23% sounds reasonable but when the claims company takes 33% plus vat @ 20% then the IP takes another 15 % cut then the creditors get less than 50 %
If i personally collect the claim money then there would be in my case, be enough to pay back my creditors in full.
IVA started March 2011, Completed March 2016 and certificate issued 11 days after final payment. It was not always easy but then some of the best decisions aren't.
I accept that if there had been hypothetical equity of lets say £40,000 then then a loan may be required but it still should not be offered by the valuing company as there is a conflict of interests.
In my case they inflated mine £1700 over the threashold then attempted to offer me a loan.
Am i the only person that think this is wrong. I did question it and refused to pay a 3rd party £4000 and im happy that my IP did not profit from the tiny value margin and my creditors will get the equity however debatable.
Can i add to all you folks in an iva that i thought my iva was going tickety boo until 6 months b4 the end when the extras started kicking in. I have no doubt some of you will change your views in due course. Do say you werent warned.
I honesty would not mind 1 iota if the creditors got all the extras but they dont which turns the whole objective of maximising creditors returns into a fiasco.
In my experience it has been targeted towards maximising returns for my IP.
IVA started March 2011, Completed March 2016 and certificate issued 11 days after final payment. It was not always easy but then some of the best decisions aren't.
Some of our clients have taken secured loans but we do not receive any fees or commissions from the loan companies. Any commissions received should be paid into the IVA pot anyway for the benefit of creditors and the IP firm should not profit from them.
As for the claims management companies they do a job we cannot do but the individual is perfectly entitled to do it themselves should they wish. However if they do use their own company and the bank offsets the debt they could find themselves with a large debt to the CMC which they cannot pay.
CMCs can also go back much further than an individual so we use one as we are neither qualified nor experienced to do the job ourselves.
All i can comment on is my situation where the valuers/loan arranger company used were claiming £4000 of fees for securing the loan. There were already arrangement fees factored in by the lender so conclude that to be profiteering and smell a rat.
As you donnot claim such a fee mr Peoples nor does the company you use to set such a loan up then surely you are not surprised about my original post and my concerns.
i conclude after the few days of fact finding and debating on this forum that in my case i do think there has been some evidence of profiteering and possible corruption.
Hopefully in due course the authorities will step in and close the loopholes
On the subject of PPI specialised companies are able to look back and obtain the needed info in order to claim and many, many people have received refunds that they never expected. An individual in an IVA has little incentive to make claims as most of the time they will not personally receive any financial gain hence IPs using companies to do this, and rightly so.
IPs are very heavily regulated so there is no corruption within the industry that I am aware of, the fact that IPs are looking at over avenues of income is down to the reduction in fees allowed by the creditors over the years. We have seen many companies exit the IVA market as it is proving not cost effective for many
An IVA in the right circumstances is still and excellent and very fair way to deal with unaffordable debt, believe me
1 - some people firmly believe that they were never missold PPI and that trying to claim it back is the same as asking them to make a fraudulent statement (I'm still trying to work out when PPI automatically became an asset to be realised)
2 - if creditors are not excepting higher fees and constantly pushing them down why the latest debacle with CF?
I know you are one of the good guys but a lot of us aren't experiencing the best of the profession at the moment.
IVA started March 2011, Completed March 2016 and certificate issued 11 days after final payment. It was not always easy but then some of the best decisions aren't.
I have personally come across people who have sworn blind that they never had any PPI only to have cheques in the thousands drop through the letter box so IPs have to investigate this, the fact that they earn a nice commission is as much a reason for them to do this as is the fact that they are duty bound to return as much as reasonably possible to the creditors.
Fees are between IPs and creditors simply because your IVA payment should be the same regardless of fees agreed
That doesn't mean to say that PPI should have been reclaimed - there now seems to be an implied assumption that all PPI was missold by default.
Interesting to note that the Legal Ombudsman can now investigate PPI claim companies as from 280115 so I accept the increase in regulatory requirements.
IVA started March 2011, Completed March 2016 and certificate issued 11 days after final payment. It was not always easy but then some of the best decisions aren't.
I may be wrong on this, but I believe that it is up to the IP to decide whether or not PPI was "mis-sold" and not the consumer. Therefore, there seems to be a fairly blanket policy amongst certain companies that it was automatically mis-sold to everyone.
The consumer doesn't really have much of a voice on this at all.
That means that post 280115 an IP probably should not be giving any advice at all and can only mitigate the risk by referring someone to a claims management company that is potentially totally seperate from themselves.
Criteria for a claim for PPI from Which:
If you can answer ‘no’ to one or more of the following questions, then you may have been mis-sold PPI.
If the insurance was optional, was that made clear to you?
Did the adviser tell you about any significant exclusions under the policy - for example, the exclusion that says you won’t be covered for any pre-existing medical condition?
If you took out a loan or finance agreement, did the adviser make it clear that you would have to pay for the insurance up front in one single payment?
If you had to pay for the PPI as a single payment, did the adviser make it clear that the insurance cost would be added to the loan and you would be paying interest on it?
Single premium PPI insurance normally only lasts for five years. If your loan or finance agreement was for longer than this, did the adviser make it clear that the insurance would run out before you had finished paying for your loan or finance agreement? The adviser should also have told you that you would continue to pay interest on the insurance premium, even after the insurance expired.
If you bought PPI after 14 January 2005 did the adviser try to persuade you to take it out by saying something like 'we strongly recommend that you consider taking out PPI'? If so, the sale counts as an 'advised' sale and they should have issued a 'demands and needs statement' to show why a particular policy has been recommended and why it is suitable for you. If they didn't, this is grounds for complaint.
I never had PPI because of a significant medical condition - no policy was ever going to cover it and therefore was not applicable.
IVA started March 2011, Completed March 2016 and certificate issued 11 days after final payment. It was not always easy but then some of the best decisions aren't.
I should have added that even the FCA has indicated that this has gone far enough and that the banks are dealing with situations that the reclaim process was not designed for.
IVA started March 2011, Completed March 2016 and certificate issued 11 days after final payment. It was not always easy but then some of the best decisions aren't.
This is true but there are instances where the customer sincerely believes they were never given PPI and turned it down for reasons such as you gave but it was quietly added on without telling them. Shame it has to go back to the creditors in this case, it's a result of their dishonesty which the customer knew nothing about.
