Hi, Feels odd being back but I could do with some help with a PPI query.

[Tonto]

Hi,

Feels odd being back but I could do with some help with a query re ppi claims!!

I had my IVA with BE (GT) and completed it 4 years ago, 2012. The completion certificate was issued and the wording states all debts have been cleared, obligations met and the iva is closed (no mention of being able to reopen it or ppi claims etc). However, I received the GT ppi variation letter in 2013 but ignored it (basically, as my IVA had completed i did not sign it). I heard no more and moved on until receiving a call from them last year asking that i help with a ppi claim, I explained that I didn't sign the ppi variation letter, that my IVA was closed and I didn't want this darm part of my life dragged up, they apologised and said i would not be contacted again (although they have no record of the call). To my surprise, i just received a letter from a law firm acting for GT, requesting i sign various documents etc. I rang GT (or Aperture) and told them that i wouldn't be signing but they, politely, suggested on the phone that if i didn't sign, I would be personally liable to the creditors for any possible PPI claim (and this was dealt with in the t&cs of my IVA - which apparently is different to the terms the proposal. I don't have this document and Aperture admitted on the phone they can't find a copy either. So to my question, I don't want to help them, as it seems pointless for creditors to give me money to then just be given back to them (although i see more fees for IPs too). My concerns are over opening a can of worms (and a very dark part of my life - i lost my house, ended up losing my family over it too), I'm scared it could be reflected as a new entry on my credit file etc (i've worked so hard to repair it and am now creditworthy and careful with money, re-married with two tiny children that depend on me). So, I guess i'm asking, can they force me to help them and is it right to threaten me with being personally liable? Thank you.

[kallis3]

Hi,

I wouldn't have thought that they could do this now after all of this time, especially as nothing is on your paperwork.

I would have thought that as your creditors haven't bothered by now they wouldn't do so.

Hopefully someone more knowledgeable will be along.

[Foggy]

Although PPI isn't specifically mentioned it does fall under the definition of "after acquired assets", which ARE due to the IVA estate. After acquired assets are assets ( whether known about or not ) that existed prior to or during the IVA, which you acquire after the start (or end) of the IVA.

There is currently a court case going on ( due to be heard in November) which will decide whether PPI can be claimed by the IP after the issue of the completion certificate and GT are rushing to get as much in as they can before any judgement, in case it doesn't go their way.

Personally I would write to GT explaining that you are perfectly willing to co-operate, but will wait until after the outcome of the case.

[Lisa Thomas]

If your IVA has finished and you have your CC I don't believe you have any obligation to cooperate as you are no longer bound by any t&cs.

[Tonto]

Thanks all for the comments so far, a mixed bag of opinions but I am glad some of your opinions are that they can't really do what they are suggesting. Foggy - after acquired assets are not mentioned in my old IVA terms, only current assets at the time of the IVA. I read the case too I can't see anything in there, although as you know it's been appealed for November, that would support what Aperture is trying to do. I guess I'll wait until I hear from Aperture, if I do again!

[Foggy]

If you have no reference to after acquired assets your case can only deal with the specified assets (i.e it is not an "all assets" arrangement) and GT have not further call on anything.

[lifenoteasy]

I would not like shl representing me on anything.

[sterling]

It's companies like this that give the industry a bad name. They seem to make the rules up as and when it suits their best interests. However, it does raise some questions. If Aperture are trying to get as much money in as they can before the court ruling later in the year, does this mean they can keep it or will it have to be distributed back to the rightful owners?
And, doesn't the after acquired assets part mean those assets found during the time the IVA was current? Anything different would be ridiculous. Everybody seems to have a different understanding of what they are lawfully obligated to so bravo to the IP who took this to court and roll on November.

[Foggy]

Hi Sterling. The monies rightfully belong to the creditors, not the IP ( save for his / her 15%) and should be distributed amongst those --- though, in many cases, I feel that it would cost more to re-open the old files and distribute than the refund itself -- which is why some firms don't bother.

After acquired assets are those that EXISTED during the course of the IVA, not those that were known about of found during that time.

I used to argue that a PPI refund didn't exist until it was made -- but the industry as a whole seems to have agreed that the potential was enough !