But BOL any lenders you can contact yourself will not touch you, so your only option is the one provided by the IVA company.
Recovering, if it becomes the norm to re-phrase IVAs to refinancing from remortgaging then without exception I would expect all IVA providers to link with loan providers (including Mel). Why would they not?
Like the mis-sold ppi, it started with one firm now they all do it.
Well said Mel, voice of reason and a very humanistic IP too, said that before now. It does seem that the goal posts in IVA's are forever moving and changing, i suppose that is a sign of the times, thank god i'm nearing the end of mine now as i think the stress of the differences now would be giving me some very sleepless nights more so than i've had recently.
Om shanti, namesté, good luck to all who are embarking on the IVA journey, it isn't always an easy one but the outcome is the best.
IVA COMPLETED August 2012, received Completion certificate 18.4.13.
Just an observation about IVA advertising, i think the majority of companies are fair and honest in putting forward a product. But it's not what the Ads say its what they dont say thats bothering me.eg DFD website says that at the end of your IVA if you have equity in your home you will be expected to "remortgage" nothing about taking out secured loans at dreadful rates!( to which also the company has an interest from commision or referral fees)
Also later in the text it says that anyone in an IVA is unable to take on further credit?! I would have thought that a secured loan is credit, or is it just Ok to have a loan from the IVA companys preferred lender?
I know companies have helped numerous people who have been or are struggling with their finances, but maybe more transparency in promoting IVA's ect would enhance their standing even further.
Just one more thing, most people who visit IVA companies sites are doing so because they are at the end of their tether and frightened of what the future holds. To be hit by statements like "From Feb to April 1694 people were made redundant daily".......""every 4 minutes someone is declared bankrupt"...." every 13 minutes a property is repossessed" ect is negative advertising and quite frankly in my opinion scaremongering.
I don't think there has been any evidence that DFD have an interest in any loan company and they may just be doing what was agreed by the client and creditors at the original meeting. I still cannot understand why posters here cannot see that a small loan at high rates is a better option than an entire remortgage at medium rates and any financial adviser will be doing their homework to make sure the client gets a good deal.
It seems to me that some posters feel it is fine to remortgage and have the term extended until retirement on an interest only basis but it is somehow a scandal to have a secured loan over an agreed term with lower total monthly payments being made and a good tracker deal protected.
Why dont DFD flatly deny that they have links to any loan company or "bank" on here. A short typed message would clear up the "i dont think or, are they" question.
Nobody have any views on negative advertising? Would love to hear them
@iamfubb2 – I don’t think that is widely known that DFD are part of the Fairpoint Group PLC, who trade under a number of brand names, so as well as Debt Management solutions offer ( and I quote from the ‘Fairpoint’ website ) - ‘’ a range of secured finance solutions, from mortgages through to loans that are appropriate for consumers who have an ability to meet their debt obligations, subject to reorganising their finances’’.
You can make up your own minds really, but I would say personally that it makes them no worse then any other business, who are in business to maximise profits – it’s the way of the world isn’t it ?
Michael do you not think that if "refinancing by any means" is introduced it will become another criteria by which IVA companies are selected?
Also, at the moment the majority of those finishing their IVA's are having to build-up their credit rating prior to being considered (by normal lenders) for any credit whatsoever nevermind an actual "loan", therefore we have to accept that a loan arranged by an individuals IVA Supervisor is going to be at major inflated rate.
Whilst I also accept that IVA customers have shown that they can be reliable and trustworthy in repaying any finance, is it not a tad reckless to encourage further lending at penal rates so early after completion of IVA, after all AA would not celebrate a persons completion of 12 steps with an overpriced bottle of whiskey at the end.
I have no doubt that there are IVA Companies, mainly on this forum, that would act responsibly in "loan" financing for clients, but I do worry that many more companies will inevitably place the highest "commision" from such loans as the over-riding factor.
I came into this world with nothing and still have most of it left!
Iamfubb, your question about advertising is interesting. I have never seen an advert that tells you the downside of their product. Cadburys for example, tell you that their chocolates have a wonderful taste, they don't say what the outcome is if you eat too many....
I just want to clarify something here as I have become the 'big bad wolf' for daring to try an explain my views.
I am not saying that everyone should release equity whether they can afford it or not but that if someone is releasing equity it may be a better idea to obtain a small secured loan rather than a total remortgage. The minute you mention a loan the hounds attack whereas a it is acceptable to discuss a remortgage! It makes no sense because it is all borrowing and what I believe lies at the heart of it is people do not want to release their equity.
When they entered the IVA they were pretty sure they would not be able to get a remortgage and were quite happy with an extension. Anything that endangers this is to be shot down but they could be in for a shock if remortgages start again and their extensions are no longer guaranteed.
Just because your proposal says remortgage does not mean this will be impossible when the time comes to investigate. Your IP firm may well direct you towards specialist lenders at this time and maybe for some a loan would be the cheaper option.
If the terminology states "refinancing by any means", and this term is accepted by debtor and creditors, then this will have to be abided by at the appropriate time at whatever the cost of the refinance within affordability boundaries. People really do need to understand what they are signing up to in the first place, and this needs to be clearly explained both in meetings with the IP and in written communication so there can be no ambiguity when the provision is required to be executed.
My personal view is that when someone has paid for five or more years into an IVA, enough is enough and that by paying an additional two years than would be required under bankruptcy proceedings they probably have made a reasonable gesture with regard to any equity in their properties, but we do not make the rules we only carry them out.
I would be horrified if any of my fellow professionals put their own personal gain ahead of the right solution for their clients.
We may be at slightly opposite ends of this argument, but one thing I do agree with you on is that if the cost of a secured loan raising the same money as the cost of a re-mortgage - assuming one was offered in the first place which has to be doubtful in the majority of cases at present, then I would support that form of lending in the event that my client confirmed this was their preference.
Well said Mel, In my view there are a few issues, the first comes down to the definition of affordable borrowing and ensuring that any refinancing remains affordable and that the debtor understands that all and every option should be considered, even sub prime markets.
I do believe its the thin end of the wedge though for IPs to start brokering loans for their clients, if a client can show they have looked and explored the market to release the funds and not been able to, that should be good enough to satisfy the obligations of the agreement.
I have no problems for IPs to suggest contacting affiliated organisation who may be able to help, but a client should be able to chose their own lender based on reasonable conditions.
I really don't see the difference between releasing equity via a remortgage or a secured loan. I understand the difference in interest rates, but providing the remortgage / loan is affordable then surely it's pretty similar.
I don't think we are on different sides of the argument. I personally do not like the equity release clause and agree that 2 years additional payments more than compensates for the vast majority of clients and their equity.
However, the protocol proposal [which we did not have anything to do with] includes the property as standard and while we did not write the rules we are tasked with enforcing them. Only a couple of years ago it was possible to get an interest only remortgage up to the age of 80 while in an IVA and although this type of lending borders on criminal there will be banks prepared to offer remortgages to those in IVAs.
Under the terms of the protocol if a client can obtain a remortgage they must do so to up to 85% of the value of the property. It does not specify that the new mortgage can be repayment or does it specify the term [although some proposals mention normal retirement age].Therefore if remortgage products return then the IPs will have a difficult task trying to work out what products their clients should be taking on as the whole issue is confused.
