Basically, it's an asset. If you had 10k sat in your bank account prior to going into the IVA the creditors would expect that paid in, in return for the chunk you are asking them to write off at the end -- they look on PPI the same way.
My opinions are merely that .. opinions based on experience. Always seek professional advice.
IVA Completed 23rd July 2013 .... C.C. 10th January 2014
The definition comes from the actual IVA proposal itself - in terms of whether it is an "all-assets" proposal or a "defined assets" proposal. In brief, the all-assets provisions seek to pledge all of your assets into the IVA, apart from those which are expressly excluded - in which case the PPI reclaim is deemed to be an asset due to the IVA, on grounds that you became entitled to it at the point of sale. If your proposal does not include all-assets provisioning, and the potential for a PPI claim is not covered within the proposal, then the asset is probably yours to keep. PPI reclaims can never be windfalls, unless in the unlikely event you were sold a policy after your IVA had commenced.
In many IP practices, IPs will have a combination of all-assets and defined assets cases - so this does need to be checked on an individual basis directly with your own IP. If your IVA has the standard R3 Terms and Conditions - there is all-asset provisioning alreadu built in. Knowing the firm you are with Danny - I thing that they do use R3 terms, in which case the PPI will be an asset and payable in full into the IVA, less the tax on the interest element which you will need to account directly to HMRC for.
That's interesting Melanie. I was speaking with an IP last week after the guidance notes on PPI mis-selling claims guidance notes came out and he was very much in the mind that PPI should be classed as a windfall and that it how he is treating them currently.
Then I would suggest that he may have misunderstood Clare. Have you read the guidance issued? - happy to send you a copy if you want to mail me. I was instrumental in assisting the regulators in formulating the guidance on PPI, so I am afraid I have rather lived and breathed if over the last few months.
Thank you. As I understand it, the guidance notes are literally 'guidance notes' and should be treated as such? In para 1.3 it states 'This guidance does not consitute legal advice nor does it seek to instruct or direct IP's in the administration of their insolvency cases'.
Therefore, treating PPI as a windfall is still ok?
The leading Counsel who advised me says absolutely not Clare.
The nature of the asset is a principle of fact, and not open to individual interpretation. I don't think that an individual IP can make a discretionary decision based on a principle of fact, but I guess it is up to your guy what he does in his own cases, and hopefully no clients will be prejudiced by his decisions. Is he acting with the benefit of legal advice?
I'd be happy to bounce this one off the regulatory committee for you, if you want to send me some details off-line.
Going off Foggys point, if it was cash in the bank then yes I understand there would be a requirement to pay it into the pot. But as has been agreed by all it is classed as an asset but an unrealised asset and I cannot find anything within my documentation which says there is a requirement to liquidate un realised assets to release equity.
I think its confusing that for some who say they were not miss sold PPI its not an asset yet for others its an asset, it should be the same rule for all..
Also why do some class a PPI reclaim as compensation as the bulk of it is not it is in fact a refund, the only element which is compensation is the stat interest...
Good points Nickjohn -- until I was corrected by Counsels opinion (which, incidentally, is, at this stage, ONLY an opinion)I was of the mind that an asset only exists at the point it is a tangible asset --- how come something like PPI be an asset as it's very existence is unknown.
Just like an inheritance, until the donor dies, or until you make a valid claim in the case of PPI, there is only the potential of an inheritance or asset --- yet these are treated differently as to their realisation dates.
Simplest thing to have done is a blanket ruling that PPI cannot be claimed upon a debt that was subject to an IVA, unless that debt was settled in full.
My opinions are merely that .. opinions based on experience. Always seek professional advice.
IVA Completed 23rd July 2013 .... C.C. 10th January 2014
Hi Foggy. I am just getting fed up of the whole issue. I made my own claim and stuck it all in the IVA pot (nearly £10k inc the interest) but I do feel that the IP's have handled it all very badly and have seen it as an opportunity to make some extra fees as opposed to pushing hard to get more back to the creditors, if they were just thinking of the creditors best interests then why not handle the claims in house and not give away anything up to 40% to claims chasers.
There is talk about it being an asset and as such it must be put into the IVA yet I have a buy to let property and at no time have I been asked to sell it yet there is more equity in it than my PPI refund, the IP knows all about it and it was fully covered within my original documentation yet I still have it and can sell it once my IVA completes (well at least I think I can sell it, there appear to be no restrictions on it within my documentation).
I, along with others, now have to suffer the calls from "Creditfix trading as EIC".
The recent ones go along the lines of; phone rings I answer, an automated voices says " thank you for calling Creditifx trading as EIC, all our operators are busy at the moment but if you would like us to call you back please press button 1" surprise surprise I do not press button 1....
font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by Foggy
Good points Nickjohn -- until I was corrected by Counsels opinion (which, incidentally, is, at this stage, ONLY an opinion)I was of the mind that an asset only exists at the point it is a tangible asset --- how come something like PPI be an asset as it's very existence is unknown.
Just like an inheritance, until the donor dies, or until you make a valid claim in the case of PPI, there is only the potential of an inheritance or asset --- yet these are treated differently as to their realisation dates.
Simplest thing to have done is a blanket ruling that PPI cannot be claimed upon a debt that was subject to an IVA, unless that debt was settled in full.
To pick up on your point about "counsels opinion".
One of the reasons I got into debt was a property deal which a third party shafted me on. I took solicitors advice and, expensive, counsels advice. After reviewing the facts his "opinion" was I had an open and shut case and to take it all to court. My legals fees got to £40k and I lost, his opinion was not the same as the judge so I hold no sway in counsels opinion I only believe something once its been to court and been proven......
I have been getting a few automated voices on the phone recently, but I have no idea what they are about as I hang up on the first word ! Maybe they are after me too !!!
My opinions are merely that .. opinions based on experience. Always seek professional advice.
IVA Completed 23rd July 2013 .... C.C. 10th January 2014
Interesting discussions, all of which have circulated around IPs board room tables, in conference with fairly senior Counsel and ultimately with the joint regulators. Just a couple of points to clarify:-
1 The PPI has to be mis-sold to be able to reclaim, either because the person did not want it or specifically request it - or it was sold inappropriately to someone who would never be able to submit a claim for the purpose for which it was sold.
2 Tangible and intangible assets are treated in the same way under insolvency proceedings generally
3 Some IP firms do do the claims work themselves, or have established specialist associated companies to act as claims management companies to thus keep the costs to a minimum and hence the returns to creditors to the minimum. A separate license from the MOJ is required to do this, so IPs without said license would not be authorised to act in claims management.
I guess the PPI debate will rage onwards, and the guidance is pretty clear - however it could all change if someone decided to challenge their IPs decision. If a Court ruled against the guidance, and we won't know whether it will unless it is tested, then it could be all change - and we would be in a Paymex situation all over again.
