DFD proposed variation pack has arrived!

[Til]

Hi all

I spoke too soon about not having had one of these proposed variations from DFD! Ours arrived today.

We have already completed our PPI investigations ourselves and had it confirmed in writing from DFD that we have fully complied. So it's a little odd that this pack has come to us too.

I won't be agreeing to it as it benefits us in no way but I was curious as to how come the return address is for "Equity In Finance" when I have already completed our PPI and I refused to deal with EIF as I felt their fees were too high.

We don't have any equity either so I certainly won't agree to a variation that brings in secured loans either as it is of no use at all.

I'm wondering if everyone at DFD is getting one, even when in our case it is no merit at all, as I notice DFD get a £60 fee per agreed variation?

[Foggy]

This is very similar to the GT spotty letters saga -- dealt with by their PPI claims company, and some pretty serious variations ( to the creditors / IPs favour) hidden amongst the (often irrelevant) carrots --- mainly the promise of faster completion.

The variations might work for some, but I would counsel a thorough read and a lot of thought before signing.

[Til]

I thought so too Foggy. It concerned me greatly the size and scale of the amendments and how easy it would be to not see the downsides amongst them.

On the surface it does seem like its all positive but I would never agree to a secured loan up to my retirement age as it negates the whole principle of coming out of an IVA debt free.

The booklet is huge. I am not a naive person and always fully read things before signing, however this booklet, and the pages of info sent with it have proved a tough read and one I could not finish or in some parts understand.

That said the secured loan issue is reason enough for us to decline the change which we have done.

[Foggy]

It is an age old trick, Til. When Napoleon was being an upstart many Bills were put through whilst "political minds" were elsewhere .... and still it continues !!!

[Til]

True Foggy! Some things never change and I'm glad I'm naturally suspicious of anything that seems too good to be true.

[Keeno14]

Hi there,
We too recieved the proposed variation form today from DFD, to be honest we haven't got a clue what to do with it.
We are in our 5th year and have already had several sucessful PPI reclaims, all of which have gone straight to EIF.
We don't have any further claims to pursue so I don't really understand the point of sending the forms for us to sign.
Also, at what point in the final year do we have to contact our mortgage provider re. releasing equity? This is not something we are keen on doing, at the end of the 5yr term we will have repaid 95% of our original debt.

[LivingOnAPrayer]

I too got my pack today and phoned DFD after trying to read thru the pages and pages. As I only have one payment left and no equity to release I was told the only way the deed of assignment would affect us was by closing and chasing PPI outside the IVA. I did double check that they would not be reopening our equity release and I was reassured that that was all done and dusted. To be honest they can have as much PPI as they want!! EIF are so god damn slow and only deal with claims when you phone up "oh yes that can be closed" or "yes we will chase that company up today".
I was told the next batch of deeds were going to a meeting at the beginning of April and that certificates for finished IVAs would be sent 6 weeks later. I hope to god I have not had any wool pulled over my eyes.... I am all ready for signing! Do you think it is case to case dependent?

[MelanieGiles]

Are DFD explaining the need for the suggested variation terms to you Til? Perhaps it is a mistake that you have been sent one if your PPI investigation has already been confirmed as concluded.

If all that they need executing is a deed of assignment, I am not sure why there is the need for a variation of terms at all - but they will have taken extensive legal advice on what to do I am sure.

Anyone having difficulties in comprehending what is being suggested, should contact their IP directly to ensure that they fully understand the implications of accepting the revised terms.

[Til]

To be honest Melanie the pack that came in the post is overwhelmingly large and complicated, with some wording I would consider 'legally termed' and not very simple to understand.

I did think it must be a mistake when I received ours as there is literally nothing to gain on our part or creditors.

However there is a clause added in that everyone who signs up achieves a £60 fee for DFD so perhaps this is an added incentive to simply get everyone possible to sign up - despite it not being relevant on a case by case basis?

I do hope that's not the case but apart from that I cannot see a reason or benefit for anyone to have us agree to this change and that's why we rejected it.

[MelanieGiles]

I don't think that creditors would be happy to agree to additional fees if the variations were not necessary, and £60 per case is very little to take account of the additional work which is needing to be done to call and hold these meetings.

I would arrange a direct chat with your IP next week to see why you have been included in the mailshot, Til.

[simon1883]

Til, Ive read, re-read and asked for explainations....
They want to add a secured loan to the ER clause. - totally in their favour. They wont also confirm in wrinting that the 85% LTV would still apply to the secured loan.
and despite peoples calls on this forum - Mel in particular (THANKS!) they have not come forward to clarify the position. just a leagally worded brouchure selling it to you by highlighting the few goods points to you.

[Til]

Thanks Melanie. I am waiting to hear from them with regards a PPI offset issue so I will clarify this with them also in due course.

Simon I did feel as if the good points were highlighted to hide the very serious potentially bad points. And I agree also that the documents sent to me were quite 'legally termed' so it did not feel clear at all.

I don't feel secured loans up to retirement age are what I signed up to and would not result in us leaving the IVA debt free. Especially when a DMP for around 12 years would have cleared our debts in full and not left us with a secured loan. Therefore I disagree with the change. However that said I am sure their are individuals out there whom may benefit and be happy with the secured loan option so to each their own on that.

Considering the highlighted good points versus the less well pointed out bad ones, my husband and I are both firmly convinced that there is nothing for us to gain by agreeing so we have declined the change on our IVA's.

[MelanieGiles]

If people are happy to seek a secured loan to deal with the equity release, it doesn't need a variation of terms to achieve that result.

[Charlietill]

Hi,

My pack has arrived as well. Can you still sign the Deed of Assignments and not be bound by the 2014 protocol update. I have no problem signing over my rights to mis sold PPI but I do not agree with the secured loan option.

Many thanks

[Til]

Not sure on that one Charlietill as on our pack all the response options were geared up for "YES" or "NO" only. So to me that is you either agree to the whole thing or none of it. Might be worth an email to them to question this as if you still have outstanding PPI investigations then that might be of benefit to you?