told we had 30 mins to accept arrangements

[welshman]

i have read so many posts over the past few months about DFD and bad advice. Can someone please tell me why they have not been brought to book on all this and prevented from trading? surely there is some sort of watchdog who can stop them continually giving out this bad advice and leading people to do things they shouldn't?

[ianmillington]

Basically the licenses are issued to the individual IPs, so it's a matter for the individual IPs regulator. Compliance with SIP3 is a factor that the regulators will take account of in determining whether or not an IP should keep his license. At this point there are no sanctions against the company per se although if one of the IPs in a firm gets struck off it's reputation will go right down the pan.

I have said this on a number of occasions (and yes Melanie I know it's no excuse[:)]) but the IP him or herself is probably blissfully unaware of the issue. I have come to the conclusion that small is beautiful and definitely safest for IP and debtor alike.

Going back to Andy's original post, he's in a VA that he's struggling to maintain. Andy, have you considered asking the Supervisor to approach the creditors to agree a variation?

Ian

[MelanieGiles]

I personally wish that our regualators would spend more time looking at the way we procure our work, provide advice to our clients and how we manage our clients' decision process, rather than have we reconciled our bank accounts every month and filed an annual report on time that no-one reads.

Ian is absolutely right about the IP retaining control of his/her caseload - and a smaller, more specialist provider would have been unlikely to have treated you in the manner you appear to have encountered.

It is worth looking at whether a variation to the original terms is more sensible than bankruptcy - if you feel that you can continue to work with your current provider.

[Lord Soth]

I too was made to feel under pressure by being asked to accept modifications over the phone. I refused saying I wanted time to consider them properly. I asked if I would be jeoparding (where's the spellchecker when you need it?) my proposal and although this was confirmed, they clearly wanted an immediate answer. I was tempted to agree there and then but I also knew I really needed to reflect further away from pressure; after all, the IVA is for at least 60 months. The proposal was accepted later in the day when my IP rejected a number of modifications and only accepted those around fees, and these didn't affect me directly.

[ajc]

Here is what SIP3 (Statement of Insolvency Practice 3) says on the subject (remember though that it's best practice and not the law)

"The nominee should request the debtor to attend the creditors’ meeting
in order to answer questions and to give consideration to proposed
modifications. If the debtor is not available to consider modifications which
are proposed, the meeting will have to be adjourned as his consent to them is
required by law."

Whilst you were available to discuss the modifications, if you wanted time to consider them then the Nominee would have been well advised to adjourn the meeting. However, the maximum period for which the meeting can be adjourned is 14 days. If not approved within that period the IVA is deemed to have been rejected. Was there an earlier adjournment Andy?

Ian

There was no adjournment, we were simply told we had to make a decision in 30 mins, i was given the clear impression that if we said no then that was the end of being acepted for an IVA

[ianmillington]

Ok, understood. It would appear to be the act of an over-zealous meeting clerk. If the modifications are read out to you and you understand and accept them that's one thing.

To say you only have 30 minutes to agree IVA mods, with the inference that it will collapse if not accepted in that timescale, is quite another. It is naughty in the extreme. You could complain to the IPs regulator about it, but I'm afraid that won't solve the real problem that you cannot currently afford the payments.

Where now? I think it's important to take stock and reflect on where you want to be. So far as the IVA is concerned, it's one down 4 to go. What do you do for a living, and would it be affected if you went bankrupt? Remember also that unless you are on benefit it takes about £500 per person to go bankrupt so you need to factor that in as well.

How much can you realistically afford to pay? If your IVA were to be varied to accommodate this, would that be a sensible solution? In that case, your best solution must be to try to work with your IP to propose a workable variation.

Ian

[ajc]

Thanks Ian

We now have secured debts of 66000 plus the IVA of approx 36000 with 30000 eqiuty in our property
I can only see BR as a solution
Andy

[outofpocket]

Hi,
I think the biggest problem we have is that iva's are a good money making business. I am not tarnishing them all with the same brush, as we see on this forum there are people who really care. I would like to say that ours was adjourned because of the fees.

I couldn't agree more, small seems to be more caring than the big established companied.

[ianmillington]

Andy

Do I read your last post right - you have £30k equity in your property? Is this before or after the secured loans? i.e is there negative equity of £36k? If you actually have £30k equity, I'm struggling to see bankruptcy as a sensible solution.

I think before you have a knee-jerk reaction (that you might regret later on) you need to look at your income and expenditure and see how much you can afford to begin with. It might make sense to have a face to face meeting with a local IP to talk you through all the options.

Ian

[MelanieGiles]

Or even better - a face to face meeting with your own IP to see if you can thrash out a variation to the original terms. If you refer to the poor way your creditors meeting was handled, this might encourage a favourable and helpful repsonse.

[ianmillington]

Can't argue with that