ChatterBank0 min ago
Bankcruptcy
6 Answers
I went bankcrupt back in November 2004, i got discharged in 2005 and have now been discharged for the past 3 years.
This week i got a letter from the Inland Revenue saying that i wasnt paid enough Child Tax Credit when my son was born in 2003 and that i was getting a rebate of �1098. Further down the letter it said that the money had been sent to the Official Reciever in accordance with my bankcruptcy.
I have spoken with the Official Receiver and they say that this money belongs to them becuase i received for the period before i went bankrupt and so this would have been classed as an asset. Here is my argument:
1. This is Child Tax Credit therefore it is a benefit and it theoretically belongs to my son.
2. I would not have got this amount in one lump sum i would have got it weekly therefore there would not have been that amount of money in my bank 2 years later.
3. How come if this is the case they are not taking money from my Child Tax Credit now as they are not allowed as it is a benefit.
Can anyone please help
This week i got a letter from the Inland Revenue saying that i wasnt paid enough Child Tax Credit when my son was born in 2003 and that i was getting a rebate of �1098. Further down the letter it said that the money had been sent to the Official Reciever in accordance with my bankcruptcy.
I have spoken with the Official Receiver and they say that this money belongs to them becuase i received for the period before i went bankrupt and so this would have been classed as an asset. Here is my argument:
1. This is Child Tax Credit therefore it is a benefit and it theoretically belongs to my son.
2. I would not have got this amount in one lump sum i would have got it weekly therefore there would not have been that amount of money in my bank 2 years later.
3. How come if this is the case they are not taking money from my Child Tax Credit now as they are not allowed as it is a benefit.
Can anyone please help
Answers
1 to 6 of 6
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Adele01. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I agree with factor 30.
1 is just fundamentally wrong. It is YOU who receives child benefit, not your son. If it was him it would be paid to an account in his name.
2, whilst no doubt true, is completely irrelevant. Fact is you DIDN'T spend it and it IS there now. You can't not account for it now on the basis that had you had it when you should have had you'd have spent it and it wouldn't have been available to creditors. That's a truly ridiculous argument!
3 I imagine they are not taking money now because you are discharged, no?
1 is just fundamentally wrong. It is YOU who receives child benefit, not your son. If it was him it would be paid to an account in his name.
2, whilst no doubt true, is completely irrelevant. Fact is you DIDN'T spend it and it IS there now. You can't not account for it now on the basis that had you had it when you should have had you'd have spent it and it wouldn't have been available to creditors. That's a truly ridiculous argument!
3 I imagine they are not taking money now because you are discharged, no?
On the statement of affairs form you completed when you went bankrupt one of the questions asks whether you are owed any money. If you had known this money was owed to you, you should have put the details down. The OR would then have pursued the Tax credit people for the money & would almost certainly have kept it to go towards your debts. What has happened now follows the same principle.
You are quite right in saying that the OR cannot take benefit income, but that relates to the ongoing week to week payments. In other words they cannot use such income as a basis for deciding that you have to enter into an Income Payments Agreement. The same does not necessarily apply to lump sum benefit payments.
You are quite right in saying that the OR cannot take benefit income, but that relates to the ongoing week to week payments. In other words they cannot use such income as a basis for deciding that you have to enter into an Income Payments Agreement. The same does not necessarily apply to lump sum benefit payments.
Thank you for your replies.
I didnt know i was owed the money at the time it has only come to light last week. Im sorry my argument sounds ridiculous but to me it is alot of money to lose, im not disputing that i dont owe any money but i would have thought that even if they gave me half back that would be sufficient.
Ive been to the CAB and they have told me that as i didnt know about the money at the time of going bankcrupt then i could have an argument to get it back.
I didnt know i was owed the money at the time it has only come to light last week. Im sorry my argument sounds ridiculous but to me it is alot of money to lose, im not disputing that i dont owe any money but i would have thought that even if they gave me half back that would be sufficient.
Ive been to the CAB and they have told me that as i didnt know about the money at the time of going bankcrupt then i could have an argument to get it back.
1 to 6 of 6
