Thanks Michael - so how is that different if it was included as an asset at the beginning of the IVA? Sorry, am probably being a bit thick but am not clear on what the difference is - both were assets at the start of the IVA but one is written off while the other is claimable forever?
Edit: Is it perhaps because one is a moving target (equity) and the other is a fixed amount? (PPI).
Last edited by kittyface on Tue May 14, 2013 12:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
So does this potentially mean that an IP company can contact previous customers who had long completed their IVA before the PPI issue arose and claim back this money because it was potentially an unreleased asset throughout the period of the IVA?
font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by mole
So does this potentially mean that an IP company can contact previous customers who had long completed their IVA before the PPI issue arose and claim back this money because it was potentially an unreleased asset throughout the period of the IVA?
That's already happening Mole. I'm almost 2 years after final payment with CC issued in 2012 and I've been chased a few months back.
Last edited by kittyface on Tue May 14, 2013 12:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
There may be firms reopening cases and contacting debtors to reclaim PPI because the 'trust' would continue post IVA. However, if the debtor failed to comply with the request of the IP it is debatable what sanction the IP would have against the debtor.
However, most issues arise because debtors are trying to reclaim the PPI themselves after they have been discharged and that is causing problems.
I haven't tried to claim anything...I just started getting unsolicited phone calls from EIC 18 months after my final payment and 6 months after my CC was issued. I haven't responded, and as yet, have had no follow up, though my partner has had a spotty letter which they then told him to ignore. It does seem very unfair that this is taking so long to find a standard way forward - some people are being chased and penalised, others have complied in the past and have now lost out on interest - and the 'windfall in the meantime' issue is shocking... it's certainly not treated equally across the board.
I suspect this isn't clear yet as a case hasn't been taken to court? This has always been my issue with the MVM going ahead at GT. If they KNOW they can legally chase closed cases without this, why would they bother? I imagine that if/when a case like this goes to court, the outcome will determine whether or not IPs chase up their closed cases years after completion. I guess it all comes down to what a court decides is acceptable in relation to what it says in the initial arrangements. If a court accepts that a F&F and closure certificate is just that, they would have to rule against allowing the IPs to chase following closure. If not, I guess it's fair game and I guess we'll all be expecting phone calls!
Last edited by kittyface on Tue May 14, 2013 11:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
That is not clear and would probably have to be tested in court if anyone wanted to try and take it on. However, the debtor should have no problem signing a notice of assignment which allows the IP to pursue the claims without affecting the debtor. To refuse to do so could be deemed a bit churlish when the IP is only trying to maximise the return to the very creditors who wrote off a percentage of the debtor's liabilities.
For the record I have no problem with IPs chasing PPI claims as long as it doesn't affect the completion certificates. What is a little worrying is the few posts we are receiving from people left with claim management fees following claims made by their IP being offset by creditors. Let us hope that this doesn't become the next hot potato !
I do get what you're saying Michael and agree (to a certain degree). However, my issue is with a loan which has been paid in full several years pre IVA which the debtor did have mis-sold PPI. The IVA was not an 'all asset' IVA and pre protocol so why would the debtor have to hand over PPI monies on a debt which was paid in full and not an asset of the Arrangement, UNLESS there was wording in the proposal stating otherwise which would be unlikely. I guess it's all down to interpretation.......
font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Thanks Michael - so how is that different if it was included as an asset at the beginning of the IVA? Sorry, am probably being a bit thick but am not clear on what the difference is - both were assets at the start of the IVA but one is written off while the other is claimable forever?
Edit: Is it perhaps because one is a moving target (equity) and the other is a fixed amount? (PPI).
Think this might have been missed earlier on Anyone know?
Last edited by kittyface on Tue May 14, 2013 12:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Kittyface.
The property was included as an asset but the variation subsequently excluded it because there was either no equity or there was an extension to address the equity. The property was therefore dealt with.
The PPI has never been excluded by variation or otherwise and therefore it remains as an asset of the IVA. I hope this makes sense.
If the IVA was not an "all asset" case, then unless the PPI was expressly included in the IVA the money would be the debtor's to retain.
The guidance recently issued to IPs by the regulatory bodies, makes it clear that there is no duty on an IP to reopen cases which have been closed specifically for the purposes of chasing PPI monies, however there is nothing to stop them doing this if they feel it is appropriate. And if creditors contact IPs after cases have been closed regarding the correct home for PPI monies which have been claimed directly by their clients, then if the IVA provided for this to be treated as an asset, then the IP may take the decision to claim the money an effect a post-closure distribution to creditors.
I personally would not re-open closed cases, but if retrospectively offered money the IVA creditors were rightly entitled to, then I would rightly claim it - in accordance with guidance issued and my own independent legal advice.
This has answered my question. In the scenario I gave earlier, the monies could therefore be retained by the debtor as he/she had fulfilled their obligations and the PPI was not an asset of the Arrangement at the time of implementation. The debtor therefore can persue any potential PPI monies without having to surrender any win to the IP for the benefit of creditors.
