GT Spotty letter

Get expert opinion. This is the place for new questions to be posted.
18 posts Page 1 of 2
 
 

jeffw

User avatar
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 5:25 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Post by jeffw » Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:39 pm
I'm not sure if I am reading the spotted letter correctly or just a misunderstanding on my behalf.

I/we are GT refugees inherited from BE. [V]

Our original BE proposal's shows fees/costs etc and the totals for these to be paid.

GT's fees/costs however are double to what it shows on our original proposal's.
GT claim I/we agreed to their terms of 25% when they took over from BE.
Considering we only ever received a letter from GT informing us they were taking over and we never signed anything in the process.
I have never agreed to 25% fees etc neither has my wife.

I have asked GT continuously since last August to provide me with proof of where and when I/we agreed to their 25% fees etc.
After numerous phone calls and e-mails GT finally send me an e-mail claiming my wife agreed to their terms on-line.
Now I know GT are telling porkies as my dear wife has never in her life turned a computer on, and to this day wouldn't know where to start.
GT are also now asking me to provide them with details on how and when I agreed to their terms.
I/WE NEVER DID AGREE.

Back to the spotty letter.

Page 3 paragraph 3 reads as follows;

Any additional funds received (including any VAT refunds or successful PPI payments or similar claims), will be subject to deduction of Supervisor fees at the prevailing rate or 15% (whichever is the greater), and also properly incurred third party costs.
Any restrictions or caps on fees or disbursements included in the terms of the IVA shall no longer apply.

Does the above paragraph mean that GT will at last be able to freely charge what they want and sneaked this in to get it signed.
 
 

MerlinL14

User avatar
Posts: 1626
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 2:44 pm
Location:

Post by MerlinL14 » Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:09 pm
Reference Page 3 para3, yes and no. Yes if both the creditors and debtor agree to the variation, no if the number of voters who vote NO are greater than those who vote yes (or maybe not!).
Last Payment made 04/12/14. Completion Certificate 25/7/15. IVA company GT. No Issues
 
 

jeffw

User avatar
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 5:25 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Post by jeffw » Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:19 pm
MerlinL14, Page 7 also states;

If you do not respond or say "NO" to this proposal your IVA will remain on your original terms and conditions.
We will unfortunately not be unable to apply the flexibility of our updated terms and conditions to your arrangement should the need arise in the future; also this could delay your closure until final legal guidance is issued on PPI.
 
 

Foggy

User avatar
Posts: 33395
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:14 am
Location: United Kingdom

Post by Foggy » Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:38 pm
There is a bit of wartime legerdemain going on here --- in times of war, or public upheaval, governments (principally) used the smoke and mirrors of such events to sneak through legislation they knew would be unpopular, if noticed, while attention was directed elsewhere. [;)]
My opinions are merely that .. opinions based on experience. Always seek professional advice.
IVA Completed 23rd July 2013 .... C.C. 10th January 2014
 
 

nickjohn

User avatar
Posts: 969
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 11:27 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Post by nickjohn » Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:02 pm
font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by MerlinL14

Reference Page 3 para3, yes and no. Yes if both the creditors and debtor agree to the variation, no if the number of voters who vote NO are greater than those who vote yes (or maybe not!).
Hi Merlin, do you have a copy of the letter and proposed terms variation..

The reason I ask is that the proposed variations are not for you to agree to as they are not off GT, they are actually written by GT on your behalf and you are being asked to submit them to, I assume, the creditors.

The top of the page says it all "To enable the IVA to be progressed and concluded to the satisfaction of creditors, I (the debtor) have proposed a number of variations to the proposal as originally approved."

Also within item 4 it clearly says that "irrespective of whether or not these modifications are accepted by creditors the debtor shall, by proposing them, be deemed to have provided and irrevocable authority to the supervisor" so it is irrelevant if the creditors agree as you are giving carte blanche to GT just by agreeing to the variations....

Unless, of course, I am getting completely the wrong end of the stick here......
 
 

nickjohn

User avatar
Posts: 969
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 11:27 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Post by nickjohn » Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:06 pm
font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by Foggy

There is a bit of wartime legerdemain going on here --- in times of war, or public upheaval, governments (principally) used the smoke and mirrors of such events to sneak through legislation they knew would be unpopular, if noticed, while attention was directed elsewhere. [;)]
From what I have seen everyone is blinded by the carrot on a stick of receiving Stat Interest back, they have not realised it is not retrospective nor applied to cases started but not completed, it will only apply to future claims.

Also they fail to see that they are agreeing to fees being deducted from the stat interest, on my calculation if you were to get £800 interest in a PPI claim then there would be 35% taken by the claims company and 15% by GT so you end up with circa £442 (55% ish) not the 100% people perceive.

But, as I have said before, I may be wrong and would welcome feedback to clear up my misunderstanding....
Last edited by nickjohn on Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
 

Foggy

User avatar
Posts: 33395
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:14 am
Location: United Kingdom

Post by Foggy » Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:11 pm
It should also be factored in that you will be liable to HMRC for tax on the whole interest sum ( before fees are taken ). Assuming 20%, you have lost another £160. So will see ( possibly) around £282 of that £800 !!
Last edited by Foggy on Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
My opinions are merely that .. opinions based on experience. Always seek professional advice.
IVA Completed 23rd July 2013 .... C.C. 10th January 2014
 
 

nickjohn

User avatar
Posts: 969
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 11:27 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Post by nickjohn » Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:22 pm
Well "spotted" Foggy..
 
 

kittyface

User avatar
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 8:31 am
Location:

Post by kittyface » Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:28 pm
I think it's absolutely right that everyone is being blinded by the interest thing. If it was legal for them to continue as they are (holding completion certificates back), and IF they can continue chasing PPI after closure certificates are issued as things currently stand, then why are they insisting on a variation? Seems a little odd to me. I think it's a grey area and they don't know what they can do, so they're making everyone agree to new terms to cover themselves whatever happens in the future.
IVA Completed August 2012 :)
 
 

nickjohn

User avatar
Posts: 969
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 11:27 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Post by nickjohn » Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:34 pm
Hi Kittyface, I know it is only a technical point but you are not being asked to agree to variations, you are proposing variations to the creditors, however, these variations have been written on your behalf by GT and in return for submitting them they are going to give you a financial reward (Stat Interest)...
Last edited by nickjohn on Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
 

Foggy

User avatar
Posts: 33395
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:14 am
Location: United Kingdom

Post by Foggy » Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:40 pm
As far as I can see, and no doubt I will be shown the light, the only variation required is for the completion certificate to be issued pending investigation / claims of PPI. Under the original terms the IP will still get 15% and the claims company it's 30 - odd % (as they do now), so no variation is required in this regard.

Indeed, the IP can still act as trustee for PPI monies after the certificate is issued without any variation --- as some have already done. OK, it's easier with the variation -- but, hey, life's tough!
My opinions are merely that .. opinions based on experience. Always seek professional advice.
IVA Completed 23rd July 2013 .... C.C. 10th January 2014
 
 

louiseh

User avatar
Posts: 418
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:49 pm
Location:

Post by louiseh » Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:05 pm
Ultimately, if signing the paperwork gets me my completion certificate quicker, I'll sign it. I don't expect any misold ppi so percentages of stautory interest, irrelavant, 100% of 0 =0, 20% of 0 =0, didn't need that particular carrot dangling.
 
 

Foggy

User avatar
Posts: 33395
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:14 am
Location: United Kingdom

Post by Foggy » Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:07 pm
Does beg the question -- if all the cards are in the IP's hands WHY they need to dangle a carrot --- smoke & mirrors
My opinions are merely that .. opinions based on experience. Always seek professional advice.
IVA Completed 23rd July 2013 .... C.C. 10th January 2014
 
 

nickjohn

User avatar
Posts: 969
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 11:27 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Post by nickjohn » Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:41 pm
font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by louiseh

Ultimately, if signing the paperwork gets me my completion certificate quicker, I'll sign it. I don't expect any misold ppi so percentages of stautory interest, irrelavant, 100% of 0 =0, 20% of 0 =0, didn't need that particular carrot dangling.
My understanding is that you are also giving GT the right to act on your behalf after the end of your IVA to chase any other forms of misselling, so whilst you may have no PPI there may be something further down the line that can be reclaimed and they will chase this for you and put any money realised into the IVA pot, after their fees that is..
 
 

MelanieGiles

User avatar
Industry Expert
Posts: 47612
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 10:42 am
Location:

Post by MelanieGiles » Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:56 pm
A few facts to share:-

1 Once an IVA has been accepted it can only be varied at the behest of the debtor, with subsequent agreement from creditors, unless the specific terms of the IVA dictate otherwise. The Supervisor does not have ambit to propose variations without the agreement of the debtor - if they need to seek directions as to how the IVA is supervised, there is a Court application process that can be utlised.

2 The additional fee is proposed to be charged at 15% of realisations. This does not affect fees already drawn, but seeks to remove any upper fee capping which is popular amongst some creditor representatives.

Clients who do have "defined asset" type IVAs currently have the benefit of all of the PPI monies - both compensation and interest, but there was no provision in the IVA proposal to capture these monies in the event that a subsequent claim could be brought. There is therefore a greyish area which means that clients may be deemed to have failed to disclose an asset - whether they knew about its existence or not. There are various legal opinions on this in circulation, and if anyone does not fully undertstand what they are being asked to agree to, I suggest you arrange for a chat with your IP directly, or seek independent legal advice.
Regards, Melanie Giles, Insolvency Practitioner
18 posts Page 1 of 2
Return to “Ask IVA Forum and Industry experts”