Mel's advice was always sound and I don't doubt that Council advice was obtained.
It mirrors a principle that I have seen elsewhere - if it is not mentioned it cannot be inferred.
One of the sites that sells secured loans talks about them being in the "spirit" of the intention of the IVA - is that vodka, gin or whisky?
It's the same as the term "reasonable" when IP's state why their action is valid or why you should co-operate - reasonable to whom?
IVA started March 2011, Completed March 2016 and certificate issued 11 days after final payment. It was not always easy but then some of the best decisions aren't.
I think the fact that the "suits" who sit on the Protocol Committees saw fit to introduce specific references to secured lending in the latest version supports the previous view that a remortgage is not the same animal.
My opinions are merely that .. opinions based on experience. Always seek professional advice.
IVA Completed 23rd July 2013 .... C.C. 10th January 2014
The recent protocol does clear this up for those firms which use protocol but it also clarifies the wording surrounding the equity release and the de minimus clause.
The older wording on the de minimus clause has lead to extensions of 12 months for people when the intention was clearly different. It could also be argued that the equity clause intended for people to do their best to release equity and while a remortgage is different to a secured loan-what was the intention?
I can see people trying to get out of extensions because the wording is unclear and not the intention but then using the same protocol to stick to the exact wording to avoid a secured when the intention may have been that it was an option.
I am not a lawyer and we do not use protocol for the very reason that we advised not to. However I am only mentioning some of the inconsistencies and I would be interested to see what others say.
In effect is it okay to use the badly worded protocol to avoid an extension as this was not the intent but also use the badly worded protocol to avoid a secured loan even if this was the intent?
I am only throwing this out for debate by the way and justifying none of it!
Appreciate the fact that you are throwing this out for discussion.
I always work on the basis that if something is badly worded then you err on the side of caution.
I work in an environment that has undergone dramatic change simply because too much had been assumed in the past and it fell down like a house of cards.
Intent, spirit etc. was wording that was common - legal basis, compatible with the purpose etc. are the replacement terms.
IVA started March 2011, Completed March 2016 and certificate issued 11 days after final payment. It was not always easy but then some of the best decisions aren't.
English law relies heavily on precedent and the people have followed this premise in everyday life. Regardless of intention, spirit, letter and so on, until recently nearly every firm followed the same formula (market value x 85% less emcumberances = equity). They even used to routinely say to prospective clients, "not to worry about equity, you will get a 12 month extension instead".
So, this is what we have come, rightly or wrongly, to expect.
Then, when the big boys, who are not above using bullying tactics, decide to re-invent the wheel by twisting the status quo and re-interpreting these clauses (whilst admitting they could be read either way) it is only natural that we will resist and try to revert to the previous ways.
Yes, the new Protocols have attempted to address this confusion but my personal feeling is that those on the old protocols should continue to be treated as they always were, and in the manner which was probably explained at the outset.
My opinions are merely that .. opinions based on experience. Always seek professional advice.
IVA Completed 23rd July 2013 .... C.C. 10th January 2014
