Why the system only favour HMRC even if they in the wrong?
<p>How can I apply to the court to refuse or postpone at the least an order for sale of a family home under bankruptcy since my trustee solicitors insist to reserve their clients right to proceed to issue the Application given Section 283 of the Enterprise Act 2002?</p>

<p>Usually I would think one answer to a question is enough. But since your edits have transformed a reasonable procedural question into what appears to be a rant about unfairness of the sort which any bankruptcy court has heard hundreds of times before, I will give another piece of advice: <em>Focus on one thing at a time</em>.</p>

<p>The judge at the hearing of the application will be deciding (if your question is accurate) the single point whether a house should be sold. The submission  "There is an application to annul the bankruptcy to be heard on XXX; if it succeeds this application is a waste of money and if it fails there will still be time for this application before the time limit, so you should adjourn till YYY" is a reasonable one that he will take into account. Saying "The bankruptcy order should never have been made; it was a mistake by my accountants and HMRC, and a High Court Judge joined in the conspiracy" will get you precisely nowhere. Even if the judge believed you rather than the written evidence, it has no bearing on the point he is being asked to decide. </p>

<p>More generally; besides casting your arguments into proper shape, there is another good reason to consult a professional, namely that he can tell you when to give up. The courts are bound by laws and regulations; however unfair you may think the result, at some point it is necessary to accept the  reality rather than wasting time and money making points that the law cares nothing about.</p>

<p>(And no, I see no point discussing this further in comments. This answer can be upvoted if you think it helpful or downvoted if you think it "not useful"; it isn't something to argue against.)</p>

<p>Normally, the trustee in bankruptcy (called 'she' here for simplicity) has control of all assets in the bankrupt's estate, including the bankrupt's house. However, unlike most assets, she cannot simply sell the house; as mentioned in <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/40/section/261" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the section you refer to</a>, she can apply to the court for sale or possession of it, any time up to three years from the date of the bankruptcy. That application will be heard by a judge, and the hearing is your chance to persuade the judge that the house should not be sold. You should attend at court (the trustee must at least serve notice of the hearing on the bankrupt), ask for permission to address the court, and put forward your best arguments.</p>

<p>Normally, the only advice I or anyone even vaguely connected with the law could properly give you about the actual hearing would be 'get a solicitor'. However, since it can be difficult instructing a solicitor when you are legally barred from paying his fees, here are a few points to consider.</p>

<ul>
<li><p>The  trustee may, if asked, release funds from the estate for the purpose of taking legal advice on the application you have been told she wishes to make; it will probably work out cheaper than fighting an application for removal of the trustee later. Alternatively, you may be able to get a solicitor to take your case <em>pro bono</em>, or at least provide a consultation to give you some ideas. Even the staff at a Citizens Advice Bureau will give you a more objective view of the case, and perhaps suggest whether you should fight it, or accept the order.</p></li>
<li><p>You do not mention the value of the house; if it is comparatively low, the law (later on in the section quoted) explicitly forbids sale. Even if it is above the threshold, the judge has to consider whether selling the house and providing proper shelter for the family out of the sale proceeds (perhaps a bed-and-breakfast) is actually likely to release money for the creditors, and if so whether the release is worth the disturbance to the family taking into account the ill-health you mention.</p></li>
<li>Also mentioned in the section is the possibility of the trustee agreeing to forgo the sale (and allowing the three-year period to expire) in exchange for some other consideration, perhaps payments from a friend or relative.</li>
</ul>

<p>However, you do have to face the facts; the trustee has a duty to raise whatever funds she can out of the estate, to pay the debts. If the house is more valuable then the minimum needed to shelter the family, then a sale is one way to raise those funds, and inconvenience to the family is not something she should consider. It <em>is</em> a factor the judge will have to consider at the hearing; but the trustee (who after all is an expert) believes that the order will be made.</p>

united-kingdom tax-law bankruptcy