PPI and the IP's legal right to it

[oneyeartogo]

Hi everyone.

I just signed up today as I was hoping that I could get a real answer from people after a search online this morning proved fruitless!

Basically my partner has been paying into his IVA for the last four years. He has one year left to go and we've been excited that this will be the last push before we can actually get on with our lives which we feel are on hold at the moment: we're wanting to get married, buy a house, start a family etc when it's all done

However, my partner recently received a letter from his IP stating that he needed to sign a document (which was sent to him probably over 2 years ago)about letting them claim his PPI on his behalf. They stated in the old letter that he would get nothing and the amount would not make any difference to how much he paid into his IVA each month, but they would get a percentage of it. We thought at the time what's the point in it then if we get nothing from it and just left it.
But in this new letter they actually seemed to be more pressing about it. They ended the letter saying that his account probably would not be able to be closed unless he signed this document and returned it to them.
Seeing as we never saw this as something that was a compulsary part of the IVA (as the whole PPI issue wasn't in the news until at least a year after him starting his IVA), so obviously this letter made us quite angry, and we decided to ignore it and hope the issue would go away.
Last week, my partner then received another letter from the IP stating it was their legal right to claim the PPI on his behalf and that he had to get the document signed and sent back as soon as possible.

This is really getting him down as the way they have written to him seems simply money grabbing and considering the last 4 years haven't been the easiest ride with the IP, we feel that we shouldn't sign on pure principal.

However, we understand that obviously if we have no right to hold back and if it's going to be more trouble than it's worth then we might as well sign over the money (seeing as it won't cost us anything) but at the moment it just seems they are trying to squeeze as much money out of this as they can before it's finished...

So what I would really like to know is do this company have any right to threaten my partner over the PPI, because the idea that we always had was that it was up to him whether or not they could claim.

I would really appreciate some feedback on this.

Thanks in advance.

[Foggy]

Hi. PPI is deemed as an asset and, 9 times out of 10, is payable into the IVA. All firms are chasing this at the moment as it is their duty to get the best return for the creditors (and, yes, they get their cut too).

You will find, that, until PPI has been investigated the IVA will not be closed.

To be honest, and it pains me to say this, the best route is the one of least resistance where PPI is concerned. You have a year left -- many PPI investigations take longer than this, so the sooner it is started the better.

[tinks81]

Hi

I TOTALLY understnad where you're coming from oneyeartogo. I can't get my head round how it can be classed as assets when the monies shouldn't have been taken in the first place, and it the same creditors who are asking for it back that took it from us!!! And like you said, this has only come to light in the last couple of years, so anyone who finished their IVA before this, has been able to claim the overpayments & do with it what they like! Lucky those who got their CC they day before it was all announced eh?[;)]I am all for paying back the creditors as much as I can, but when you hear that the IPs get 35% of the refund and the company 'investigating' it get 25%, then the IPs reasoning for forcing you to claim it back loses a bit of weight! But they know they have us over a barrel so we just have to comply or risk the consequesnces I'm afraid.

[oneyeartogo]

Thanks for the replies.

Yeah it is really frustrating as it first came to light a few years ago when I received nearly £500 myself in claims over a credit card PPI that I had.
We don't know exactly how much his PPI would be worth, but we've estimated it could be up to £9,000!!!

He also partly blames the payment of this PPI for being a large part of the reason he couldn't make his monthly payments on his cards and ultimately signed up for the IVA which makes it all the more frustrating that the people who caused the issue in the first place will be benefitting from it! Especially when the money could go towards our wedding/deposit on a house!

[downandout]

I fully understand your predicament, but i am afraid you owe money, you may well have some, so over it goes, bit harsh i know. We are just ending year 2 of our iva and the very last thing we did before entering this was to, on 2 ocasions, once with a company called BRUNEL FRANKLLIN and privatly went through the ppi process to be told nowt owed TWICE, GT have organised another check and hey presto i am owed (sorry GT)£7400 from a company i was pretty sure owed us ppi but they said no we dont, i also am of the mind had this been forthcoming originally i wouldnt be here now, but heyho. So i suspect this kind of situation is why IP's are pushing even more right now. By the way i am of the mind that they may have acted fraudulantly and i should be able to push this further as i have proof i had already been in contact with the company in question

[size5]

The nail has been hit on the head where it was recognised that the existence of PPI was a contributory factor, and that he may never have needed the IVA if it were not there. Any recoverable money, even though it may not have been known about, is therefore an asset of the estate and as such the supervisor has a legal duty to both investigate and endeavour to recover money owed by one or more creditors for the benefit of all creditors.

As a comparison, if a debtor entered an IVA unaware that a long lost relative had left him, say, £10,000 which then comes to light later on, it can be reasonably assumed that the debtor, had he known about it, would have used that money to pay down some or all of the debt, which may have meant that there was no need for the IVA in the first place. Mis-sold PPI only follows the same logic. I hope that makes sense, and Foggy is correct as well in that these investigations can sometimes drag on so co-operation as quickly as you can is probably your best bet.

Regards.

[SUC]

Why can't PPI be investigated at the begininng of the IVA
and not left to the end, where it seems to me it can be used as a tool to stretch the whole process out and delay completion.

[Foggy]

In newer IVAs, SUC, investigations into PPI are started right at the start as a rule. Indeed mine was back in 2010 and were concluded before the mid-way point.

Some of these large companies, however, are a bit like Super oil tankers, in that it take FOREVER to correct a change in course !!