My Husband and I are in an IVA. We are nor impressed by how IP has handled PPI

[Pam.n]

My Husband and I are in an IVA. Started in October 2011. Our IP's have obtained some PPI without our written or verbal consent or authorisation and have added Solicitors costs to our outstanding amount. They have sent our personal information to the Solicitors without our written or verbal consent. We are understandably not impressed. Can they do this?

[kallis3]

Hi and welcome,

PPI is an asset of your creditors and the IP can and will claim it.

[Foggy]

In word, yes. They are obliged to maximise the return to the creditors by the realisation of assets due to the IVA estate --- which PPI is. The costs will come out of any refunds they secure and, unless you pay in 100% of your original debt, plus fees and interest, will not have any effect on you directly.

[lifenoteasy]

However they are required to gain your consent to do this especially where they have used a third party to reclaim it.

[lifenoteasy]

Ip's except in bankruptcy do not have this level of power. They must ensure that they comply with all appropriate legislation especially given the insolvency act is from 1986 and there has been other legislation since then.

The firm of solicitors should have known far better.

[Foggy]

Lifenoteasy --- I would imagine this is covered in the small print of the terms and conditions signed when engaging the particular firm. The easiest way to confirm this would be to ask the firm to justify the action and point out where you agreed to it.

[lifenoteasy]

If an iva is a contract there is no imagine about it.

IP's (or rather the companies they work for) are presuming they have that authority.

If they were to explain that at the beginning you would notice a dip in the number of Ivas because the message is not compatible with the reality.

They might all just as well admit they are pay plan or variations of it.

A lot of IPs bluff their way through what their powers are and get away with it because it is so hard to challenge them.

[Lisa Thomas]

Hi Pam

Ask the IP to confirm what authorisation they had to pass your information to the solicitors.

[Foggy]

font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by lifenoteasy

If an iva is a contract there is no imagine about it.

IP's (or rather the companies they work for) are presuming they have that authority.

If they were to explain that at the beginning you would notice a dip in the number of Ivas because the message is not compatible with the reality.

They might all just as well admit they are pay plan or variations of it.

A lot of IPs bluff their way through what their powers are and get away with it because it is so hard to challenge them.

I use the term "imagine" because I have not had sight of the Ts&Cs in question !

[lifenoteasy]

No offence intended.

There are have been 2 fines issued today linked to consent in different areas and where the wishes of the data subject were ignored.

See:

https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/news-a ... onal-data/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-ma ... r-37035874

Whilst not IVA related they demonstrate that ignoring the expressed wishes of the data subject can have consequences.

Most IVA companies seem to be running roughshod over basic principles on the basis that it is their duty to maximise returns to creditors (although these days you cannot say creditors or debtors - they are both clients/customers).

If that is the case they need to be explaining what their role really is and that their level of legal authority is such that they can tear up anything that stands in their way of doing their role.

Any firm of solicitors that does not establish consent or takes a company at face value when they say they have obtained appropriate consent do not know what they are doing (and I speak from practical experience).

Also IVA companies should be running compliance checks on PPI company staff to ensure that they have appropriate DBS clearing if required, that staff understand th issues behind deep credit history checks, the consequences of inappropriate disclosure or selling the information on outside of the contract in place.

This also reinforces why IPs can be wrong:

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cg ... /1710.html

[Lisa Thomas]

LNE thanks for the useful links.

Can you summarise the jist of the final one please - I'm a bit too busy to read the entire claim...?