BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[poppy01]

Does anyone have a pilot's license?

one should never underestimate what desperate people are capable of

[silver_lining]

Good lad

I am sure Parker could have been bought for 30M

[Cantthinkof1]

Putting everything in the wife's name!!!

Does anyone know whether there is any merit in signing over the house and ALL assets to the wife, so that the house is in her name...

[TykeMerc]

Does anyone know whether there is any merit in signing over the house and ALL assets to the wife, so that the house is in her name...

Unlikely since it could easily be proven that the assets were in your ownership previously so it would be clearly a cynical approach to having no asset value.

I hope the appeal looks promising, I'm still hoping you get this foul piece of immoral legislation beaten, I'm deeply offended by the idea of retrospection.

[BolshieBastard]

Does anyone know whether there is any merit in signing over the house and ALL assets to the wife, so that the house is in her name...

You'd need to have done this before joining the scheme. Doing it now will just be judged as deliberate disposal so they'd still be able to obtain an order for it.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Transferring assets

The Official Receiver will have seen every trick in the book so it's pointless even trying.

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/freedom...rt2/part_2.htm

33.48 Property in the sole name of spouse, civil partner or cohabitant

Where the property is in the sole name of a spouse, civil partner or cohabitant of the bankrupt, the official receiver should consider the possibility that the property has been transferred into the spouse’s, civil partner’s or cohabitant’s sole name or was purchased with funds provided by the bankrupt with a view to defeating his/her creditors. Such transactions may be set aside (see paragraphs 33.119 to 33.125). Where the official receiver is satisfied that the bankrupt did not provide purchase monies, he/she should make enquiries to ascertain whether the bankrupt has acquired a beneficial interest in the property, for example, by making mortgage repayments, contributing to household expenses etc. The guidance in paragraph 33.52 should be considered in this respect.

[BolshieBastard]

The Official Receiver will have seen every trick in the book so it's pointless even trying.

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/freedom...rt2/part_2.htm

33.48 Property in the sole name of spouse, civil partner or cohabitant

Where the property is in the sole name of a spouse, civil partner or cohabitant of the bankrupt, the official receiver should consider the possibility that the property has been transferred into the spouse’s, civil partner’s or cohabitant’s sole name or was purchased with funds provided by the bankrupt with a view to defeating his/her creditors. Such transactions may be set aside (see paragraphs 33.119 to 33.125). Where the official receiver is satisfied that the bankrupt did not provide purchase monies, he/she should make enquiries to ascertain whether the bankrupt has acquired a beneficial interest in the property, for example, by making mortgage repayments, contributing to household expenses etc. The guidance in paragraph 33.52 should be considered in this respect.

Yes they are real bastards arent they?

They can also use something called a 'chose in action.'

This is where you have a future claim or entitlement on something such as a redundancy payment due to be made in the future or a savings plan that is due to mature sometime in the future.

They can deem that you can sell this entitlement, even well below its actual value, so you have some money to hand over to them.

Believe it or not, this 'chose in action' was used against the miners to prevent them obtaining benefits during their national strike in the 80's.

[ASB]

A cohabitant (whether spouse/civil partner or not) may have "occupation rights". A tenant (joint or in common) in a property may also have occupation rights. A tenant in a let property may have occupation rights as a result of the lease. If there are dependant children involved this may extend until they complete full time education.

A judge may be reluctant to issue an order for sale in these circumstances. Particularly where the remaining equity from the other tenants beneficial interest in inadequate to provide needs based housing. Especially where there are minor children involved.

A forced sale in the event of bankruptcy is not a foregone conclusion.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

A cohabitant (whether spouse/civil partner or not) may have "occupation rights". A tenant (joint or in common) in a property may also have occupation rights. A tenant in a let property may have occupation rights as a result of the lease. If there are dependant children involved this may extend until they complete full time education.

A judge may be reluctant to issue an order for sale in these circumstances. Particularly where the remaining equity from the other tenants beneficial interest in inadequate to provide needs based housing. Especially where there are minor children involved.

A forced sale in the event of bankruptcy is not a foregone conclusion.

So get knocked up now! 2,500 folks all at it tonight chanting "I'm staying!" rather than "I'm coming!". That's a rather odd vision.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Labours campaign slogan

A future fair for all


Errr, there's that word again "fair" and oddly the other word "all".

Well according to the dictionary, I form part of "all". Can't quite marry the 2 together when you look at BN66. But at least it's prospective via the word "future". Rather hypocritical me thinks.

Perhaps the Tories could have their slogan saying:

A past unfair for many