Firstly ... It's hard to comprehend that a Supervisor can write to a debtor during the 5th year of the arrangement and advise that there are still creditor claims to be agreed. I had to just check again that I had read that correctly.
I also find it difficult to understand that no dividends have been paid to creditors in that time. To leave it this late in the day is ... well I feel lost for words!
Have previous dividend payments been made?
He is now saying that in order meet minimum dividend requirements he is exercising his discretion to extend the term of the arrangement and requiring you to make additional contributions. I am going to suggest that you review the Chairman's Report and in particular ascertain if there is a modification that also imposes a maximum duration that the arrangement can run for. I would welcome other opinions on this particular point as if there is a maximum duration, then the terms of the arrangement may now need to be varied.
I would also like someone to do a check on my maths please ... I estimate that if there is a shortfall to creditors of £1,807.92, then the creditors in the actual proposal are a minimum of £7,533 light of what they should be. (£1,807.92 is 24% then 100% = £7,533). I can hazard a guess that one or more of the creditors in the proposal was or were understated.
Now as Melanie points out, if proper verification has been carried out, that should not be the case. I would expect some variance in creditor claims from the proposal, but only to the extent of transactions occuring between proposal drafting and the creditors meeting - which should only be interest and charges applied in that time.
Was this difference evident at the date of the original creditor's meeting? If so, you should have been advised by the IP at that time, what the options may be available to you to enable you to achieve the minimum dividend.
Has the IP contacted you at any stage to say that claims received were significantly different to those shown in the proposal and sought explanation from you as to why that may be the case, or has he simply admitted claims without querying them?
Alternatively, have there been any additional creditors arising who were not included in the original proposal but have subsequently come to light and are bound by virtue of the arrangement's approval coming in to effect? If so, does their inclusion materially affect the outcome of the arrangement?
If the increase in debt level has arisen out of court costs that have accrued whilst the file was lost in the court, that is not your responsibility. It is my opinion that your liability to that particular creditor (Formerly your wife's) would be the amount you actually owed them as at the date your arrangement was approved plus any court costs that had been incurred up to and including that date, but not Court fees applied after that date.
Tell it like it is.
Tell it like it is.
