Hello Would anyone have any advice regarding this problem? I bought a Classic FM subscription in December using a Tesco voucher, and very shortly afterwards received a letter saying that the magazine would no longer be published. They offered a transfer to another magazine or a refund. I looked at the magazine they offered a transfer to and it was nothing like Classic FM, so I asked for a refund. They have now said that I can't have a refund because I paid with a Tesco voucher, but that they can also offer a transfer to a number of other magazines, the majority of which are to do with cars or caravans, the remainder about football or gadgets. Instinct tells me that if they are contracted to provide a service then they need to provide it or refund me; it is simply not their place to decide they want to do neither. Does anyone have any advice? Is there more to it than that because of the Tesco voucher?

They would apply to suspend your discharge from bankruptcy on grounds of non co-operation.

Well, if you're not being told wildly different things, and if you're being told what you're thinking, that's a good thing! Keeping searching property auctions; there's alwaysva house that's been repossessed near you, you just need to find it!

Hello A year doesn't seem like that long ago! However I can't remember the exact details of the story, do forgive me for vagueness! The way the property market is going a delay may be no bad thing in terms of seeing any value in the house diminish (if you want to keep it to actually live there that is!). If it was that you are arguing that your interest in the house is bigger than the 50/50 share suggested by paper, you might want to look at some property auction websites, and see if you can find something similar that has sold in your area, or watch for one selling and see what it goes for. There are vast amounts of property being auctioned these days at prices much lower than estate agents would like to think properties are worth, or even not being sold at all. This would help you with establishing a realistic forced sale valuation. If it was that you are arguing that your interest in the house is bigger than the nil suggested on paper, you might want to suggest that the mortgage will no longer be paid if you aren't going to be able to buy the interest (probably discuss with 'your' IP first to see if he thinks it's a realistic threat). Your husband can say this now that he is discharged, as it won't lead to income available to pay an IPA from (it's too late for that), and as the shortfall won't affect him anyway (it would fall into the bankruptcy, what does he care?), and as if you have no interest it wouldn't affect you either.

It all depends how much she owed at that time, and... ehm... what happened to the jewellery? Did she declare it in her bankruptcy? If not, then they're not going to believe it existed unless they can have it, otherwise it all sounds a bit too convenient. The legislation has been posted before.

Cash value of everything she owned less liabilities. But you wouldn't really be able to include things that would be excluded from a bankruptcy, like furniture etc.

The application looks as good as you could hope for. Fingers crossed.

I didn't answer the original question though... It sounds like they are going into a creditor's voluntary liquidation. If this happens you should hear from the liquidator when they are appointed, and search the London Gazette ( Home ) from time to time if you are worried you've been forgotten about.

I believe Diamond Lifestyle's director went missing in a light aircraft which was later found crashed into the sea in Brazil a few months ago ago.

Yes, Beechcrofy can have you made bankrupt if you aren't keeping to to the terms of the CCJ, which said you should pay them the full amount immediately.

The only possible way I can think of, as I said before, is to go to court to get the CCJ terms varied to payments in installments rather than forthwith. I don't know if that works after a Stat Demand has been served though - perhaps you could ask your lawyer if he thinks you could win this.

There is definitely a CCJ. It seems Roystc has accepted that the transaction was voidable in order to avoid the expense of a court hearing on this point, and that the Trustee has subsequently obtained a CCJ on that back of that. They are now going for bankruptcy on the bank of the CCJ not being satisfied.

If she remembers what accounts she had then, or can find out from an experian report, she could do DPA requests to the creditors to ask for the balance at that date. If she owed you the money and you prove it, that just makes it a preference rather than a transaction at undervalue. That doesn't really help you much, I don't think. And if she can't prove she was solvent, thinking she was doesn't count for much. They should be able to tell her what accounts she had at the time, so she can find out. Again, even if you could, it just makes it a preference rather than a transaction at undervalue. I think you have to do it, if you can at all, under the CCJ heading. If you wait until the bankruptcy hearing they will make the order, as you have a debt under the judgement that you were due to pay and haven't. Basically because a lot of people faced with bankruptcy petitions magically find the money.

Indeed - it's up to Roystc to show she was solvent after giving him the money. If he can do that, then the rest falls away. I suspect he can't though, even if she was solvent.

It's certainly possible. But in such a short period of time and where the other party made the major financial contribution to the purchase? If he could prove it he'd already have had the receipts he was wishing he had.

Goldlady is right, you cannot have a transaction at undervalue without insolvency, so this is probably the only way it can be challenged - all the other criteria are either met or you can't prove they aren't. However I don't think he really had much of an opportunity to gain an equitable interest in the property. It wasn't very long that it was owned, and she put down the deposit, so at the very least she owned that bit of it. Whether or not the other party gets chased just depends on whether the OR notices, creditors, whether the trustee thinks they can get the money back, direction of the wind, luck etc... Of course this comes with a caveat that if they ask it's a criminal offence not to say. In terms of the legislation: They are currently going under this heading: Transaction at an Undervalue (s339) Where, an individual is adjudged bankrupt and he had at a relevent time (341 says it's five years) entered into a transaction with any person at an undervalue, the Trustee of the bankrupt's estate may apply to court for an order under this section. The court shall, on such an application, make such order as it thinks fit for restoring the position to what it would have been if the individual had not entered into that transaction. For the purposes of this section and sections 341 and 342, an individual enters into a transaction with that person at an undervalue if- He makes a gift to that person or he otherwise enters into a transaction with that person on terms that provide for him to receive no consideration He enters into a transaction with that person in consideration of marriage of the formation of a civil partnership, or He enters into a transaction with that person for a consideration the value of which, in money or money's worth, is significantly less than the value, in money or money's worth, of the consideration provided by the individual Even is he can prove that he was owed the money A preference is given if: (340) That person is one of the individual's creditors or a surety or guarantor for any of his debts or other liabilities and the individual does or suffers anything to be which which (in either case) has the effect of putting that person into a position which, in the event of the individual's bankruptcy, will be better than the position he would hav ebeen in if that thing had not been done. It goes on to say that the court will make the order if it feels that the person giving the preference was influenced by a desire to prefer, but that if an associate it preferred the desire to prefer will be assumed. The relevant time for a preference to an associate is two years before the date of a bankruptcy order. The relevant time for both is conditional on a clause in 341(2) which states that: "That time is not relevant for the purposes of sections 339 and 340 unless the individual- a) is insolvent at that time, or b) becomes insolvent in consequence of the transaction or preference But the requirements aof this subsection are presumed to be satisfied, unless the contrary is shown, in relation to and transaction an an undervalue which is entered into by an individual with a person who is an assocate of his (otherwise by reason only of being his employee). 342 defines insolvency as a) he is unable to pay his debts as they fall due, or b) the value of his assets is less than the amount of his liabilities, taking into account his contingent and prospective liabilities. And just for reference in terms of the position someone would be in if the bankruptcy happened, s329 puts debts to a spouse right at the back of the queue. They don't get a penny until everyone else has been paid in full, and with interest. But essentially, what that boils back down to is what I've been saying: a) show she was still solvent after she gave you the money or... b) pay up. If it's b, you want b to happen in way that doesn't leave you bankrupt if you at all can. The only way I can think of achieving this is to have the terms of the CCJ varied to something you can afford to pay each month, but insolvency is my particular thing not CCJs, so I don't know if that would work.

You said earlier that the house was bought for £62.5k? For me the calculator makes it that 2 years later the value would have gone up to about £89k, depending on where the property was. They wouldn't expect you to carry on paying the mortgage on two properties - they would say that you could use the money from one of the mortgages to pay into the bankruptcy. Your parents depends on whether the mortgage company on the property knows that you are letting the property. If it is a mortgage where you are allowed to let the property, is would be sold with tenants (and the new owner would have whatever rights the agreement if force gives them). If it's not a mortgage where you are allowed to rent it out, the mortgage company could apply for possession and then sell the property. How long have your parents been renting from you / how much do they pay? Was there ever a written agreement?

I hope I don't come across as too negative, but I think I'd be doing a dis-service if I only pointed out the things in your favour and not also the things you need to expect to have to overcome along the road. One thing you need to be aware of when dealing with this is that that fact that she paid the entire deposit goes against you - it shows that at this stage the house was more hers than yours, and tends to suggest against that you were entitled to a share of the proceeds. Another thing to bear in mind is that not all the things you might have paid for are relevant to increasing the value of the fabric of the property. If you buy something like furniture, carpets and curtains ... you own furniture, carpets and curtains, not a bit of the house. In terms of how much of the increase in the value of the property might have come from the value of your improvements, there is a calculator at House Prices home page that might help work out what percentage of the increase would have happened anyway and how much might be extra as a result of improvements.

It very much matters whether she was solvent or not, as there can't be either a preference or a transaction at an undervalue without insolvency. You could ask them to disclose the evidence that she was insolvent. Alternatively, if it was mainly loans and HP agreements rather than credit cards, it might be possible to work out of from an experian report if she got one, as long as we aren't talking about going back more than 6 years.

I strongly think that as well as asking for set aside (which I'm afraid I don't think you have a chance of getting), you should ask for the payment terms to be changed to something you can afford rather than all at once. That way they can't bankrupt you unless you fall behind on those payments. @ Goldlady - they aren't saying that the sale of the house was a transaction at an undervalue, they are saying that giving roystc a share of the proceeds of the sale of a house that wasn't his was a transaction an an undervalue. However, even if Roystc can prove he was owed the money (which he can't) they would just say it was a preferential payment, and still ask for the money. The only way to fight the substance of the claim is to say that ex was solvent after the transaction - ie that ex had debts of no more than £10k after she paid off Roystc.

Having seen the petition and demand I fear that the SD is never going to be set aside, as it does indeed fall on the back of an unsatisfied judgement. This means that the stat demand effectively wasn't for a disputed amount. I don't know if it's possible to have the terms of the judgement varied from payment in full by 11th February to payment of X per month, and how that would affect the Stat Demand, but I think that would be the best outcome if it's possible. I noticed mention of an IVA. Are you still trying to propose one?

I did consider the technical approach. But realistically, if roystc has already applied (through a lawyer no less) to set the demand aside and been refused, I don't think it's going to go far. I think the court will be satisfied that he knows what it is, who it's from and what they want.

Sorry - DMP = Debt Management Plan; Gregory Pennington.

If the DMP people have been dealing with this aspect, maybe it would be better to ask the/a solicitor to try and take it on. They might be more willing to talk to them, and they will know better if trying to vary the terms of the CCJ is an option available to you.

I don't think it's a lost cause in terms of that you are going to go bankrupt. But I think the odds are really against you in terms of winning completely. It's always worth asking another sol what he thinks about being more aggressive if you are in a position to, but a lot depends on how much you have to lose. If you go down that road it's winner takes all. Unless you have nothing to lose, I think just trying to avoid bankruptcy may be your best hope. I think your first step is to check that you do have a CCJ, and if so see if you can apply to vary it, and discuss with the/a solicitor if doing this would indeed help with the bankruptcy petition. If not, and if you can't avoid going bankrupt, then perhaps you come to having nothing to lose by fighting that you won't lose anyway