The point I am trying to make (albeit badly) is that if I were to receive a bonus or wage increase today then the 10-50-50 rule would apply.
This has been discussed on the forum before and many people have said it is fair system and encourages you to work hard whilst in an IVA.
However, when it comes to paying excessive bank charges, or PPI claims, then any money returned is seen as an asset and 100% has to be relinquished.
My discussion point is that why is the returned (or as you say repatriated) money not treated as wages or a bonus, the money had to come from somewhere when the charges were paid and in nearly every instance it will have come out of someone's wage packet. It is not an asset in the same way as if you sold something you had bought e.g. a car it is just the return of money which should not have been taken in the first place.
You must be able to see it from our perspective that if 100% of the money is always going to be paid back to the creditors then it is in the creditors interest to facilitate the repayment of this money.
With regards to the manner in which IP's receive their fees I can only go off information found on the net, in this case a document from the insolvency.gov.uk website which covers fees and which says;
"There is almost total consensus on the supervisor’s fee being drawn as a percentage of realisations as they are received. This means that a proportion of realisations is effectively ringfenced for creditors from a very early point in the IVA. It also gives an incentive to the supervisor, firstly to maximise the monthly payment and, secondly, to pursue non-payment. This aligns the interests of the IP and the creditor."
The difference being is the bonuses and overtime have to be earned, by you guys exerting more effort to earn them, either by working harder and longer, or delivering better results for your employers. These payments are rewards for that effort, and it is absolutely right that you be entitled to retain the lions share of such monies - would add that prior to the IVA protocol, it was very likely that you would have had to pay in all of those monies as well - totally unfair in my opinion.
The difference with a PPI reclaim, is that it existed at tbe time the policy was sold, and therefore the monies that are due back to you in terms of compensation are an asset at the time of sale, and therefore an asset at the time the IVA was entered into. I am afraid that when you owe money which you cannot afford to repay, your creditors expect you to put your best foot forward to maximise the return to them, and if this is via an IVA they expect the IP supervising the arrangement to ensure that this happens.
Not sure I understand the badly worded quote from the Insolvency Service - which I thank you for highlighting. I've said my piece on fees here, and many other times on the forum under different threads. I don't really have any more to add.
Guess this just one of those issues where we have different views.
If the wage rise and bonus were taken 100% as well then I could accept the argument for doing the best to achieve the highest possible return for creditors, as you say we had the money in the first place - some may have spent it others had circumstances thrust upon them - either way it needs paying back.
With regards the PPI or charges pay back I do not believe this money is compensation it is merely the return of premiums paid, which everyone agrees should never have been paid in the first place, with an element of interest added on.
Sorry you felt the quote was badly worded but it is a direct quote from a final report covering fees...
I think a lot of the IS website is badly worded, never a good idea to get the public sector commenting about matters relating purely to the private sector!
Using your argument of a return of premiums, which I can accept, I still don't understand your argument, but I guess if I were your side of the fence I may well have differing views.
Hi Mel,
In my proposal it states in black and white I have no assets that can be included in the IVA, my scooter was excluded in the paragraph above this, I did not have any PPi I always refused it but hypathetically if I did could I contest that it cannnot be an asset now of the IVA when it was already agreed by everyone supervisors, courts and me at the beginning that I have no assets.
(Just playing devils advocate as I stated I didn't have any PPI)
If life is what you make it, I must have been in a strange mood when I made mine
Still doesn't answer my original question sent in my e'mail to GT last week:
Will this EIC issue extend the closure period or are you confident that closure can still be finalised within a 6 month window, can you please confirm our current situation?
I'm sorry to say the explanatory post still doesn't answer the very crucial question, what impact will this have on delaying the closure process?
It seems there is only one winner here and thats EIC
The way this is going I will still be waiting for my completion certificate this time next year.
"60 months then debt free" what a joke [:(!][:(!][:(!]
IVA COMPLETED ON THE 17th MARCH, FINAL I&E COMPLETED 26th APRIL, COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ARRIVED 2nd AUGUST
I too am approaching the end of my IVA, my initial concerns are just to finish my payments, however if I am to be bound by the terms of my IVA for another year this is just going to far. Ability to replace my decrepit car affected, ability to get a mortgage affected, paying over windfalls, paying over redundancy payments. If it takes a year, it takes a year but I feel that the other restrictions should be lifted.
Just received this dreaded letter when I was actually expecting the CC. What a fool!
Are we talking about PPI or is it Bank/Credit card charges? Or are they being treated as the same thing?
Final payment made Dec 2011.
Certificate of Completion arrived 26th Sept 2012
