they would propose an IVA. I have been preparing IVAs for 10 years and the expense allowances have if anything become tighter. This only leads to more clients opting for bankruptcy at the initial meeting and more failures of up and running IVAs.
Thank you Michael - what a way to treat people who really want to do their best. I pitty anyone with low allowances where I live - one semi-supermarket - the Co-op - bag of sugar £1:05; drive 80 odd mile return trip and you will get the sugar 94p plus the cost of petrol! HSBC used to have a hard hurdle but I believe they do not now but only with certain IP companies. Its madness - I shall never understand how their minds work - better to have something rather than nothing in my book
