This has always bothered me .... £300 per IVA for a "meeting" which doesn't actually take place !
To an extent I can see why an IP charges for arranging a variation meeting to cover the extra work involved .. but in an MVM such as this there is only one set of work and a photocopier. Every £300 over the first one is largely "profit".
My opinions are merely that .. opinions based on experience. Always seek professional advice.
IVA Completed 23rd July 2013 .... C.C. 10th January 2014
We still have not seen anything yet but the £300 was quoted in another post.
Remember that it was not just ex PJG clients that were being contacted.
IVA started March 2011, Completed March 2016 and certificate issued 11 days after final payment. It was not always easy but then some of the best decisions aren't.
It is not just the variation fee that will be making easy money. Assuming Melanie's average case was £250 per month then total contributions [excluding equity, extensions, uplifts, bonuses etc] would be £15,000. The nominee usually get the first five payments[£1250] and the supervisor gets 15% of the rest i.e £15,000-£1250=£13750x15% which equates to £2062.50. The CF variation asks for 23% 'of realisations' which means the entire 'pot' Therefore CF get £15,000x23% which is £3450.
If this is the case then CF are getting £1387.50 extra per case [plus a variation fee if one has been charged] excluding the extra fees charged for the other items above. Multiply that by 900 cases and you can see why CF can make a profit on the cases whereas Melanie could not.
Fees from us would be £200 per month assuming that it is 20%.
The wording is so bad from CF that you would have to be an IP to actually understand what was being asked for - therefore informed consent has not been obtained.
IVA started March 2011, Completed March 2016 and certificate issued 11 days after final payment. It was not always easy but then some of the best decisions aren't.
Lifenoteasy.
If you are paying ££1,000 per month fror 60 monthly then Melanie's fee would probably have been £8250 i.e £60k less £5k nominee fee x 15%. If CF get 20% of all realisation then they would get £12,000 for supervision which is one hell of a jump!
It would probably be closer to £10k as there was a phased increase over the years.
I don't disagree with you and CF have not explained any of this in those terms which leads for grounds of complaint to the Insolvency Service.
Look up the exchange that Foggy and I had around what makes an IVA viable from an IP's perspective if the IP wanted a £40 pa income.
IVA started March 2011, Completed March 2016 and certificate issued 11 days after final payment. It was not always easy but then some of the best decisions aren't.
I did see that and the figures were not too far out. However it also has to be taken into account that a number of IVAs fail with little or no money paid in and this cost has to be borne by the IP firm. The profit margins are low and while some cases run smoothly and require little supervision this is not always the case and many need constant attention.
As a result most IPs will take on corporate and bankruptcy work which is better paid. This often subsidises their IVA work and I know that was the case for Melanie. Had she been relying on her income from IVAs she may well have ended up as one of her own clients!
That was the gist of what we getting at - most IVA's are not cost effective from an IP view if they do not realise over £120 per month in fees.
The way that it has developed suggests that unless IVA companies heavily invest in new systems e.g. electronic self assessment returns they will need to employ more staff therefore forcing them to seek new income streams.
IVA started March 2011, Completed March 2016 and certificate issued 11 days after final payment. It was not always easy but then some of the best decisions aren't.
I'm not going to read through the 8 pages of replies to this LOL, but will add my two pennorthworth,
We got the same letter, with the same twaddle that they had postponed the original meeting, that they had heard back that a few people hadn't received the new chairman's reports etc., Hmm me thinks its a white lie...no one has had them.
The wording on the report is basically similar to the T&Cs that they sent out last year, that none of us signed....the only thing they say that the creditors refused was that 50% of the PPI could not be retained by us, that it all has to be paid over. Which, come on, we all knew that really anyway. What creditor is going to let us have 50% of any money that comes in.
With regards to my previous post, I have received a response from Greg, he states that there have been a “few” complaints regarding this issue and has passed my email onto Emma Muir in the compliance department. I received a 2nd email this morning from a Valerie Fyffe, of the compliance department, stating that the “matters” raised by me will be reviewed by this office and a response will be issued to me in 14 days.
I think more complaints are needed, they will have to listen and take action if there are more than just a “few”, especially with threats to report them to the IPA. Valerie Fyffe’s email address is below.
I still haven't had a letter! not sure I can complain until then? mind you they didn't tell us about the meeting so maybe I am expected to know my T&C's have changed too
