I cannot speak for other claims management companies Nutkins - but there is a choice out there for everyone, and IPs cannot insist that their clients use their preferred firms of they don't like the terms.
Now I'm going to shut up before someone accuses me of trying to promote my own - which was primarily established to service my own client bank only!
We use EIF but our clients can reclaim the PPI themselves if they want. However, it is probably better for them if they use a claims management company as the IVAs can be closed down easier. The claims management firms also do a more thorough job so earn their money.
I see no problem with IP firms having their own claims management firms and if they make money then fine. Creditors have squeezed the fees so much that IP firms have gone under so it is probably wise to investigate other income streams.
There are rumours that more IP firms will close once the PPI monies have been reclaimed and this will reduce even further the choice of those who need help.
Well that was a jolly old rant from all sides wasn't it.
There are lots of emotive issues when your in an IVA, this coupled with the general stress of the whole thing do result in the odd outburst / rant - I have been known to rant on the odd occasion myself.
It is human nature to think of conspiracies when an IP states that you must use a specific company to make claims instead of allowing you to choose yourself or even do the work yourself - ultimately the IP could set up an idiots guide to enable the client to make a claim themselves if they so wished.
The IP must also realise that when they say by using their nominated claims company it gets a better return for creditors, then detail how the company takes up to 40% and they themselves take 15% this will aggrieve the client. All this makes clients feel they are being manipulated and that the IP is trying to capitalise as much as possible on their misfortune.
As an example: Clearcash offer a prepaid cash card which you pay a monthly fee for and is aimed at those with bad credit ratings etc yet it is a member of the Cleardebt group of companies and no doubt does a fantastic job yet a sceptic on a bad day could draw from it that they are just looking for an additional profit centre utilising their existing database..
Ultimately it is all in the presentation and if IP's don't want people to get the wrong impression they must make sure they are not giving out the wrong signals and treat people open and honestly..
Having been one of those caught up in this fiasco i have to say that there needs to be clear legislation and agreed protocols on what can be done and what can't. Hopefully they are now on the way and a long time coming. What gauls me and i'm sure everyone else is if this is an exercise to realise as much return for the creditors then why employ a company on our behalfs that take 40%, that just doesn't compute with me.
EIF are nothing but a shambolic company and i can speak from experience, they will no doubt be the cause of many people's delayed CC because they sit back and let things happen rather than earn their 40% commission by chasing things up, how do i know this because last year i chased them up and chivved them along because they weren't doing anything!
People opt to go into IVA's to pay back part or all of their debt and enter into an agreed contract, the fact that the goal posts shift like sand isn't down to them but to lack of guidance and companies acting like Mavericks. I WASN'T given the opportunity to claim back my PPI and as i wanted to continue to comply with my agreed terms and conditions i was put in touch with this firm who quite frankly aren't worth diddly, when i did in fact claim an amount back without any help from them, i then had to jump through hoops, seek advice before they believed me, thank god i'm the other side of this.
I certainly hope that this fiasco goes away quickly because it is and will continue to cause people problems until someone, somewhere challanges this and therein lies the problem, legal advice costs and these firms know this, enough said.
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.
Andy – I can’t answer that I’m afraid. If CCCS/Stepchange are not actively pursuing PPI claims then that seems to be contrary to the advice I and it appears all other IPs have received from Counsel and the joint advice put out recently by all of the Regulatory Bodies (who license Insolvency Practitioners) R3 (the Insolvency Bodies trade association )and The Debt Resolution Forum. I am sure one of the Regulatory Bodies that licenses StepChange (formerly CCCS) commercial IVA arm would be interested to find out why as well.
Foggy – I couldn’t agree more (sorry – I probably took your last post out of context).
Skippy – Perhaps I am being naïve but I am fairly sure that no IP is keeping cases open without due cause. The issue of PPI mis-selling is taking up considerable resources for all IVA Providers and I am sure that all are taking their own legal advice along with whatever steps they feel can be taken to speed up the process (with varying degrees of success).
Nutkins – I am all for full disclosure and where I or ClearDebt have done anything wrong I will be the first to hold my hands up as I have done on numerous occasions on this forum. My issue in this instance is that some of the information posted is false and I’m quite sure the managers of those hospitals would see fit to challenge any statements made in the national press had they disputed the comments made.
The misconception seems to be that obtaining compensation for PPI mis-selling is an enormous cash cow that IPs are all milking. What with varying fee resolutions (lots of fixed fee cases) and additional staffing requirements PPI mis-selling claims will generate some profit but not what some posters here think and I’m certain most other IPs will tell a similar story.
12 months to go – I assure you that none of the comments were aimed at you and I have no recollection of the thread you started. As Mel has stated earlier, there is nothing wrong with an IP putting claims through their own “in-house” company and is something done by lots of IVA Providers. I don’t understand your “no smoke without fire” comment given that as I would have no reason to deny it were it true.
enquirer1234 - there is no secret to the fact that Elizabeth Robinson acts as my PA (in a part-time capacity). There is very little work for my Hodgsons Insolvency practice to do these days and it just ticks over. Hodgsons is not an incorporated company and is just a trade name owned by me solely. As far as I can see her LinkedIn profile is correct for all to see. There is nothing and there has been nothing to hide.
Mel - I appreciate your comments regarding myself and thank you for all the help you give free of charge and at unearthly hours to helping posters on this forum, which I also have in the past and where time permits will do so in the future.
Regards
David
Regards, David Mond, Insolvency Practitioner for over 46 years. Personal Insolvency Practitioner of the year 2012, Personal Insolvency Practitioner of the year finalist 2013 & 2014 awarded by Insolvency & Rescue Magazine and 2015 finalist for Personal Insolvency Firm of the Year.
David, you seem to have commented on most posts but have missed this. If this is the accurate are you going to stop insisting that your clients use yours?
font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by MelanieGiles
IPs cannot insist that their clients use their preferred firms of they don't like the terms.
font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by Leese
David, you seem to have commented on most posts but have missed this. If this is the accurate are you going to stop insisting that your clients use yours?
font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by MelanieGiles
IPs cannot insist that their clients use their preferred firms of they don't like the terms.
Do IP's get a commission for referring clients to certain PPI reclaim companies???
Leese/nickjohn - this is a point upon which I think I disagree with Michael and Mel. In my opinion, and that of the Counsel I have sought, it is the responsibility of the Supervisor to realise the asset and in doing so he or she is able to appoint an agent where the task cannot be fulfilled directly.
As these assets belong to the IVA estate the agent is effectively working on behalf of the Supervisor who could potentially be liable for any action the agent takes.
I cannot see a way that I can confidently report to creditors that all assets have been realised and maximised for the benefit of the case if claims are being submitted by hundreds of different individuals and IVA providers with various practices, policies and levels of expertise.
Not to go on too much but there are several issues creditors who are taking actions such as offset or refusing to accept claims from insolvent individuals which I believe must be submitted by professionals with direct access to the best advice possible. Not to do so could have potential ramifications for the administration of the IVA.
Additionally, as claims are being submitted in one place this makes it much easier to control the exchange of data and to enable rigorous auditing of policies to ensure that claims are being dealt with expertly and all of my clients treated fairly.
I personally don't see how the alternative can work in practice.
Regards
David
Last edited by David Mond on Fri May 03, 2013 1:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Regards, David Mond, Insolvency Practitioner for over 46 years. Personal Insolvency Practitioner of the year 2012, Personal Insolvency Practitioner of the year finalist 2013 & 2014 awarded by Insolvency & Rescue Magazine and 2015 finalist for Personal Insolvency Firm of the Year.
nickjohn - if an IP receives a commission for referring matters to a particular PPI mis-selling reclaim company then such commission in my opinion would be required (a) to be disclosed and (b) have to be paid into the IVA estate.
Regards, David Mond, Insolvency Practitioner for over 46 years. Personal Insolvency Practitioner of the year 2012, Personal Insolvency Practitioner of the year finalist 2013 & 2014 awarded by Insolvency & Rescue Magazine and 2015 finalist for Personal Insolvency Firm of the Year.
The alternative does work - well it does in my practice. Being a somewhat smaller firm, this is perhaps easier to control and monitor - and there are definite benefits in having the claims management firm and legal expertise in house.
The regulators are clear on commission payments. They have to be paid into the estate as an asset realisation. Personally I know of no companies receiving commissions, that is not to say there aren't any out there of course.
David, I'm referring to cases where people have been waiting 2 years for their certificate. Obviously there are ways to prevent this as only some companies are doing this so this begs the question if some can close cases in a reasonable time then why can't all?
Also, it appears that GT (and possibly others) would claim any inheritances or windfalls received before they issue the certificate. How is that fair? If someone complies with the terms of their IVA but doesn't have the certificate of completion through no fault of their own it seems completely unreasonable.
The average person in an IVA coming to the final payment, who has already made the final pay COULDN'T GIVE TWO HOOTS about PPI claims, who benefits, what percentage goes to the IP, what percentage goes to the creditors, who works for who etc etc. All they want is their COMPLETION CERTIFICATE so that they can move on with their lives.
Anyone that has waite for more than 6 months should be shouting from every roof top because quite simply it is unacceptable and it is for the professionals within the industry and the regulators to sort out.
The way it has been dealt with by most IVA companies has been exceptionally poor and as we have said many, many times it has been down to a total lack of communication and to a certain extent a total disregard for the end user...Joe Public
I received an inheritance last year and, had I been with GT, I doubt I would have received my completion certificate and would have been expected to pay it across. I would have fought tooth and nail not to and I wouldn't care if people knew I'd had an IVA and I would have had to complain loudly to anyone who would listen.
I am with Andy on this one, the claims company appointed to deal with our PPi are very slow, they do not chase anything unless you badger them , do not listen to what you are trying to explain, if some these companies actually bothered to do the work they are receiving good rates for then the whole PPi fiasco may well be over a bit quicker
