font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by MelanieGiles
Melanie... Did anyone ever tell you that you look like a young Meryl Streep?
OMG - no-one every has GC1967. I often get confused with Melanie Griffith - but I think that is more the name than the looks. And on holiday once, a Canadian couple thought I looked like Princess Diana - which was met with hilarious giggles from all of my friends!
As for the subject of this topic - I've made my own views very clear on this in the past. I do not believe that a secured loan should be sought if a re-mortgage is not possible. It is generally better for a client to extend the term of the IVA by one further year, rather than tie themselves into an expensive loan which will last far into the future - however I would agree that if a re-mortgage is possible and the secured loan option is cheaper (difficult to envisage this however) then there is nothing to stop the secured loan route being taken.
What I think we are beginning to see is people possibly being forced to take out secured loans if they have equity in the final year. I do not believe that this is in the spirit of the IVA terms and conditions, because if it was it would give this as an option.
Well said Melanie,
This subject has reappeared frequently over the last year or so.
I have posted several times stating that it`s not right nor is it fair that people entering into IVAs not having had any mention from their IP or IVA company that a lengthy, extortionate secured loan could be used as a vehicle to meet equity release, should suddenly find themselves being railroaded into one.
All well and good if the debtor was advised at the outset of the IVA process that such a loan would be a possibility, and entered their IVA fully aware, understanding and agreeing to it,but otherwise it is completely and utterly wrong and really amounts to mis-selling.
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea".