Creditfix new T&Cs

Get expert opinion. This is the place for new questions to be posted.
24 posts Page 1 of 2
 
 

ivamess

User avatar
Posts: 253
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 2:02 pm
Location:

Post by ivamess » Tue Dec 30, 2014 1:29 pm
Can anyone please tell me what the new T&Cs mean in detail and in plain English? Not that I have any intention of signing them but because I am completely baffled by them and CF don't seem to come up with much in the way of advice.
 
 

Foggy

User avatar
Posts: 33396
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:14 am
Location: United Kingdom

Post by Foggy » Tue Dec 30, 2014 1:42 pm
They seem to be firming up the rights the IP has over PPI. Giving them absolute right to pursue and retain PPI ( with the possibility that they might allow you to keep some).

One day, I guess, it could be challenged that PPI might not have been payable into the IVA and has to be refunded -- if PPI has been signed over there could be no challenge.

Other than that there are a few minor tweeks, which don't really do much but make life a little easier for the IP.

Then the main reason for the whole saga -- an increase in fees from 15% to 23% .. which is all they are really after.
My opinions are merely that .. opinions based on experience. Always seek professional advice.
IVA Completed 23rd July 2013 .... C.C. 10th January 2014
 
 

ivamess

User avatar
Posts: 253
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 2:02 pm
Location:

Post by ivamess » Tue Dec 30, 2014 4:28 pm
Thanks so much Foggy. What is this thing about creditors finding out you owe them more than they originally said you did?
 
 

Foggy

User avatar
Posts: 33396
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:14 am
Location: United Kingdom

Post by Foggy » Tue Dec 30, 2014 4:40 pm
When we provide figures for an IVA proposal they are usually based upon the latest statement from the creditors. Between the statement date and the IVA commencement date a little more interest accrues and the creditor will sometimes want to add that in, which will skew the figures a little, but is usually easily accommodated in the usual 10% leeway. CF want to increase this leeway to 15%.

The only time this could be a problem is if a debt has been forgotten (old catalogue debt or somesuch) or if HMRC are a creditor as the true debt to them can oly be estimated until the year end figures.
My opinions are merely that .. opinions based on experience. Always seek professional advice.
IVA Completed 23rd July 2013 .... C.C. 10th January 2014
 
 

ivamess

User avatar
Posts: 253
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 2:02 pm
Location:

Post by ivamess » Wed Dec 31, 2014 8:35 am
If the dividend was low enough and the fees hiked to 23% from 15% could it result in a situation where bankruptcy could be forced because there is no longer sufficient for the creditors to get their return?
 
 

Adam Davies

User avatar
Posts: 14596
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 12:21 pm
Location:

Post by Adam Davies » Wed Dec 31, 2014 8:58 am
Hi

Unlikely as bankruptcy will nearly always return far less than an IVA unless their is significant amount of equity.

Regards
Andam Davies
 
 

Michael Peoples

User avatar
Industry Expert
Posts: 15189
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 12:36 pm
Location:

Post by Michael Peoples » Wed Dec 31, 2014 7:09 pm
I would like to know when there are going to be meetings of creditors to get their approval for the fee hike. Regardless what you say, CF cannot whack up the fees without creditor approval and I have heard nothing about any meetings being held.

We, and no doubt many other small firms, will be watching closely to see if CF get this increase as we will then be demanding the same. Failure to give us the same as CF would be blatant discrimination so we will wait and see.
Michael Peoples | McCambridge Duffy Insolvency Practitioners
http://www.mccambridgeduffy.com
If you would like to talk to me about proposing an IVA or have any questions at all please visit www.mccambridgeduffy.com
 
 

Foggy

User avatar
Posts: 33396
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:14 am
Location: United Kingdom

Post by Foggy » Wed Dec 31, 2014 8:16 pm
Michael, there was a great hoo-haa when GT tried to hike fees when they acquired a few firms books. I refused to sign, so was never told of the outcome of any meetings, but there was little sign of them taking place and I wonder whether the fee hike was accepted then.
My opinions are merely that .. opinions based on experience. Always seek professional advice.
IVA Completed 23rd July 2013 .... C.C. 10th January 2014
 
 

recovering

User avatar
Posts: 1623
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 8:27 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Post by recovering » Wed Dec 31, 2014 8:29 pm
Michael you are one of the reasons I will not sign! why should you and any other small firms get less? surely if it was that easy Mel woud've carried on? I just can't get my head around Credit fix saying it's already been agreed?
 
 

Michael Peoples

User avatar
Industry Expert
Posts: 15189
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 12:36 pm
Location:

Post by Michael Peoples » Wed Dec 31, 2014 8:44 pm
There are two things really. The terms and conditions of the IVA are agreed between the IP and the client at the beginning but can be changed with consent. However other things need approval of creditors so while a client may agree to a change in the T&Cs creditors may refuse to sanction the changes.

If for example the T&Cs were to be amended to clarify the PPI issue and both parties agreed then there may be no need for a meeting of creditors as they will ultimately benefit anyway. But if the T&Cs are being amended to the detriment of creditors and that includes huge fee increases and extra 'disbursements' then creditors would have to be asked for permission.

There will have to be meetings held and I will be very interested to see the outcome. Melanie would very probably be still in the business had she been allowed to charge 15% so if creditors sanction CF to charge this then it could be argued to be predatory and anti competitive.
Michael Peoples | McCambridge Duffy Insolvency Practitioners
http://www.mccambridgeduffy.com
If you would like to talk to me about proposing an IVA or have any questions at all please visit www.mccambridgeduffy.com
 
 

recovering

User avatar
Posts: 1623
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 8:27 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Post by recovering » Wed Dec 31, 2014 8:52 pm
I agree with you it's Tesco like! eliminating the competition! Michael I wonder if you could please send me the figures used on the review forms? I have my old PJG form but thought it might help with the creditfix one? not until Feb but as they are taking an age to answer anything I thought I'd be as prepared as I can?
 
 

Foggy

User avatar
Posts: 33396
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:14 am
Location: United Kingdom

Post by Foggy » Wed Dec 31, 2014 8:55 pm
Purely speculative of course, but the banks already have a foot in the door with the charity sector and they, along with other creditors could be favouring a big few with large fee hikes. This would put the smaller, more client centric, firms out of business, leaving the private insolvency sector to be dominated by, shall we say, more creditor biased companies.

In the long run, however, they will lose out, as those of us who try to pay back as much as possible may well opt for BR instead of being hammered for 5 years, and the creditors will invariably get less.
My opinions are merely that .. opinions based on experience. Always seek professional advice.
IVA Completed 23rd July 2013 .... C.C. 10th January 2014
 
 

Michael Peoples

User avatar
Industry Expert
Posts: 15189
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 12:36 pm
Location:

Post by Michael Peoples » Wed Dec 31, 2014 9:20 pm
Recovering. I am not back in the office until Monday but if you drop me an email I will sent the guideline figures as soon as I get in.

I may be a bit of a cynic but I know when we propose an IVA we ask for fees that we feel are fair and they are almost always cut. If CF now get to increase their fees to a level whereby they can survive and provide a service then this is hugely unfair to Melanie and firms like ourselves.

In fairness to GT the books they acquired were a mixed bag and they had a huge amount of work to do on some of their acquired cases. They earned the extra fees as otherwise many cases would have failed and they were able to deal professionally with the new caseloads to the benefit of creditors and debtors alike. Given that PJGs files are not in this kind of state there is no justification for the fee hike unless creditors now agree the fees are too low and we all get the same treatment.
Michael Peoples | McCambridge Duffy Insolvency Practitioners
http://www.mccambridgeduffy.com
If you would like to talk to me about proposing an IVA or have any questions at all please visit www.mccambridgeduffy.com
 
 

recovering

User avatar
Posts: 1623
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 8:27 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Post by recovering » Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:08 pm
Totally agree with you! thanks I will email you [:)]
 
 

Foggy

User avatar
Posts: 33396
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:14 am
Location: United Kingdom

Post by Foggy » Thu Jan 01, 2015 11:19 am
Yes, Michael, that is a very fair point. Some of the cases GT took on were in an abysmal state, so I gather. And their after transfer service (apart from PPI, which was plagueing every firm)was, from my experience, excellent.
My opinions are merely that .. opinions based on experience. Always seek professional advice.
IVA Completed 23rd July 2013 .... C.C. 10th January 2014
24 posts Page 1 of 2
Return to “Ask IVA Forum and Industry experts”