just wondering when someone is going to sort out the iva and ppi issues that are all over this forum. It seems to me that there needs to be some kind of documentation that all companies are legally bound to use. Nobody knew that ppi was going to rear its ugly head and surely because this was a surprise to everybody it would have been better to share the monies gained out equally to everyone concerned. Instead the IVA gets most of it, well the creditors dont i think it may be companies such as grant thornton who are making a tasty profit. Roll on the day when somebody takes them on and sees just how much money they have made from this from each customer!!! its disgusting everything should be equal!!!
What particular issues are concerning you personally? IPs received guidance from their regulators a month or so ago, so I don't feel that there is anything remaining to sort out with regard to the law and process.
What do you mean about things being equal? Is it fair for creditors to write off substantial amounts of debt and then allow you to keep assets which are included into the IVA? Not quite sure what point you are actually getting at here?
I think the point being made here, Mel, is that, despite the guidance issued ( which is, after all, ONLY guidance), many IP's still treat PPI differently: Some don't want to know, some allow the debtor to retain the interest, some allow you to retain the first £500, many keep the lot, some change their approach mid-stream ...and on... and on ....
And, of course, some take two weeks to close down a case whilst others take two years, using PPI as an explanation.
Last edited by Foggy on Thu Jun 06, 2013 8:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
My opinions are merely that .. opinions based on experience. Always seek professional advice.
IVA Completed 23rd July 2013 .... C.C. 10th January 2014
thankyou foggy that is exactly what i meant. People seem to be being treated differently in the iva companies, which does not seem fair. This is what needs sorting out. Different companies may give the creditors different percentages of the PPi payout. I wonder how much money is going to the creditors compared to the iva company pot!!!!!
I have it in writing that "Stepchange" allow you to keep the first £500 of any claim. They treat it as a windfall. I guess they do this because it was not something that was on the radar a few years ago and basically shouldn't be counted as anything else. It is something that wasn't planned therefore a windfall.
If everyone else followed them, most IVA claimants would be happy. Enough said.
I agree Sterling,many people in a current IVA or just out of one would relish a £500 windfall and this would mean that many more people would co-operate, speeding up the whole process
Well done to StepChange and why is there not one uniform way that all IP's deal with PPI claims ??
PPI is not a windfall and Stepchange cannot treat it as such. Perhaps they are giving their clients a £500 sweetener to buy their co-operation - but at least it appears they are now doing something about the PPI in their portfolio. I know that other firms have taken the same approach, but only in defined asset cases.
There is a very clear way which IPs have been advised to deal with PPI. Those who deviate from such guidance, or bully their clients into paying over money to which they are not entitled, even with a sweetener behind it, do so at their peril - it can only be a matter of time before someone challenges this as unfair treatment.
As you say Mel the IPs have been advised of a clear way to deal with PPI but from the forum it seems that everyone is still being treated differently"" If EIC is a branch off/company related to grant thornton, surely GT are getting a higher percentage of return than maybe even the creditors themselves. They are the people we want to pay back, not the middle man to get richer!!
GT, nor any other IP firm, can profit from the handling of PPI claims. Any monies which are agreed to be paid for referrals, must be paid into the IVA estate - of course IPs can then draw their fees on realisations, rightly so as we are all having to do a lot more work now.
It's not often I have to disagree with Melanie, but on this occassion I have to.
Stepchange ARE treating it as a windfall and I disagree that they are giving a sweetener of £500 to have clients follow it up.
If it was my money in my account originally, and was paid out negligently, why am I not entitled to some of it back? I fully understand the need to pay as much to your IVA as possible, but surely this is similar to finding an old building society account with more than £500 in it. In that instance, I assume I keep £500, the rest gets paid over.
It is not me you are disagreeing with stirling, but the whole of the insolvency legal network in the UK. PPI which was mis-sold on debts which existed at the time the IVA was entered into is an asset which existed at that time, and not a windfall. On this occasion, I am afraid I have to say that StepChange are wrong - if you understand this is what they are doing. I know their IP quite well, so I will confirm their position with her directly.
As an aside, the £500 windfall limit only applies if the windfall is lower than £500 - it doesn't mean that you can keep the first £500 of any windfall received. Unless of course your own IVA proposal is worded in the manner of allowing this - which would be very unusual. So in your example of the building society account, you would have to pay all of the money over and not be able to retain the first £500.
I am with Stepchange myself and nothing has ever been mentioned about keeping £500 of PPI claims.
When I took the IVA out I knew, and Stepchange was informed, that I was due to a "cashback" as part of the PPI I had with Barclays. When it was paid to me I paid the full amount to Stepchange.
Since tanking out the IVA, I was made aware that I was due a payment from a life assurance policy which I informed Stepchange of and I received the payment of this amout (around £4200) a couple of months ago.
This was paid to Stepchange apart from an amount of £500 which stepchange allowed me to keep as I have had to pay around £1200 in parts and work to my car since getting it last year and it meant I was constantly well into the £500 overdraft facility on my bank account.
Barclays then made me aware of me being able to make an extra claim for the interest on the PPI as they had "loaded" it onto the loan when it was taken and, with Stepchanges approval, they have agreed to amend the loan amount to what it would have been without PPI and it's interest (reducing future loan repayments) and send a cheque for around £900 payable to Stepchange for the difference.
Yes it would have been nice to keep all or even some of these amounts as it was going to fund vehicle replacements and a notable birthday holiday but owing money as I do to my creditors it is only fair they get back as much as I can "reasonably" afford to pay over.
The only thing I do not agree with is if any of the IVA companies have set up their own PPI reclaim companies then charge 40% or so fees for the recovery on top of 15% or so for their IVA fees then "force" or "coerce" their clients to use these companies.
that is fine melanie if the companies are not claiming over 40%, it just means that the creditors get less money. I realise you work extremely hard, but why should not so ethical companies take a large cut before our creditors get the money back. We signed up with IVAs in the first place to give them back as much as we could, didnt we?????
If ips received guidance months ago why is it that FJ are telling me that their whole company is on freeze whilst they wait for the legal team to get their position on the ppi issues? Are they lying to us?
Different companies are taking their own legal advice and, as none of this has yet been tested by the courts, there is no precedent. So each company is relying on their own, sometimes contradictory, legal opinion.
These companies have spent a lot on obtaining this opinion, but, whatever the cost and the credentials of the counsel concerned, at this juncture it IS merely opinion.
No one is lying, per se, Tony, but not everyone will be proved right in the end.
My opinions are merely that .. opinions based on experience. Always seek professional advice.
IVA Completed 23rd July 2013 .... C.C. 10th January 2014
