I suspect that ClearDebt are able to make the application without your permission, given that they are the beneficiary of any asset which may be recovered - so long as the correct provisions are present in your IVA which I am sure would be the case. Clearly, howeverm it is always better to address these issue with the full involvement and co-operation of our clients - in which case authority would be helpful to them.
At the end of the day, you are the only person who can determine whether PPI was actually mis-sold, so even if they discover accounts which had PPI included, you still have to provide your own input about your recollections of the way this was sold to you.
Unfortunately I am not sure we are going to see any end to this situation anytime soon either. Hopefully if you have a good IP who appreciates the term "valid claim" then you should not be pushed into making false claims. It would be great if new rules on this came out for IPs to give consistency and ease the varying levels of upset and frustration for clients but I don't think it is forthcoming so persevere with your chosen IPs and if necessary act on their internal complaints procedure although issues shouldn't get to that stage.
Regards, Tina Shortland, Debt Advisory Manager for Melanie Giles at Debt Advice TV.
If you’re looking for effective debt related information, articles and news, then go now to our on-line advice service at www.debtadvicetv.com
If you’re ready to ask us for specific advice or help, then get in touch at www.call-me.debtadvicetv.com so you can start to free yourself from the stress and anxiety of overwhelming debt.
Melanie, what would you call the correct provision? I started my IVA before any PPI claims were such a hot topic. I also made claims for PPI 's to be refunded before I entered into an IVA which were not upheld.
I have to respectfully disagree with Melanie where she says “you are the only person who can determine whether PPI was actually mis-sold”. This is not the case. Simply being aware of having PPI does not preclude mis-selling.
There are a wide variety of reasons a policy may have been mis-sold regardless of the thoughts of the individual. Certain policies are now banned products which have automatically been mis-sold. There are also many different policy types which on inspection demonstrate that they are not appropriate for the individual – as such they have been mis-sold regardless of the individual’s own opinions.
This is an area which continues to crop up on the forum and you are right that there is a large amount of confusion which stems from a large number of firms either not having a policy or not having fully considered the implications of that policy. ClearDebt’s is very straightforward, unambiguous and is applied fairly and consistently to all cases.
It is only possible for your Supervisor to declare to your creditors that all assets have been realised and all claims fulfilled after and until an investigation has been thoroughly conducted by a neutral party approved by the Supervisor. For assisting with this the Supervisor has agreed to pay the first £500 of claims received into the estate as a goodwill gesture.
In this way your Supervisor is ensuring that he is fulfilling his obligations to creditors in a way that the firms saying “speak to this claims company if you like or sign this form saying you don’t think you have any claims” are not.
Given that there seems to be agreement that compensation for mis-sold PPI must form part of the IVA estate, without investigation how can any Supervisor issue a final report confirming successful completion of the IVA without knowing if claims remain outstanding or have even been paid directly to the individual without the Supervisor’s knowledge? Not to mention the issue of a creditor potentially attempting to set off the compensation against a claim within the IVA and not submitting a revised proof of debt.
My personal belief is that Insolvency Practitioners who do not adopt a policy similar to that of ClearDebt’s will soon find themselves in difficulties with creditors and regulators alike.
Also, on the point made by savvasandreas, my understanding is that you cannot have 2 insolvencies running concurrently. Melanie is correct that the Bankruptcy clerk will need to write to the Supervisor to ensure that he/she has no objections. I don’t know anything about your own case but if there is potentially money available from assets for your IVA, why would you not allow this to be investigated prior to going bankrupt as this could change the dynamics of your situation completely?
Regards, David Mond, Insolvency Practitioner for over 46 years. Personal Insolvency Practitioner of the year 2012, Personal Insolvency Practitioner of the year finalist 2013 & 2014 awarded by Insolvency & Rescue Magazine and 2015 finalist for Personal Insolvency Firm of the Year.
My take Andy is that the PPI mis-selling saga has produced an asset which forms part of an IVA estate.
It is no different from any other asset and I don't know why the issue has blown up out of all proportion - me-thinks an attempt by some to attempt to argue that this item is nothing at all to do with anyones IVA and is somehow exempt.
Why should there be an Insolvency Service directive on this?
The Ministry of Justice has (in there June 2012 Business Bulletin No 15) indicated the following:
"If a PPI policy was mis-sold before the date of a client's bankruptcy,any claim is owned by the official receiver or trustee, not the individual. Even if they have since been discharged, the claim does not revert back to the individual."
Whether a Bankrupt or someone in an IVA - there is no difference.
`
Regards, David Mond, Insolvency Practitioner for over 46 years. Personal Insolvency Practitioner of the year 2012, Personal Insolvency Practitioner of the year finalist 2013 & 2014 awarded by Insolvency & Rescue Magazine and 2015 finalist for Personal Insolvency Firm of the Year.
Andy - Not a clue - ask their IP? Maybe and maybe as the whole CCCS idea was the culmination of discussions years ago with the setting up of same for the benefit of the banks there may be some form of tacit approval not to persue them - remember banks refer most of their deliquent cases to CCCS!
Also have you ever considered why CCCS VA do so few IVA's compared to the huge numbers of DMP's.
Heretoday - the "shareholders" of CCCS are the Banks who receive the payments from them - who then in turn pay CCCS a commission!
Regards
David
Regards, David Mond, Insolvency Practitioner for over 46 years. Personal Insolvency Practitioner of the year 2012, Personal Insolvency Practitioner of the year finalist 2013 & 2014 awarded by Insolvency & Rescue Magazine and 2015 finalist for Personal Insolvency Firm of the Year.
font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by David Mond
The Ministry of Justice has (in there June 2012 Business Bulletin No 15) indicated the following:
"If a PPI policy was mis-sold before the date of a client's bankruptcy,any claim is owned by the official receiver or trustee, not the individual. Even if they have since been discharged, the claim does not revert back to the individual."
Whether a Bankrupt or someone in an IVA - there is no difference.
`
Sorry David but so far I have found your take on this to be quite patronizing, I am quite glad I am with a different company, If someone knows they were not mis sold and they even requested it how can you then say they do not know what they are signing up to.
I was led to believe an IVA was not bankruptcy hence the fact you do not see the OR, so how can you put them together now, I see the work 'bankruptcy' in your quote not the word IVA
Last edited by Pandy on Fri Sep 28, 2012 9:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
If life is what you make it, I must have been in a strange mood when I made mine
font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by David Mond
..................
It is no different from any other asset and I don't know why the issue has blown up out of all proportion - me-thinks an attempt by some to attempt to argue that this item is nothing at all to do with anyones IVA and is somehow exempt.
....................
`
I disagree with your thoughts here. the vast majority are content for PPI refunds to go into the IVA. The issue is that those who were nearing completion are now waiting up to 12 months for a completion certificate. There should (could) be a mechanism ii place to allow the IVA to complete as scheduled and for the IP to then act as residual Trustee for the distribution of PPI in due course.
There is also an issue with the Turpinesque fees these claims companies are taking and, therefore denying this amount to the creditors.
Finally, there is an issue with the heavy handed way some firms have been dealing with this, dropping it from a great height on debtors and generally laying waste to plans which g=have been 5 years or so in the making!
My opinions are merely that .. opinions based on experience. Always seek professional advice.
IVA Completed 23rd July 2013 .... C.C. 10th January 2014
One point that seems to missed is that each file needs to be audited as quite often people are unaware that they have PPI which is one of the reasons for it being miss sold. We are offering this service to IPs and it is not realised that the claim apsect that a claims company would usually do is only about a 1/3 of the total work. We audit each file and then actively look for PPI. This is the bulk of the work load to process these claims.
All views expressed are my own personal views. Without prejudice
Jamie - I think with your original post way back in March you led us to believe that you were reclaiming PPI - now you tell us that you work for a firm that does PPI?
