www.iva.co.uk

Hello, and hopefully you can offer some sound advice. I am currently in my 1st year an IVA, which is due for review in January. I have been thinking for a long time now whether I should hav enetered and IVA as apposed to Bankruptcy, and need advice. I have been advised that i could enter into a bankruptcy agreement that would not allow my house to be taken away from me, this is becuase i have negative equity.

I have never defaulted on my mortgage or my secured loan i have in place, but i am fearful that the IVA is not helping me, especially when the 4th year comes around and the cost of the IVA goes up for the duration of my mortgage.

I was advised that by defaulting on my IVA and continuing to pay the mortgage and secured loan my house would not be taken away.

I have to contribute a proportion of commission i earn and any windfall i get has to go to the IVA, and i have had the picture painted to me that bankruptcy in my case will allow me to keep all of what i earn, keep any windfalls and not lose my house.

I am awfully confused, please help me with advice

If you have negative equity in the property, then you effectively do not own any of it, and therefore you can acquire the beneficial interest for a nominal sum from the Trustee - thereby keeping the property outside of the proceedings. Surely your IP discussed this with you at your meeting, when the various options would have been discussed with you?

You will not be able to retain windfalls during the period of a bankruptcy - which is generally one year.

Is it a case that you wish to pursue the easiest way to get rid of your debts, or do you genuinely want to repay as much as you can over a realistic timescale? The honest answer to that question will probably dictate whether you ought to plump for bankruptcy or continue on with the IVA.

Plus the fact that you will be paying into an Income Payment Agreement over three years dependent on the amount of disposable income you have, so there is a chance you wouldn't be keeping all of your income.

If you can afford to maintain your IVA then I have heard that granting a BR order isnt a given.

Understandable I suppose. If you can afford to pay for the five years then at least you are paying something back.

Perhaps the courts view it that you are taking the easy way out, and that's why they won't always do it?

Can I ask who gave you all this advice on bankruptcy??