Bankruptcy. Avoiding debt and hiding stuff.

[ReaderScars]

tenpenceshort said:

elanfan said:

If you know where the undeclared assets are stored go and see lady X - tell her you have dated photographic evidence of its location. Then give her 12 hours to credit your account/pay you cash or you will report to the OR their whereabouts. Once you've got the cash report her anyway!

Blackmail would see him go to prison. I don't think your suggestion is the best in the world. Or even the second best.

Slightly O/T - but is the above *really* blackmail...?

[sugerbear]

ReaderScars said:

tenpenceshort said:

elanfan said:

If you know where the undeclared assets are stored go and see lady X - tell her you have dated photographic evidence of its location. Then give her 12 hours to credit your account/pay you cash or you will report to the OR their whereabouts. Once you've got the cash report her anyway!

Blackmail would see him go to prison. I don't think your suggestion is the best in the world. Or even the second best.

Slightly O/T - but is the above *really* blackmail...?

Perverting the course of justice + accepting a bribe to avoid someone being prosecuted.

+ blackmail

[Jon1967x]

OP - from what you've said, why do you think they've not gone bust and it's all a scam? They've lived a life on credit and now he's dead she can't hide the problem? Furniture disappearing could be repossession. You don't like them but that doesn't mean they've got a secret wedge of cash. You could be right but equally things could have caught up with them.

[Steffan]

Perhaps worth drawing attention to this thread which resonates with similar problems see:

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...


There are sadly a lot if these about. Caveat Emptor springs to mind once again.

As I said before IMO not worth the candle tp pursue. Regrettably.

[bltamil1]

JustinP1 said:

As I said, a few times, I have my 'legal' head on here. In litigation you play the odds not the principle. I know that.

Sums, including interest will be circa £12k. Even if it went to court, and was disputed, the very worst case scenario is £9k. Even 20p in the point on that is fine, especially if I can get that with a few hours effort now.

I know there are three unsecured creditors, apart from me. I also know that the debtor had at least £50k of assets a few weeks ago, on top of the £70k plus which disappeared just under a year ago. In terms of the assets, if they haven't been sold, I happen to know where they are, in storage. So, a few things go in my favour.

If you know where the alleged assets are, and the registration number of the RV, you should pass this information to the Receiver. You could also attempt to obtain details of the Registered Keeper from the DVLA, which may provide the good evidence you are looking for.

Also, who now owns the house that you were renting? Land Registry records conveniently tell you not only who the current owner is, but also the purchase date and price.

As Steffan wisely says, you may need to consider the possibility that she is genuinely bankrupt. It may be that the whole house of cards has come tumbling down following the husband's passing. Hiding significant assets from bankruptcy proceedings is a fairly serious offence, and is quite a step from simply refusing to pay for things.

[tenpenceshort]

ReaderScars said:

tenpenceshort said:

elanfan said:

If you know where the undeclared assets are stored go and see lady X - tell her you have dated photographic evidence of its location. Then give her 12 hours to credit your account/pay you cash or you will report to the OR their whereabouts. Once you've got the cash report her anyway!

Blackmail would see him go to prison. I don't think your suggestion is the best in the world. Or even the second best.

Slightly O/T - but is the above *really* blackmail...?

Yes, I believe it would be. It would be an unwarranted demand with menaces. Justin would know full well the monies should be under the control of the OR and not passed to him under the rader. His threat to reveal property he believes is hidden from the OR is a menace as per the Theft Act (blackmail is s.21).

[JustinP1]

Cheers for everyone's responses - instead of replying individually to everyone, I'll amalgamate answers to all questions:

Firstly, as tenpence has pointed out, I can get in very serious trouble by taking the 'jokey PH' route, so I'm doing everything by the book.

Secondly, a couple of posters have mentioned about whether it is a 'genuine' bankruptcy. Please don't get me wrong, I do know that bankruptcy was inevitable for them.
What caused their bankruptcy was stupidity, arrogance, vanity and greed. I could fill a thread with stories from here, many are laughable, but I don't want this thread to become linked to the situation for obvious reasons, as the couple were well known locally, not just for calling themselves 'Lord and Lady' but their actions over the years.

If one knew the background, you'd actually be astonished if she now did anything but play the system to their own advantage - they'd been profiting from that for 20 years...

I have no problem with her going bankrupt. However, she shouldn't go bankrupt without disclosing that she's disposed of £100k of assets in the last year, and that she still owns the contents of a totally decked out listed Tudor manor used as a wedding venue and hotel. That's another £100k.

That's the bit I have the problem with. The money-pit of the house may be shed - it was mortgaged to the hilt anyway, but all the rest of the debts will be written off, and she'll still have maybe £200k in the bank to buy a house. That's not right. Just to add, the main house was not repossessed, and she'd moved out into rented accommodation. So, she at least had a few thousand pounds of cash just to cover the rent and very large removal fees.

The Official Receiver did seem quite interested in what I had to say - it does very much seem that the assets were possibly listed as 'furniture' and gone under the radar. The fact that they were removed 24 hours before bankruptcy, and I have evidence of that, was also of interest to them.

So, I'm putting forward, on request, a written statement so they can investigate. Hopefully I can give them enough information that when she'd hit with it during interview she admits it.

With regards to my claim, unfortunately they told me that the debt will not be 'proven' until I get judgment. So, I'll have to pay the £300 hearing fee and go through the motions. The odds are I need to receive 3 pence in the pound on the debt to make that worthwhile, so, I'm going to give it a punt.

Thanks for all the ideas, help and advice so far chaps.

Edited by JustinP1 on Friday 29th August 11:15

[Slaav]

Please think long and hard about whether to continue chasing this matter.

Do not rely on the IS or OR in any capacity. The are utterly toothless even when fraud is proven..... Under funded and over worked etc. then you come up against the 'public interest' issue even if 100% proven.

My gut feel is 'walk away' as the pure stress and emotion is not worth it! Trust me.


Ps - I am still pursuing and getting somewhere chasing a discharged bankrupt but the sums are very different. And that is with cast iron proof and paperwork of fraud, hidden assets and lies in the petition. I got my MP and Vincent Cable involved and still no guarantee that the IS will pursue the lying cheating fker ! (And breath.....)

[JustinP1]

Slaav said:

Please think long and hard about whether to continue chasing this matter.

Do not rely on the IS or OR in any capacity. The are utterly toothless even when fraud is proven..... Under funded and over worked etc. then you come up against the 'public interest' issue even if 100% proven.

My gut feel is 'walk away' as the pure stress and emotion is not worth it! Trust me.


Ps - I am still pursuing and getting somewhere chasing a discharged bankrupt but the sums are very different. And that is with cast iron proof and paperwork of fraud, hidden assets and lies in the petition. I got my MP and Vincent Cable involved and still no guarantee that the IS will pursue the lying cheating fker ! (And breath.....)

I know this has been the general 'vibe' from half of the posters.

The reality is that compared to spending dozens of hours fighting the claim so far what I have to do now is a breeze.

I'm really not spending every waking our seething over this, I was just looking for any practical advice on approaching the situation as I'd not experienced it before.

If I do nothing now, then the claim will be thrown out, and everything I've done to date has been a waste. My alternative is I'm paying £300, going to a probably undefended hearing to get my debt 'proven', I'm going to write to the OR telling him all I know and can prove and leave it in their hands.

If in a year's time I end up with a cheque from the OR for £10,000, £1,000, £100 or bugger all, then I have no control over that, so I'm not going to worry.

[tenpenceshort]

JustinP1 said:

I know this has been the general 'vibe' from half of the posters.

The reality is that compared to spending dozens of hours fighting the claim so far what I have to do now is a breeze.

I'm really not spending every waking our seething over this, I was just looking for any practical advice on approaching the situation as I'd not experienced it before.

If I do nothing now, then the claim will be thrown out, and everything I've done to date has been a waste. My alternative is I'm paying £300, going to a probably undefended hearing to get my debt 'proven', I'm going to write to the OR telling him all I know and can prove and leave it in their hands.

If in a year's time I end up with a cheque from the OR for £10,000, £1,000, £100 or bugger all, then I have no control over that, so I'm not going to worry.

I may be wrong, but I suspect you may run into difficulty continuing your claim against the bankrupt. As far as I can see the bankrupt defendant can apply to the court to have the your case stayed (see s.285 Insolvency Act 1986). The court is not obliged to accede, though in your case what grounds would they have to refuse?

Secondly, I'm not sure the issue of provable debts has been properly considered. On my reading, your claim is a provable debt for the purposes of bankruptcy irrespective of whether you have judgment or not ('provable' in this context does not mean you have to have your claim proven by a positive judgment on your behalf). See here; http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1925/artic....

Edited to Add; you also might end up fighting the OR, as s.314 of the Insolvency Act gives them power as trustee (with the court's permission) to defend any action against the bankrupt's estate.

Edited by tenpenceshort on Friday 29th August 12:18

[JustinP1]

tenpenceshort said:

JustinP1 said:

I know this has been the general 'vibe' from half of the posters.

The reality is that compared to spending dozens of hours fighting the claim so far what I have to do now is a breeze.

I'm really not spending every waking our seething over this, I was just looking for any practical advice on approaching the situation as I'd not experienced it before.

If I do nothing now, then the claim will be thrown out, and everything I've done to date has been a waste. My alternative is I'm paying £300, going to a probably undefended hearing to get my debt 'proven', I'm going to write to the OR telling him all I know and can prove and leave it in their hands.

If in a year's time I end up with a cheque from the OR for £10,000, £1,000, £100 or bugger all, then I have no control over that, so I'm not going to worry.

I may be wrong, but I suspect you may run into difficulty continuing your claim against the bankrupt. As far as I can see the bankrupt defendant can apply to the court to have the your case stayed (see s.285 Insolvency Act 1986). The court is not obliged to accede, though in your case what grounds would they have to refuse?

Secondly, I'm not sure the issue of provable debts has been properly considered. On my reading, your claim is a provable debt for the purposes of bankruptcy irrespective of whether you have judgment or not ('provable' in this context does not mean you have to have your claim proven by a positive judgment on your behalf). See here; http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1925/artic....

Edited to Add; you also might end up fighting the OR, as s.314 of the Insolvency Act gives them power as trustee (with the court's permission) to defend any action against the bankrupt's estate.

Edited by tenpenceshort on Friday 29th August 12:18

Cheers ten pence - this was the route I was thinking.

The use of 'provable' there is that the onus is on me to prove it. As the Defendant had judgment set aside and put forward a Defence defending the whole claim, however spurious, then in the eyes of the OR there is no debt until I prove it. Their advice which went from the bottom to the top back down was that I would have to continue.

In terms of allowing claims, a current claim can continue but no new claim can be started.

Doing some more research, this niche area is one which has been commented on previously. The Insolvency Act means that I am barred from taking enforcement action, and of course the undischarged bankrupt can't pay me. However, should I discontinue the claim, or default, the debtor - or indeed the OR can stuff me for a costs order in doing so!

Weighing up the options, as you've kindly pointed out, the court does have the power to stay proceedings in the circumstances. That's actually the opposite to the advice the clerk gave me yesterday... (cheers 10p!)

The issue is whether that is in my best interests now. It looks like the OR is not going to admit the debt until I 'prove' it, and their line is that a disputed civil claim is exactly that - not a debt, which I can see the logic in.

My gut feeling is that I take a punt, pay the £300 and get the judgment, probably with me sitting alone at the hearing date with the Judge.

[Slaav]

JustinP1 said:

Cheers ten pence - this was the route I was thinking.

The use of 'provable' there is that the onus is on me to prove it. As the Defendant had judgment set aside and put forward a Defence defending the whole claim, however spurious, then in the eyes of the OR there is no debt until I prove it. Their advice which went from the bottom to the top back down was that I would have to continue.

In terms of allowing claims, a current claim can continue but no new claim can be started.

Doing some more research, this niche area is one which has been commented on previously. The Insolvency Act means that I am barred from taking enforcement action, and of course the undischarged bankrupt can't pay me. However, should I discontinue the claim, or default, the debtor - or indeed the OR can stuff me for a costs order in doing so!

Weighing up the options, as you've kindly pointed out, the court does have the power to stay proceedings in the circumstances. That's actually the opposite to the advice the clerk gave me yesterday... (cheers 10p!)

The issue is whether that is in my best interests now. It looks like the OR is not going to admit the debt until I 'prove' it, and their line is that a disputed civil claim is exactly that - not a debt, which I can see the logic in.

My gut feeling is that I take a punt, pay the £300 and get the judgment, probably with me sitting alone at the hearing date with the Judge.

Fair enough but as long as you don't invest too much effort and emotion into it! It can really eat away at you - trust me!!

[tenpenceshort]

Insolvency Act said:

Provable debts

12.3. (1) Subject as follows, in both winding up and bankruptcy, all claims by creditors are provable as debts against the company or, as the case may be, the bankrupt, whether they are present or future, certain or contingent, ascertained or sounding only in damages.

(My bold)

I genuinely don't know if your debt needs 'proving' as you say, or whether your claim is in fact a Provable Debt as per the Insolvency Act. I wouldn't necessarily take the word of the OR or his representative on this and take some specialist advice.

[tenpenceshort]

Just to add, you also ought to read s.382 of the Insolvency Act:

s382 Insolvency Act said:

382“Bankruptcy debt”, etc.

(1)“Bankruptcy debt”, in relation to a bankrupt, means (subject to the next subsection) any of the following—

...

(b)any debt or liability to which he may become subject after the commencement of the bankruptcy (including after his discharge from bankruptcy) by reason of any obligation incurred before the commencement of the bankruptcy,

...

(2)In determining for the purposes of any provision in this Group of Parts whether any liability in tort is a bankruptcy debt, the bankrupt is deemed to become subject to that liability by reason of an obligation incurred at the time when the cause of action accrued.

(3)For the purposes of references in this Group of Parts to a debt or liability, it is immaterial whether the debt or liability is present or future, whether it is certain or contingent or whether its amount is fixed or liquidated, or is capable of being ascertained by fixed rules or as a matter of opinion; and references in this Group of Parts to owing a debt are to be read accordingly.
(4)In this Group of Parts, except in so far as the context otherwise requires, “liability” means (subject to subsection (3) above) a liability to pay money or money’s worth, including any liability under an enactment, any liability for breach of trust, any liability in contract, tort or bailment and any liability arising out of an obligation to make restitution.

[JustinP1]

tenpenceshort said:

Insolvency Act said:

Provable debts

12.3. (1) Subject as follows, in both winding up and bankruptcy, all claims by creditors are provable as debts against the company or, as the case may be, the bankrupt, whether they are present or future, certain or contingent, ascertained or sounding only in damages.

(My bold)

I genuinely don't know if your debt needs 'proving' as you say, or whether your claim is in fact a Provable Debt as per the Insolvency Act. I wouldn't necessarily take the word of the OR or his representative on this and take some specialist advice.

Cheers ten pence

I agree, and would always agree when there's an area of law a poster doesn't know about to get specialist advice. This is a bit of a practical exemption as it will mean pouring more cash into this, never to be seen. If it's going to cost £300 to nail this down then so be it, I'll go to court. That's probably cheaper than getting advice against the OR.

With regards to 'provable', there's a semantic difference in insolvency lingo.

In this context, 'provable' does mean a 'claim' is proof of a debt, it means that a claim is regarded as a 'provable' meaning an issue which must be proven by the creditor to be seen as a debt at all. To that effect I can see how a defended claim could not be seen as a debt until judgment.

[Eleven]

JustinP1 said:

Cheers ten pence

I agree, and would always agree when there's an area of law a poster doesn't know about to get specialist advice. This is a bit of a practical exemption as it will mean pouring more cash into this, never to be seen. If it's going to cost £300 to nail this down then so be it, I'll go to court. That's probably cheaper than getting advice against the OR.

With regards to 'provable', there's a semantic difference in insolvency lingo.

In this context, 'provable' does mean a 'claim' is proof of a debt, it means that a claim is regarded as a 'provable' meaning an issue which must be proven by the creditor to be seen as a debt at all. To that effect I can see how a defended claim could not be seen as a debt until judgment.

Apologies if I have missed a bit, but if I understand you correctly you've not paid the court fee yet?

You told me earlier that £3k is a significant and life changing sum of money for you. Yet you are prepared to waste a minimum of another £300 on court fees to pursue someone from whom you're almost certainly not going to receive a penny.

It doesn't add up.

[JustinP1]

Eleven said:

JustinP1 said:

Cheers ten pence

I agree, and would always agree when there's an area of law a poster doesn't know about to get specialist advice. This is a bit of a practical exemption as it will mean pouring more cash into this, never to be seen. If it's going to cost £300 to nail this down then so be it, I'll go to court. That's probably cheaper than getting advice against the OR.

With regards to 'provable', there's a semantic difference in insolvency lingo.

In this context, 'provable' does mean a 'claim' is proof of a debt, it means that a claim is regarded as a 'provable' meaning an issue which must be proven by the creditor to be seen as a debt at all. To that effect I can see how a defended claim could not be seen as a debt until judgment.

Apologies if I have missed a bit, but if I understand you correctly you've not paid the court fee yet?

You told me earlier that £3k is a significant and life changing sum of money for you. Yet you are prepared to waste a minimum of another £300 on court fees to pursue someone from whom you're almost certainly not going to receive a penny.

It doesn't add up.

"Life changing sum of money" - think you've been watching too much 'Deal or No Deal' - I've never said that!

There's also no real suggestion that I am 'almost certainly not going to receive a penny'.

If she admits that she had assets, which will be difficult to deny as there's dozens of photos of them on their wedding website, I'll probably end up being paid in full. After that of course, the property will be sold, with the remaining proceeds going into the pot for unsecured creditors.

I'm simply playing the odds here. I either give up, and possibly see myself on the other end of a costs award against me (as I explained why), or I risk £300. The rest are sunken costs either way.

The equation is simple, the break even point is the OR awarding 3p in the pound to unsecured creditors. Any more than that then the money is a good investment. I'll take those odds in the circumstances.

[Eleven]

JustinP1 said:

"Life changing sum of money" - think you've been watching too much 'Deal or No Deal' - I've never said that!

There's also no real suggestion that I am 'almost certainly not going to receive a penny'.

If she admits that she had assets, which will be difficult to deny as there's dozens of photos of them on their wedding website, I'll probably end up being paid in full. After that of course, the property will be sold, with the remaining proceeds going into the pot for unsecured creditors.

I'm simply playing the odds here. I either give up, and possibly see myself on the other end of a costs award against me (as I explained why), or I risk £300. The rest are sunken costs either way.

The equation is simple, the break even point is the OR awarding 3p in the pound to unsecured creditors. Any more than that then the money is a good investment. I'll take those odds in the circumstances.

You said,

JustinP1 said:

My choice now is a stark one, as the reality is I shall have to explain to my wife and daughter the things that we hoped to do but now cannot afford to do because of this. For that reason, I have no desire to throw even more money down a hole, as you have advised, as it just makes matters worse.

You were planning to do things which you now cannot, your life has therefore changed. Or at least it had a couple of pages back.

There is every suggestion that you won't receive a penny, I'm afraid. Obtaining judgement is really only the beginning of it. Obtaining judgement is much like being given a cheque to draw against an empty bank account.

The woman is unlikely to admit to having assets and what you see on a wedding website could be anything. Borrowed, hired, sold some time ago.

The cost of obtaining judgement is not the point, it is enforcing the judgement where your problem lies. Obtaining judgement doesn't make you a secured creditor.

[Slaav]

Eleven said:

.....

There is every suggestion that you won't receive a penny, I'm afraid. Obtaining judgement is really only the beginning of it. Obtaining judgement is much like being given a cheque to draw against an empty bank account.

The woman is unlikely to admit to having assets and what you see on a wedding website could be anything. Borrowed, hired, sold some time ago.

The cost of obtaining judgement is not the point, it is enforcing the judgement where your problem lies. Obtaining judgement doesn't make you a secured creditor.

This is the important point!

Being in possession of a 'cheque' means absolutely zilch I am afraid. SUCCESSFULLY enforcing this is the issue. Sorry

[JustinP1]

Eleven said:

JustinP1 said:

"Life changing sum of money" - think you've been watching too much 'Deal or No Deal' - I've never said that!

There's also no real suggestion that I am 'almost certainly not going to receive a penny'.

If she admits that she had assets, which will be difficult to deny as there's dozens of photos of them on their wedding website, I'll probably end up being paid in full. After that of course, the property will be sold, with the remaining proceeds going into the pot for unsecured creditors.

I'm simply playing the odds here. I either give up, and possibly see myself on the other end of a costs award against me (as I explained why), or I risk £300. The rest are sunken costs either way.

The equation is simple, the break even point is the OR awarding 3p in the pound to unsecured creditors. Any more than that then the money is a good investment. I'll take those odds in the circumstances.

You said,

JustinP1 said:

My choice now is a stark one, as the reality is I shall have to explain to my wife and daughter the things that we hoped to do but now cannot afford to do because of this. For that reason, I have no desire to throw even more money down a hole, as you have advised, as it just makes matters worse.

You were planning to do things which you now cannot, your life has therefore changed. Or at least it had a couple of pages back.

There is every suggestion that you won't receive a penny, I'm afraid. Obtaining judgement is really only the beginning of it. Obtaining judgement is much like being given a cheque to draw against an empty bank account.

The woman is unlikely to admit to having assets and what you see on a wedding website could be anything. Borrowed, hired, sold some time ago.

The cost of obtaining judgement is not the point, it is enforcing the judgement where your problem lies. Obtaining judgement doesn't make you a secured creditor.

Hardly 'life changing'... It's bloody annoying, yes. And enough money to logically keep my finger in the pot for if you do the sums.

I started this thread to ask the width of knowledge of the forum for practical advice, and I've got that from other posters. They've been very helpful indeed.

I've got no interest with you derailing and diluting the thread with critique of the minutiae.

She's not penniless, by any means, and if you think I don't know that for sure, then with respect, you know even less, but cheers for your input anyway.