There has been a lot of debate about whether a variation can be called without the consent of the debtor. We use the R3 standard terms rather than the Protocol ones and conditions and this cannot be done by us. Protocol is more vague and so it may need tested by the regulators. The R3 states below;
81(2)[Consent of Debtor/third party to variation required] No variation of the
terms of the Arrangement shall be of any effect unless made with the consent of the
Debtor and any third party affected thereby.
To be honest we have never used Protocol T&Cs because we were advised that they conflict with R3 and possibly the Act. It is issues like this that cause the conflicts and it may be better in future if clients went to R3 firms rather than being sent to Protocol ones.
Added to the Protocol vs R3 issues, I would say that they are also better going to firms that are small enough to care, give you access to your IP and (personally my opinion) not funded or fed by the creditors.
My opinions are merely that .. opinions based on experience. Always seek professional advice.
IVA Completed 23rd July 2013 .... C.C. 10th January 2014
That's what i did ! I carefully chose my IVA firm and really got to know my IP and felt secure knowing that they had my best interests at heart. Then we were sold as a job lot ! I do get a little miffed when peeps say "do some research or carefully choose the company who will look after you for 5/6 years" its all pot luck at the end of the day. Who's to say over the course of my 6 year IVA I'm not brought and sold several times
Loved Money, Hate Credit, Road to Recovery.... IVA started 3/3/14 -- IVA F&F accepted 18/5/17
Fair point ridingthestorm, but for those that are "sold on" there are many more that are not.
When you cross the road you look both ways, who is to say that the building you are next to won't collapse on you? So, do you say, in that case I will stop looking for traffic and just cross blind ?
My opinions are merely that .. opinions based on experience. Always seek professional advice.
IVA Completed 23rd July 2013 .... C.C. 10th January 2014
In my game I am bought and sold and I expect to have a shelf life of a disposable razor.
I accept that things change and that companies that you deal with now may not be there in the future - what grates is the lack of consistency and regulation in an established profession that has been there for at least 30 years (1986 Insolvency Act et al).
I also appreciate that Michael and others have been going out on a limb recently not least because this places them into possible conflict with their peers.
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 would take the subway ! I understand what your saying foggy but there seems more and more peeps being brought and sold at a profit to larger greedy creditor funded organisations. I'm only bitter as I was sold on, tho had no problems with CF and review time was painless enough. I guess some peeps need to deal more with there IVA firm than others. I'm lucky enough I can fly just under the radar and so have no need to contact them. But with my limited IVA knowledge, I would also advise people to choose carefully as well. Think I've gone round in a complete circle here
Loved Money, Hate Credit, Road to Recovery.... IVA started 3/3/14 -- IVA F&F accepted 18/5/17
I am sure you are aware of my conspiracy theory regarding the big firms buying up the smaller guys ... but, yes, you can only do your best with what you have at any given time.
My opinions are merely that .. opinions based on experience. Always seek professional advice.
IVA Completed 23rd July 2013 .... C.C. 10th January 2014
Whatever happens, I am eternally grateful to PJG for setting up my IVA properly in the first place. Even though I am stuck with CF I have a good contract thanks to them, and I have good advice and support here. I don't know anything about Mel's circumstances, but I am sure we were not sold on lightly. Nor do I feel that our files were in a mess as CF suggest they were. At the end of the day (I really hate that phrase), in charge of a small company like Mel's there is a human being who has life circumstances just like the rest of us do and sometimes things happen and sometimes things have to change.
A large company like CF I feel is in it for the quick kill, has the ability to appear caring and assure the small business owner that they are a wonderful company but once they get the business, the debtors are just pawns to play with. Remember the phrase "a wolf in sheep's clothing". We have all read about Pearse Flynn and his activities in articles on the internet; they are in the public domain. We are the tools he can use to increase his fortune.
I have three and a half years to go and it would not surprise me if I was sold on again as Pearse moves on to his next project.
As far as I am aware we have no intention of selling but if creditors continue to squeeze the smaller players to the benefit of the bigger ones there could come a time when there is no alternative.
A number of IP firms have gone bust over the last few years and others are rumoured to be hanging on. Selling the book may be the only way to avoid insolvency themselves but the annoying part is where the purchaser then gets the green light to charge a higher fee. This fee would have enabled the original firm to stay in business had they charged it but this was not to be.
I know Melanie did not sell lightly and had she been given 20-23% supervisory fees the same as CF are getting then she may not have had to sell at all.
Hopefully creditors see this soon and allow for a bigger and fairer fee across the board otherwise more firms will sell or fail and this will reduce choice and quality of advice.
You would need to check with them as I am not sure. Some firms would have used Protocol T&Cs for straightforward cases and Protocol IVAs but used the R3 for more difficult cases or where HMRC were a major creditor. Irrespective of what T&Cs they used I still believe that you need debtor consent for a variation although this is patently clear under R3.
