We have our creditors meeting on Monday (eek!) but CCCSVA have been in touch because a firm acting on behalf of around half of our creditors have already asked for a 13 pound uplift on our proposed IVA repayment.
They are adamant about it by all accounts, unless we provide them with our work postcode etc.
Since there is a shorter route to work (which they will no doubt deduce once they enter it into Google Earth) I've opted to agree to the uplift. It is odd though, as anyone with any local knowledge will know that the shortest route is gridlocked every single day both to and from work. That is why we always travel 'route B' which is longer, but much quieter.
The notion that someone in an office somewhere else in the country can recommend a shorter way for us to get to work without any local knowledge is preposterous!
I just hope it stops at the 13 pound uplift as we can ill afford any more than that.
Oh, they also said that breakdown cover 'should' come out of car servicing allowance. Is it just me or is this insane? I didn't realise the AA would service your car on the roadside after repairing it.
Are these people acting on behalf of creditors being deliberately obtuse?
Last edited by Imhotep on Fri Nov 19, 2010 11:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Shaving a few pounds off your petrol allowance because they think they can find you a quicker way to work is bizarre- what do they think will happen if petrol prices increase again?
I'd give your arguments clearly and in detail to your IP and see if he can fight your corner. Could I ask which representative this is?
Last edited by liamjames on Fri Nov 19, 2010 11:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
I've no idea who they are but they are representing NatWest, HSBC and AA off the top of my head.
I've already agreed to the uplift in principal as I'd rather that than lose potentially more from the fuel allowance because of their lack of local knowledge.
Last edited by Imhotep on Fri Nov 19, 2010 11:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
It seems a bit strange that the CCCS are being asked for an uplift when the IVA proposals are supposed to be based on the CCCS guidelines!! Either their proposal does not adhere to the guidelines or the voting creditor is ignoring them.
However, a £13 uplift seems ludicrous based on a shorter route and breakdown cover is not unreasonable. The CCCS should fight your corner and if unsuccessful maybe they can amend their 'guidelines' to reflect reality.
We are finding that Tix are often ignoring guidelines. I have a chairmans report on my desk where they have reduced the telephone allowance even though it is well within CCCS guidelines.
I agree with Michael, CCCSVA should fight your case here as is quite a silly uplift. Surely Tix would rather have a sustainable case rather than asking for increases and making Imhotep struggle?
If you have a car which is reasonable old, I would argue that breakdown cover is a sound expenditure as it will save you unexpected costs in the long run
Thanks for that, a quick Google confirms that they do indeed seem to be notorious for asking for uplifts. They seem to have an 'analytical' approach to requesting uplifts. I wonder how many IVAs are jepardised annually because of uplifts.
Our car is 4 years old (06 plate).
Michael:
Good point, I suspect the latter. They are supposed to very firm about this uplift.
CCCSVA have been very good about this IMO. But I do worry that if someone else turns around on Monday asking for an even higher uplift and are also 'firm' about it we will not be able to pursue an IVA as it will be destined to failure.
I worry about what else they'll 'demand' over the next 5-6 years.
Last edited by Imhotep on Fri Nov 19, 2010 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
I have seen some research where is was something like 1 in 3 cases with an uplift, the client ends up in arrears in the first year, so it seems very counter productive to me, but I have had many an argument with Tix to no avail.
If CCCSVA are unable to remove the uplift, don't forget that your Supervisor has the discretion to lower your payments by up to 15% without going back to creditors, so if does prove a struggle speak to your IP.
I'm sort of glad it turned out this way though. If any other creditors turn around on Monday and ask for an uplift I've already agreed to 13 quid extra.
Anything can happen at the meeting, your proposal is just a proposal after all.
Hi
When you consider that an IVA is based on 100% of disposable income over five years and yet bankruptcy only 50-70% over three years, you wonder why some creditors squeeze the expenditure so much given the fact that they will receive a far better return than in bankruptcy.
Constant uplifts by voting teams may encourage loaded expenses, surely an IPs word is good enough ? and as long as they are within guidelines they shouldn't be changed.
As we have said before having guidelines for fuel expenses is quite ridiculous
We rarely get uplift requests from TiX - so it interesting to see that other firms are experiencing difficulties. I suggest that your IP reminds TiX that there is going to be a VAT increase in January, and therefore an uplift is not appropriate.
