If the only difference is higher fees then on the surface it may seem to make no difference, since your payments remain as-is and they take a bigger slice.
However I think that is not good since effectively you're paying less off the debts. Therefore if the Iva failed you'd owe more or if you tried for an f&f settlement you would owe more and have to make a bigger offer.
Please correct me if I'm wrong?!
Last edited by hubert on Mon Dec 01, 2014 12:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I feeling is that they cannot change the T@C's unless they have your consent. Also surely the creditors would have say in this as well as I am sure they would not be happy to have their return eroded. My only concern is that if you don't comply they could make your IVA journey more painful through annual reviews and over the top scrutiny at the end. CF have the opportunity to put this to bed by issuing a statement
Oh God just logged on to see what's happening,as still not heard anything from CF since the standard 'we are busy migrating files' response, but read this topic and now it's got me thinking as I did have a missed call on my mobile but caller unknown on Friday evening. Feel sick to my stomach again now, we are due our annual review, house valuation be done in a few months and everything seems to be up in the air, why would anyone agree to new terms?! Can we just refuse legally I mean?
font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by SUC
I feeling is that they cannot change the T@C's unless they have your consent. Also surely the creditors would have say in this as well as I am sure they would not be happy to have their return eroded. My only concern is that if you don't comply they could make your IVA journey more painful through annual reviews and over the top scrutiny at the end. CF have the opportunity to put this to bed by issuing a statement
This is absolutely my concern too. They've not taken on our cases out of the kindness of their hearts, they're there to wring every penny of profit they can from each IVA - they're a business.
However, it seems to me that they've taken on a load of cases hoping to make a chunk more money by getting us all to agree to higher fees. I suspect many will simply just acquiesce and agree the terms, either because they're told it won't make any material difference to them (although as others have stated, higher fees means a reduced amount for the creditors and higher final settlement value if you're fortunate enough to find yourself in a position to pay it all off in one go) or because they fear retribution.
I'm genuinely concerned we've been sold up the river here and CF could make life very difficult for us if we choose not to agree to their new terms.
Last edited by thisusernameistaken on Mon Dec 01, 2014 1:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Past migrations have resulted in proposed changes to fees, often hidden among other things, such as "sign this and you will get PPI dealt with faster" or "sign this and you will get £500 of PPI".
I will be interested to see what the carrot will be this time around.
You are not obliged to agree to any changes, and bad treatment as a result of not signing would be looked on very seriously by the regulators.
On my migration my new firm sought to increase fees to 25% (the carrot was to get the interest element of PPI ). I refused to sign and can honestly say that I noticed no detrimental effect on the way I was treated from then on. In fact I got excellent service.
My opinions are merely that .. opinions based on experience. Always seek professional advice.
IVA Completed 23rd July 2013 .... C.C. 10th January 2014
When I spoke to them I asked if we had to sign them and they said no.
I do feel they are way too big to treat us differently if we don't sign. I mean that suggests they'd bear a grudge and I do feel that's unlikely.
I'm sure the creditors would have to agree. If it means less for them they wouldn't agree. Nor would we. There must be a carrot dangled for both parties.
Well I have just had the call. No mention of terms and conds but a really friendly chap trying to understand my mess of a salary/ bonus/uplift. I'm not sure they have had my file from PJG yet as I had to explain my wages from scratch. He was keen to do a new I&E but I pointed out my review is in Feb and I'm not in dire straits just need confirmation my uplift was correct last month, he kept saying not to worry and asked me to send the front page of covering letter from last review, my wage slip and bank statement which I have done. He really could not have been nicer or tried harder. My only question is why they want us ll to do I&ES?
I can categorically state they do not want us all to do a new I&E. We did ours in July, and CF said there would be no need to undertake another review until next July.
Ours is due now! But as we have proposed a F&F I'm hoping we don't have to do one? ....
Must admit they seem very understanding and clam on the phone,
they don't seem like a bad company just a bigger operation than Mels I'd say.. and tbh we only ever spoke to mel once in 3 years.
Im also of the same feeling that Mel did the work to get iva agreed. Creditors agreed to T&Cs and fees were agreed then. Im not upping CF fees in new t&cs (if thats what it is) and reducing what i pay back of my debt. I agreed to pay back what i coukd afford not pay a company i havent chosen and who didnt get iva produced. Mels letter to us said no changes, will continue as original proposed so no we wont sign if dont have too. If they make life hell because of it then we will have to face that but theyd be stupid too. I had a call the other day from them but couldnt answer it. Theyve not tried again yet.
"Why would creditors agree to higher fees for an already agreed arrangement?"
The only rational I can see for a creditor agreeing to this is if the IP company said in return for this we will realise an increased overall return for them. But then how would they achieve this?
