Cleardebt, the joke its becoming

[Dave Bowman]

If you are not being directly charged for an assessment to get you a cheaper deal, then yes it is free to you.

Of course, like any comparison company, Money Mayday will take a commission, that's the nature of their business, but that doesn't mean they are needlessly victimising IVA clients.

Of course, searching out the best deal yourself directly with suppliers will be get you a cheaper rate - no one here has questioned that - but, let's face it a large proportion of people in IVAs haven't got a great track record of managing their money and if Clear Debt can offer an incidental service to help people reduce their bills, I hardly think it's a stick to beat them with.

Again, I have no link to Clear Debt but I do feel you're being a tad unfair in your criticism on an open forum - surely we should be judging an IP by the quality of the service he provides in administering the IVA?

[Foggy]

I have to agree with Dave. And Cleardebt, in the form of David Mond, has long been at the forefront of trying to get a fair deal for those in an IVA.

[David Mond]

stevef100

Sorry for the delay in response but I have been travelling.

I note that you have not taken up my offer in my last post to contact me.

I am unsure as to your motives for attempting to undermine ClearDebt by questioning an entirely legitimate service which has benefitted a huge number of customers.

It is not mandatory for anybody to speak to Money Mayday at any point.

Clearly if any bills appear to be excessive then it would be a dereliction of my duty as Supervisor not to make a debtor aware that they should check to see if better rates are available to them, which, as previously posted by me, would benefit both the customer and the creditors (and potentially, to a much lesser extent – as illustrated in my last post - me).

It makes no odds to me if customers look for these savings through Money Mayday, or contact a third party to look into this for them.

Of course there are those who feel confident enough to do the shopping around themselves, but from experience, I have found that there are a great many people who have neither the time nor the inclination to do this, which is why they are given the option to speak to Money Mayday, however they will not be passed through to speak to them without their clear consent.

No customer details are forwarded to Money Mayday without first obtaining the customer’s permission.

If a customer does not wish to look into potential savings and their bills seem to be reasonable, then it is their prerogative to carry on paying what they are paying (although I see no logical reason as to why anybody would not want to see if they could save some money) and they would not be deemed to be in breach of their arrangement for declining to speak to Money Mayday.

With regard to supporting documents requested when completing an annual review, the reason that copies of the relevant bills are requested is to provide evidence that the allowances given within any customers I&E are correct.

I agree that some people will pay their bills by Direct Debit or Standing Order, but there are others who prefer to pay their bills manually, so that information will not be visible on their bank statements and would require me to request additional information, taking up time and resources both for my staff and for the debtor.

I am certainly prepared to look into this for you and would be grateful if you could e-mail me with your details so that I can review your specific situation as previously requested by me.

Sincerely,

David Mond

[David Mond]

font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by stevef100



Money Mayday Ltd, owned by your son, which also has you as a former director.
I feel that should be made clear to your impecunious (as you so eloquently put it) clients. You don’t want to look like your favouring or supporting a company surely?
Your companies credibility has the chance of going right down the pan, considering that it must be out of the scope of a IVA supervisor to linked in this way.

Stevef100

ClearDebt is quite happy to work with a company (Money Mayday) whose work achieves the joint aims of saving my IVA customers' money and enhancing returns to creditors at no cost to either group.

Yes, my son runs Money Mayday, but I know from comparison that Money Mayday is achieving savings for customers at least as good as other major comparison firms. My customers aren't losing out, so why shouldn't ClearDebt use them? As my posts here show we are prepared to be completely transparent about this.

ClearDebt IVA customers can do this work themselves of course, but I am confident they won't achieve greater savings by doing so - so why would they bother when we can do it for them for, I repeat, NO COST to themselves.

Yes, Money Mayday do get a payment for this work - but neither the ClearDebt IVA customer nor their creditors pay a penny.

ClearDebt, as I have illustrated above, gets a slightly enhanced fee for improving the return to creditors - again without making a single penny's difference to the customer's financial position.

Improving things for my customers and their creditors is absolutely what I should be doing as their IVA supervisor. It's my duty.

Yours Sincerely,

David Mond

[David Mond]

font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by lifenoteasy

Its called secondary usage that may not be compatible with the primary purpose or legal basis for which the data was originally obtained for and it is not clear whether this is voluntary or mandatory.

What next - using the data that has been harvested to decide that Stepchange guidance is too lenient and deciding that based on local information held that allowances for clients need to be configured to reflect that?

I'm not suggesting that is the case but it seems that staff working for IVA companies seem a little blase around using the information they are obtaining.

Just as well that the IP who was fined by their professional association for a data breach was only dealt with there - it would have been 20 times more expensive if it had got to the ICO.

lifenoteasy,

You are wrong to suggest this is secondary usage of data. It isn't.

ClearDebt's customers are being asked to provide new information at the time of their annual review for the specific purpose of assessing whether Money Mayday can save them money which, later in the IVA, can also enhance returns to creditors.

This is primary use of data, for a single purpose (making sure the debtor is using their best efforts to repay what they owe - whilst also ensuring they are rewarded for doing so from the savings achieved), gathered with the customer's consent.

For the sake of complete transparency, this is what our annual review letter to customers says:

"In partnership with Money Mayday Limited; a money saving comparison firm, we would like to see if we can save you money on some of your regular bills. Any anticipated or possible savings identified will only be considered when your Second review is due, not in your current First review.

Whilst many people intend to complete a price comparison on their bills, it is not always easy to find the time, so this is why we are looking to assist you.

Money Mayday’s primary aim is to allow you access to money saving products as well as, where possible, access to insurance products not normally available to you since the start of your IVA"

We are completely clear about what we are doing and why.

The information we require from customers is necessary for the IVA Annual Review in any case, but, yes, it does also assist the process of saving them money and improving returns to creditors at no cost to the debtor.

On a more general point you go on to say:

"What next - using the data that has been harvested to decide that StepChange guidance is too lenient and deciding that based on local information held that allowances for clients need to be configured to reflect that?".

StepChange guidance certainly isn't too lenient! Their most recent guidance I've seen (2014) reduced or kept allowances the same in almost all categories - despite cost of living increases - whilst reducing the allowance for car fuel (the only area where prices had dropped). They've definitely made debtors worse off.

Roll on the introduction of Money Advice Services' Standard Financial Statement (due sometime between this autumn and next spring). I think this will be much fairer.

Yours Sincerely,

David Mond

[kallis3]

I was not with Cleardebt and the company I used also recommended changing utilities etc. They did not push it and I never changed.

[FormerlyST1100]

David, while I understand the above not breaking the legal side of thing, if it was myself starting out on an IVA, the last company I would go for is one that has such close connections with other companies they "recommend" for other services.

I have just made my last payment to Stepchange and awaiting my CC. At no time did they every request or point me in any direction to outside companies to reclaim PPI, it was left to myself.

Also at no time have they every pointed me into any outside company to "save" money on Utilities, as long as they are reasonable they are accepted.

As you are aware the fuel allowance is only a recommendation (mine was far higher), any extra being allowed if proof available together with high repair costs.

If I was starting out now for an IVA, and looking at the links between IVA companies and PPI, etc I would prefer to totally avoid those with the links. ALL my PPI I reclaimed went straight back to my creditors (less IVA fees) and not more creamed off to a separate company linked to the IVA one.

People can decide themselves who to go to for their IVA's but personally I know which types of ones I would avoid. I prefer ones that are totally impartial and if an outside third party was needed for PPI then would prefer the IVA company to recommend a company they have no connection at all with in any way.

[Foggy]

ST100 I am pleased that Stepchange worked for you, as they do, I am sure, for thousands of others. Totally impartial is not quite accurate though, being partially funded by the banks.

[FormerlyST1100]

What I meant, Foggy, was impartial to any other companies that do or do not recommend you go to for PPI or anything like that.

[kallis3]

The thing to remember is that, whilst this forum is a godsend to a lot of us and we do try and help people find the right solution for themselves, there are a lot who find it once they have entered into an IVA and can't do anything about it.

It's all very well saying that people should choose differently but sometimes they have no idea what they are going into.

[Foggy]

The problem is, when you are drowning, you look at the lifebelt, not at who is on the other end of the rope !!

[David Mond]

font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by ST1100

What I meant, Foggy, was impartial to any other companies that do or do not recommend you go to for PPI or anything like that.

ST1100,

Guidelines for items such as fuel can be exceeded if there is evidence of justification to do so.

For example, if someone's fuel costs increased because they had a new, better paid job but had to commute further, this could be permitted as the increased mileage results in an increased return so is clearly better for everyone involved.

As I explained previously the main beneficiary of any savings from switching suppliers is, by a long way, the customer - the comparative benefit to me is negligible.

If you would prefer to go to a company who does not offer a free service to you, which could leave you much better off, that is of course up to you, however I really cannot understand how this service could possibly be viewed as a negative.

I refer our IVA customers to a specialist Claims Management Company to investigate potential claims for mis-sold PPI because any compensation owed is an asset of the arrangement and I must ensure that these assets are realised.

If you think it would be unreasonable for me to impose this on my customers and insist that they chase up the mis-sold PPI claims themselves, especially given how time consuming each claim can be and the level of knowledge required to be satisfied that the bank has investigated your enquiry fully and fairly, as well as any other historic lines of credit which were not included in the IVA itself, then I am mystified.

Given this, I chose to enlist the help of a specialist company (DRSP) to investigate all claims so that I can be sure that all potential claims are investigated thoroughly and all assets realised.

All that I ask is that my customers co-operate with DRSP so that they can get the ball rolling on the claims.

In recognition of the assistance provided, I also allow customers to keep the first £500 of the redress received once all of the claims have been realised.

Even factoring in the fees paid to DRSP and the goodwill gesture to the customer, the level of expertise that DRSP brings to the table means that I can be confident that the whole process is beneficial to both the customer (much less work on their own part and up to an extra £500 in their pocket), as well as the creditors who agree with the process.

I hope this clears things up for you, but as always, I am more than happy to receive e-mails from forum members (david.mond@cleardebt.co.uk) as well as responding to any posts on the forum.

Regards,

David Mond

[Barbara.05]

What is this? Pick on cleardebt time! I'm with cleardebt and was more than relieved that DRSP dealt with my ppi claims, they have been very thorough and pleasant to deal with, this saved me time and effort, as for utility bills surely it can only be a good thing if a reduction can be found, does it matter who is doing it?

[kallis3]

Unfortunately we all have problems with various IP companies and we all have our own opinions.

[madwales]

Can only speak from experience I was with clear debt in 2005. I found them professional, honest, and helpful. I was lucky I decided to use them.