Debtmatters, Grant Thornton and Payplan

[MelanieGiles]

If you read the letter which was sent to you by Grant Thornton, it details all of the modifications they propose to put to creditors. These are the areas that both Grant Thornton and Payplan say they feel are required to enable them to run the IVAs smoothly in the future.

[haha]

i have a question for the experts,

my iva started in oct 05 and the initial guesstemate of debt was around 50k, the iva was drawn up using this best guess (i used the agreement paperwork for the figures) and passed with me being due to payback 58p/£.
now that the creditors have all finally confirmed there claim (well at least it would apear that they have just recently done so) it shows that my actual debt was infact only 39k. however the contribution rate has not altered (yet) and i am due a variation meeting soon. to date i have paid roughly 33p/£ (of the confirmed dept) and i am wondering if (as is lilkly) my circumstances change drastically (job change) and i can no longer afford to make payments will my iva become subject to a review and closed as completed or will my creditors sue me for bankruptcy?

any help is apreciated

[MelanieGiles]

The dangers of IPs using "guesstimate" figures to put forward IVA proposals is highlighted here. You are lucky that the figures have come out to be lower than anticipated, rather than higher - and I cannot understand why IPs do not get these independently verified before proceeding with proposals for their clients.

To answer your specific question, your ability to fund contributions at a certain level has little correllation with the amount you owe to creditors. The fact that you have claims which were lower than were originally envisaged simply means that creditors will get a higher dividend at the end of the day.

If your circumstances change, to leave you unable to make your contributions, then you should seek the advice of your IP who is unlikely to want to see the IVA fail, and who may then call a further meeting of creditors to offer reduced payments.

[goulda]

Mel,

I have noted your comments but as yet I have not received a letter from Grant Thornton

[MelanieGiles]

That's strange as I thought they had all been issued. If you e-mail me at my website tomorrow, I will send you the details of the address and telephone number of the helpline they are currently operating for all new clients.

[baz36]

i received my letter from Debtmatters a couple of weeks ago to say we had been transferred to Payplan but still havent heard from Payplan.....also our yearly review was due 7th march, i expect there will be a hold up of it now wont there?

Anyway will just keep making my payments and wait for contact, as the letter said no changed have to be made to our payment method.

[Adam Davies]

Hi
I think that the IP has two months in which to complete your annual review.I would think that there is a large backlog due to the change over
Regards

[greenback]

Hello all,

Thanks for the great input on the forum about debtmatters!

I am a customer of theirs and have 3 years to run on my IVA of which I have a faultless payment history thus far. I was as shocked as everyone to read all this information and when I recently got a letter confirming a transfer of ownership of my IVA and a change of supervisor I was worried sick.

I managed to speak to DM about this and all they would say is that all of their IVA cases had now been moved to anoter IP. I had taken the time to read the letter from my new supervisor/IP and was worried to note there we now 3 changes being made to my existing IVA.

The first 2 which admin changes i.e. change of IP and change of supervisor but the 3rd was to inform me that the current IP fees set at 15 percent would be increased to 25 percent once I sign on the dotted line! I confirmed this to DM who just told me " dont worry it wont effect your pay plan and if the creditors dont like it they will chuck it out" but what is frustrating to me is the fact that this new IP gets and increase of fees from my payments pot and I get nothing and a rubbish service from DM.

The only time they were bothered was when it was annual review time and after that I heard nothing, so in some ways I am happy I am being transferred but in others I am worried now as if DM were so slack and the new IP is a lot tougher the next 3 years could be a nightmare for me.

I have this frustrating clause as most do as well that means any bonus etc I receive over 500 pounds is to be paid into the pot. This really annoys me as I rely on my bonus to buy things dropping to bits around the house - to be fair the new IP has said they would take anything I really needed to buy into consideration if I send them a receipt if I spend this out of my bonus payment, but I dont know what to believe.

I had a bonus a few months ago and told DM I needed this to pay for some repairs to my car and they said thats fine and nothing more was said of it - now what happens if this new IP suddendly demands I pay this bonus into the pot and DM can not provide them with details of our conversation regarding my car bill payments?

The main concern I have is that things I have done and agreed with DM may been seen differently with another IP and where do I find the money to pay anything owed back if the new IP goes hardcore on me?

Regards green

[baz36]

thats a really good point, im glad you raised that one. I know exactly how you feel,we have been in our IVA a year now, with DM up to now, still waiting to hear from Payplan, yearly review also due.
We agreed certain things with DM (nothing major) and did it by emails(which i have kept) but like you say does all that mean nothing now.

Also we didnt have the overtime/bonus clause in our report, but i dont think they can change this, so at least there are not going to all of a sudden ask for our overtime monies back (if they did 'a very high cliff would be a good option!!!!)

Havent been looking forward to our first yearly review, even though iam sure it will be fine, just wanted it out the way really but not am very apprehensive about it.

I just hope this is a change for the better,dont know about you but before this IVA i worried myself stupid obviously about the debt, and now even 1 year on, i still worry myself stupid in a slightly different way i suppose, but i dont think there is a day goes by now where i do not think about our IVA.

[Adam Davies]

Hi
If you have any agreements in writing[or email] from Debtmatters then I'm sure that GT will honour these.
GT are a highly respected organisation and I really do feel that you have nothing to worry about.
Regards

[baz36]

thanks for that Andy. Did you constantly worry whilst you was going through your IVA?

[greenback]

Well I sent receipts off and had phone calls with DM regarding using my bonus to pay for must have things around the house and to fix my car - they just said that fine dont worry your a good payer and have not missed a payment etc etc - No I have been in firms where when they start laying workers off obviously some of these worker dont care about there companies needs or job any more and since i'm hearing they layed off over 100 workers running these IVA's I'm sure some work they say they have done i.e noting accounts and keeping records with not be accurate and up to date.

Now from a legal perspective should be be responsible if our IP has not been running are affairs correctly resulting in our recent transfer to another IP, I think not.

Also anything agreed with DM before the transfer should be honoured as this new IP is not running my IVA yet and I am not signing anything until I make sure I am being correctly advised.

It has taken action from me to find out more about this situation from the web to gain a better understanding of my right and if as has been stated in other forums about the DM issue that defaulters should be happy to accept an change of IP in return for the new IP getting an increased fee then surely we should be allowed the same grace if later in the day we find DM have not been noting/keep acurate records and generally running our affairs correctly?

[craigbeas]

I have a IVA with debtmatters and wrote to them to put in for a settlement offer to our creditors nearly a month ago due and found last week re the transfer, we have now been told after phoning GT that i need to re send and then it would take 6 weeks which is totally unacceptable. My wife lost her job and had a miscarriage and therefore we wanted to make the offer based on selling our house as this was excluded from original IVA. At this stage i am not in aposition on even knowing can we put our house up for sale as if the creditors turn down the offer are they entitled to any of the equity. Somebody help because debtmatters or GT are not in any form.

[Cybus]

Greenback

My understanding from reading the opening few posts ...

If you do not agree to the proposed modifcations now being put forward, then your IVA will continue under its current terms. You CANNOT be made subject of default proceedings for the simple reason of not agreeing to vary the terms of the arrangement.

If you have maintained the contributions required and done everything else that has so far been required, I don't understand the reason why you should be asked to vary the terms of your arangement at this stage. Ask Grant Thornton why they want you to vary the terms of your arangement, if it is not entirely clear to you. I wonder how many others are complying with the terms of their arrangements and are pondering whether or not to sign and return the consent to vary the terms of the arrangement? Is it not down to individual debtors to decide if they are struggling to meet payments or are struggling to meet the terms of the arrangement, rather than having variations imposed on them? It has been suggested that the new terms provide flexibility for the IVA payments to be reduced at the discretion of the Supervisor. Granted that might be a useful modification to the terms of the arrangement ... but do check that it is not already in the terms of the arrangement as such a modification already exists. Unfortunately I do not recall when the modification was first used. So greenback, I would say that I agree with your comment that you should be afforded the terms currently being offered at a later date if you so require them. But if it's not broken now, why meddle with it?

It would be interesting to know if Grant Thornton represented any of the creditors at your original meeting when the IVA was approved and to know what fee restrictions they may have imposed at the time. If a fee restriction was imposed by them and now they effectively want to remove that restriction, at whose expense is it going to be? If you have a minimum dividend requirement then it is going to be at your expense, greenback. Unless of course they suggest to your creditors that their right to minimum dividend be waived - but do you think they would agree to that?

I have not seen the letters that have been sent out to debtors by either Payplan or Grant Thornton. I have asked the question on here if there is a fee implication with this variation and if so what impact does it have on both debtor and creditors. But I'm not sure anyone actually knows the answer to that outside of Grant Thornton or Payplan. Does the letter that you have received indicate any cost implications of convening a meeting of creditors to vary the terms?

On the point of reviews. I doubt that either Grant Thornton or Payplan would be looking at anything other than reviews that they will be responsible for carrying out themselves. It would be unfair to make demands of you retrospectively

[MelanieGiles]

I can understand the controversy about additional fees, and can see that there is an argument for "if it is not broke, don't fix it", but as these modifications are unlikely to affect debtors, I feel it is up to creditors to make their mind up whether they are proposed to accept the changes or not.

I am sure that these companies would not be leaping into a major expenditure exercise just for the sake of it, and must have cleared ground for the proposed variations with all of the major banks beforehand.