A lot of this will hinge on the word "reasonable" and only a court can define whether that has occurred here.
Your IP has previously lost a court case linked to their interpretation of protocol
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cg ... /1710.html
Part of what the judgement stated "I have therefore come to the view that, even though the Protocol does not give rise to a legally enforceable contract but is no more than a voluntary code of practice..."
Additionally it goes on to state:
Mr Mond expanded on his reasons for this stance in the following passage from that witness statement:
"52. …It [the Protocol] operates and relies upon trust operating between the IVA Provider and the creditors. I am obliged, by the terms of Clause 6.1 of the Protocol, my professional obligations and (it has to be said) my personal long-held view that debtors should have the appropriate advice available to them at all times, to ensure that the debtor received appropriate advice in the light of their circumstances, leading to a proposed course of action to resolve their debt problem. The Protocol has, in my view, emphasised the nature of the advice given to debtors by IVA providers, such that when faced with what appears to be a Protocol-compliant IVA Proposal, the debtor can be satisfied that that is the most appropriate debt solution for the debtor. In those circumstances, unless there are very good reasons to the contrary, the creditor, especially a BBA-member creditor, is expected to vote in favour. The fact that a PCIVA is proposed is almost like a warranty for the IVA Provider that the IVA is appropriate. It is not then for the creditor to second-guess that debtor or the IVA provider. It is certainly not the case that a BBA member should be voting against it for its own selfish (and I would say, against the background of the Protocol, capricious) reasons."
Based on this:
1. The protocol is a lower standard and not too much can be inferred from it. By quoting protocol rather than the relevant Insolvency Act section your IP is seeking to enforce something that is only a voluntary code of practice
2. Your IP has previously acknowledged it only works if you have received the appropriate advice at the time. He has been aware since 2011 of other options but has only chosen to now raise this at the point that your IVA was coming to an end.
I'm afraid this will come down to how hard you are prepared to fight this and whether you can get the tools to fight this.
Given the level of data mining and secondary usage processing that appears to take place within the CDG group and affiliates you appear to be being directed down a sub prime lenders route that they inherently know will leave you potentially taking a loan that will be with you for a number of years.
Additionally the company they have referred you to will add up to 10% in fees to any agreed loan.
The last time I checked the Clear Debt web site mentions nothing about any of this so the only people who are actually informed of this scenario are staff of the company - not its potential clients.
If you go down this route in all written communications where you have to sign add after your signature "Signed based on the written instruction of my IP and name them."
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.
