The VAT issue seemed very confusing with some IPs/IVA companies closing cases and others not and it seems the PPI claims are another case where confusion, lack of information and guidance seems to be causing much uncertainty.
Prehaps it does need The Insolvency Service to step in, as TigerTiger suggests, and give some difinitive guidance.
font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by MelanieGiles
And just a point from me. An IPs advice will always change as new caselaw, legislation or even legal advice also changes. Sometimes this is just as frustrating - perhaps more so - for us as our clients, but to go against that advice would be stupid.
I give up a lot of my time to post on this forum - most of it at unsocial hours. Of late, I am increasingly irritated by tbe style of posting on this forum, and lack of respect to experts such as myself who are genuinely trying to answer queries genuinely raised to the best of our ability. It is such as shame after the five or six years I have been involved with this forum, where many people have been aided by the good work done.
Mel - I for one hope you do not give up posting on the forum. There are a few posters on here who once I read they are involved I give up answering on the thread as their responses are, to me, intimidating. Your advice is always spot on and I am sure the majority of us realise that your (IP's) hands are tied.
I once tried to say on here that in any line of work there is the problem with interpretation of the law and legislation - I spent 18 years dealing with it in my line of work and I used to pull my hair out on a regular basis.
I have completed my IVA in February. My IVA company asked me to voluntarily complete some documents on behalf of a company claiming PPI refunds. I didnt volunteer to do so. One of my erstwhile Creditors added £10,000 to the cost of debt under the guise of insurance. My Solicitors have advised me to make a PPI claim against the erstwhile Creditor. The anticipated PPI payout is a post IVA asset that has nothing to do with the IVA completed arrangement. Where do you stop the contrary argument? What about my dividends from Shares,salary bonuses,Rental profits,etc all accruing to me after my IVA completion. Does it go to the IVA pot retrospectively? If not then why is there so much clamour for PPI payouts post-IVA to remain in the hands of the IP? The IP wants part of the PPI claims, the PPI claim company wants part of the PPI claims and the person who has finished his/her IVA wants part of the PPI claims-where money is involved everyone becomes smarter.
Londoncool, the reason the IP will want the money is that they will say the entitlement to claim existed whilst the IVA was in place and so consequently the claim was always an asset of the IVA - albeit unclaimed til now. There is another aspect to this , however, and you should speak to your solicitor regarding any contingent loss you might have suffered - ie. did the mis-selling cause you to enter the IVA in the first place ? Would you have been insolvent without the mis-selling ? Would your decisions have been different ? Would the advice and choices you had at that time have been different ? The answers to these questions and others may have a monetary value that you should discuss with your solicitor.
Kazzafunk, I think when any industry is beset with problems , it will inevitably undermine all involved. I'm sure there are many ( or at least some ! )well-meaning and proficient bankers - but who would say they have not all been diminished in the eyes of the public following what's gone on ?
Moneyprobs - if you are going to quote my posts back to me please at least read them. Otherwise you'll only end up making yourself look silly!! [:)] might want to take another look at what I said about professionals NOT letting personal opinion cloud their professional judgement. How reassuring you read posts before over-reacting [:)]
font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by TigerTiger
Iamfubb, the mis-selling creditor will benefit more from you making a successful claim in a DMP rather than an IVA. This is because if you are in a DMP or in arrears to the creditor,they will simply reduce the balance you owe by the amount of the claim. However, it's unlikely you would receive any cash in hand to pay a claims company and MOJ advice is that you should handle the claim yourself. At present, if you go into an IVA , it seems most likely that the claim would be treated as an asset to go into the pot and be divided between all creditors. However, if your claim is already under way with a claims company , you should make sure before signing up to anything that the IP will pay out their fees. If you abandoned your claim to enter an IVA you should check that you don't still have a liability to the claims company. If you subsequently restart the claim, as you may be obliged to by your IP, and use the claims company they've contracted with, you may find the net amount going into the pot is reduced by commission to the claims company of anything up to 40%. There may also be a further 'take' by the IP in respect of their fees. The net reduction in what you owe in these circumstances, is important should your IVA fail and you are left owing perhaps a lot more than need have been the case. Hope that helps.
If this is correct, it seems like a very lucrative business for some and like a severe mugging for IVA "clients" Is it legal or even ethical for such practice to occur?
londoncool states that the PPI is a post IVA asset. That is impossible, as it suggests that the insurance was added to the debt after the IVA was completed. The PPI existed at the time of the IVA so it was always an asset, and has not occurred post IVA. If it had, and along with the other income that londoncool describes which is ongoing, then the IVA would not be entitled to a claim on it.
It is to be remenbered that an IVA is an alternative to Bankruptcy, and as such it isn't unfair to ask what would have happened to the PPI post BR. As we all know, it is an asset of the estate and would always belong to the OR not the debtor.
One point though, what size credit agreement attracts a PPI of £10,000? A very large figure for one agreement and no mistake.
Regards.
Cert DR
23+ years in debt advice
I do not post for anyone other than myself
Tiger - you make a new point about contingent loss but it isn't a game changer. Mis-sold PPI didn't make anyone insolvent...voluntarily signing up to debt you couldn't afford makes you insolvent and affordability would have been based on borrowing plus PPI whether you knew it included insurance or not. I'm so curious about why you are keen to divert mis-sold PPI away from creditors and into the pockets of debtors. It had been established PPI is a pre-existing asset so why all the fuss?
I think 'mis-sold' pretty much trumps the concept of 'voluntary' - hence the money being paid back. It would also appear at the moment that a lot of that money is being 'diverted' anyway to IVA and claims companies - if the creditors can live with that , they can live with it going to the customer instead.
Yu missed my point. All debtors with mis-sold PPI included in their repayments agreed they could afford to repay the amount proposed. Therefore the PPI did not lead to insolvency. Poor judgement and/or greed did.
You also didn't answer my question! How the refund is split is a secondary issue to who it should be awarded to.
They may have been under duress at the time they borrowed. It is in any event an unequal relationship between bank and borrower - which is why they're are rules on irresponsible lending. Most research shows people getting into difficulty as a result of loss of income, family breakdown etc - compounded , no doubt, by their 'true' debt being lower than that demanded.It's certainly the case also, borne out not least by some posts to this forum, that if the mis-sold PPI was stripped out of the equation, many people would have had other choices than entering an insolvency solution in the first place.
