Would Clear Debt be prepared to consider my suggestion? I am sure there would be many people on this forum who would benefit from this potential solution and reduce the waiting time for completion?
Mel – we’ve had issues in the past (fortunately few and far between) where individuals have attempted to sabotage claims or have claimed that policies were not mis-sold despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. We are also keen to avoid submitting significant numbers of erroneous claims and therefore it is only sensible and prudent to take assignment of claims which are likely to be assets of the estate.
As you know all too well, IPs cannot win with PPI and are caught between clients who want a variety of different things, regulators and creditors who want others. Whatever we do we will be criticised but I’m happy that our policies are completely fair and logical.
Regards.
Cert DR
23+ years in debt advice
I do not post for anyone other than myself
It is a painful process. I had the home visit from DRSP at the start of January. Luckily I had keep all the paperwork from previous credit and was happy to work with the rep. through all the forms and I signed all the access request forms no problem. The review included going through my mortgage and secured loan, I stated there was no PPI on these and the paperwork clearly showed this. The agent said no need to put in a claim for these.
10 weeks later I get a call from DRSP can they arrange a further home visit to sign access requests for my mortgage and secured loan PPI claim. I explained we had gone through these and there was clearly no PPI and point in claiming. They said they need to submit claims anyway. This is just pointless, seems they are just randomly throwing as many darts as they can in the hope that some may hit.
I work away from home so the visit is not easy to schedule, so I told them to post the forms and I would sign. They said they would be in the post next day. 2 weeks later nothing arrived and no inform on the fist set of claims (where there is no PPI anyway).
I take your comments to be specifically about me, hence my participating in this particular thread.
font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by size5
Mel – we’ve had issues in the past (fortunately few and far between) where individuals have attempted to sabotage claims or have claimed that policies were not mis-sold despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary
Hopefully your company has now learnt some lessons about dealing with the PPI issue but your previous PPI claims partner was prevalent in
font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade> submitting significant numbers of erroneous claims.
Claims that were factually incorrect and claims against lenders for accounts that were in other people’s names!
It may be true that
font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>IPs cannot win with PPI and are caught between clients who want a variety of different things, regulators and creditors who want others
But PPI is by now not a new issue and we would hope that all IVA companies will do their utmost to speed up this process so that people can get on with their lives!
7 years after starting an IVA I finally received a completion certificate from ClearDebt
"we’ve had issues in the past (fortunately few and far between) where individuals have attempted to sabotage claims or have claimed that policies were not mis-sold despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary"
So the truth is now revealed, You are keeping us locked into the IVA for an extended period to ensure that additional revenues for Clear Debt are not compromised. If only this had been explained at the outset!! There must be a better way of achieving the same outcome without treating us in such a cynical way.
Mel - Sounds reasonable, however I strongly suspect that the tenacity demonstrated to claim PPI by some firms is not all linked to benefiting creditors and have and will continue to cooperate with any claim in any event but will never be naive enough to think this all about getting the best deal for creditors.
Either way there has to be a better way to do this to allow people to get on with their lives, expedite the process and at the same time ensure assets are realised for the benefit of creditors or IP firms or a mixture of both?
I am past caring anymore who gets it, I just want it complete!
And so u should be entitled to closure Geordie! Kept open to ensure the creditor gets the benefit is not wholly believable! With claims companies claiming up to 40% plus IP fees of 15% is hardly benefiting the creditor! Are monies already paid distributed prior to ppi claims being completed?! If not then sitting in a bank account must accumulate quite some interest!! Also I do not understand why some debtors are offered incentives to complete the forms and some not!! If this is a compulsory requirement then why the incentive??!!!
I would doubt it very much if any IP is sitting on monies they ought to have distributed, without good cause, and if they are then the interest being earned is payable to creditors anyway.
Whilst you are both entitled to your points and opinions, I wish to make it clear that the views you have are certainly not shared by the majority of professionals working in my profession.
Some firms - presumably with the prior agreement of creditors - have chosen to offer incentives to their clients to get them to co-operate with the process. I agree that this should not be necessary, but if it works for both debtor and creditors then who is going to complain?
I don’t believe for one second that any IP is sitting on a pot of money and benefiting from the interest generated.
There is however an obvious incentive for IPs to maximize returns to creditors and claim their percentage for doing so!
I personally believe this is the case for some of the bigger IVA companies and is a reason for anyone considering entering an IVA to do their homework and pick an IP that they feel that they can work with for the next 5 years! (Or if you choose poorly or get sold on the next 7 years!)
7 years after starting an IVA I finally received a completion certificate from ClearDebt
The quote below is revealing. however I do not ultimately disagree that any PPI claim requires full and thorough investigation and any monies retrieved shared as appropriate. My complaint only refers to the time taken and the fact that there is worry that a tiny % may attempt to stall or stop the PPI claim results in a major delay.
Again I have to state there must be a better alternative to achieve the same outcome.
"David Mond, chief executive officer of ClearDebt, said it had been a disappointing and difficult half-year borne out by a continuation of the general trend of falling personal insolvency numbers in the UK over recent quarters.
He said: “We have felt the effect of this with poor volumes of new IVAs passed in the period although we have increased the numbers of clients under debt management."
“We are, however, expecting increased fee income derived from mis-sold payment protection insurance claims as claims for our clients in an IVA are submitted and proceeds are received into the IVAs.”
Is that the same incentive that motivates us to enter this profession in the first place, sit professional qualifications often at our own personal expense, take the risk of setting up our own businesses, accepting six years of battling with creditors about our fee income in a declining marketplace where no increase in income has been permitted since 2007, the loss of a further 3% of our fee income with a ridiculous VAT case, and now taking the flack from all sides about PPI reclaims which we were not responsible for selling in the first place?
There is no incentive in pursuing assets for insolvent estates apart from that of duty. This is our duty, and any IP who does not carry out that duty is not acting in accordance with the rules and ethics of our profession. Why would any IP deliberately stall that process and set themselves up for a lot of flak - it does not make sense! We all want to close these cases as quickly as we can. I accept that some people are suffering as a result, but trust me - this is not really the fault of IPs, as we still don't have the regulatory guidance which has been promised now for several months, and which some of us had to kick and scream to get issued in the first place.
David Mond had to make the statement he made as he is responsible for reporting his firm's results in public due to the (then) public ownership of his company. He is reporting true facts - but I guess it is human nature that these will be interpreted in different ways.
At the end of the day IP's are business men and women -- we all work to earn a crust, some have the advantage of loving their work and some just have that ethic whereby they want to do the best job they can. But, they are not charities ( not even the "charity" firms work for free!!).
Business wise I am guessing tie would be more lucratively spent courting new cases, rather than trying to claim PPI on old ones -- but, as Mel says, they are bound to do it. OK -- some companies take a different approach to others ... but that is, I am afraid, life!
Last edited by Foggy on Tue Mar 26, 2013 8:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
My opinions are merely that .. opinions based on experience. Always seek professional advice.
IVA Completed 23rd July 2013 .... C.C. 10th January 2014
Mel in response to who is going to complain re the incentive, I feel that the debtor who duly complied following a possible barrage of 'threats' re failure etc may do just that!! £500 or stat interest is alot of money for those who have endured a number of years struggling in order to repay as much as possible!! I appreciate IP's are doing their job, but like any profession you will always have at least one or two bad eggs!!
