Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


debtinfo last won the day on July 23 2012

debtinfo had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

361 Excellent

About debtinfo

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. In my experience at the official receivers office the biggest number of prosecutions is for lying to the official receiver and court rather than for the original handling of the monies that are unaccounted for. Most offences in bankruptcy such as gambling or disposing of assets etc are dealt with via civil courts and the bankruptcy restriction measures these days. So the best way forward is almost always to be truthful what ever was the original offence your mothers sister was trying to cover up. It is best to limit the damage and fess up now. They already realize there is money mis
  2. well assuming that the judge rules against you then all that does is show that there is a debt. The solicitors can then use any of the usual debt collection techniques from simply coming to an arrangement to pay in installments which should be the first thing they offer up to and including charging orders, repossession and bankruptcy itself. but as stated like with any debt they should allow a reasonable repayment plan in the first instance.
  3. you keep saying but he did not intend to go bankrupt, that does not matter. what matters is that he was insolvent and he paid one creditor some money and not the others. Also forget about the secured creditors as they were not known at the time. You said he had unsecured creditors of 20K. So for definite he owed you and he owed 20K to other creditors at least. He got the redundancy money and paid you and not them. Now the judge is going to ask him, why did he do that, how is that not intending to to put you in a better position than them. That is what he needs to answer if he wants to rely on
  4. Unfortunately they are correct, the law does does not depend on whether he knew he was insolvent or not. Just whether he was actually insolvent or not which is is tested by the 2 tests i mentioned above. lets assume that he was insolvent as you seem to be admitting that with what you have said so far. There is another defense but it is much more difficult to prove as it is a matter or opinion rather than fact like the defense above. The second defense is whether or not he had a desire to put you in a better position than if he had not made the payment to you. As you are an associate of h
  5. If you dont accept the very basic principle of the law, which is that an insolvent person should not give a preference to one of his creditors over the others, then it is going to be difficult to offer any answer that will satisfy you. As i was trying to get at the easiest defense would to prove that he was not insolvent at the time. i dont know all of his circumstances so it is impossible for me to know if this defense is available to him. ut that is the first thing to try and establish the facts on.
  6. ok so forget about the secured debts for a minute as that was unknown at the time. Lets look at the unsecured debts for now. it seems that he owed you at least £20K (probably more) and he also owed other unsecured creditors at least £20k at the point he got the redundancy money. One of the questions the court will look at is was he insolvent at the time. You keep saying that he had not thought about bankruptcy yet. That does not matter for the first test. The test is, was he insolvent. Now there are 2 definitions for insolvency. the first is this. Were his assets less than his debts.Now
  7. Sorry, i have sympathy for you, but if you dont answer the questions i have asked then there is little anyone can do to help. If you go into a court case and just say "i dont see why the can do this" then you are going to lose. you need to know the exact, and i mean exact, circumstances of what he owed, what his assets were and how he was paying those debts when the money was paid back to you.
  8. To give you a proper answer you need to answer the questions the questions that i asked, as i asked them.
  9. There is no point going round in circles on this what is sorely lacking in all this is any facts. What we actually need to know is this at the point that the 20K was paid back what exact debts did he have (whether big or small), Were all of the current payments on these up to date. Had there been any defaults. if the only debts were secured were they up to date, was there their sufficient security to cover those debts, if so why was there a shortfall 6 months later. what changed in that period.
  10. Hi Uncle, bankruptcies are actually at a 10 year low If you want to check out the official statistics they are in this link http://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov.uk/otherinformation/statistics/201311/index.htm
  11. yes particularly interesting are the failure rates as commentated on in the above link "Between the years 1990 and 2002, inclusive, the percentage of IVAs registered that resulted in termination remained fairly steady at around the 30% mark (the lowest figure in this period being 28% for 2001 registrations and the highest 33% for 1995 registrations). The percentage of terminations has since followed a generally upward trend from 30% for 2002 to the level for 2007 registrations, which currently stands at 37%. As at September 2012, nearly 50% of IVA registrations in 2007 were still ongoing
  12. yep well that will be it for the moment, if they have sent you a letter saying no inyerview then they will just progress the case in the background and let you know when decisions are made (like the car). You only need to contact them if you have new information such as if you get a windfall or a change in your circumstances
  13. hi, just to add to what sequenci has said, when deciding what to do you probably need to look at what your income prospects are ,will you be looking to go back to work? IE you need to look at whether you need a permenant solution or simply a short term solution to tide you over
  14. one of the key things you need to ask them is if they have equity in their property
  • Create New...