You cannot refuse a 'reasonable request' from the supervisor but is this a 'reasonable reques't. One for the lawyers and those on a higher pay grade than me!
To expect a client to agree, and give their permission (which the IVA companies in question obviously need otherwise they wouldn`t be sending out the variation permission forms),to change the terms of a legally binding arrangement/contract, mid arrangement, to allow their IP/IVA company to add A NEW clause which didn`t exist when the client originally signed the said contract, so that the IP/IVA company can enforce a lengthy, highly expensive secured loan just to enable the IP/IVA company to get their 15% fees from any lump sum secured loan amount introduced into the IVA.
Perhaps I`m missing something, but I don`t see it as a `reasonable request`.
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea".
If creditors want goodwill from those in an iva to change their T.C midway so to make them pay more....then the answer is aways going be a NO vote.As Turkeys ain't going to vote for Xmas.
The reason why creditors are trying this on is because they know they wouldn't be contested in a court unlike in mis selling/misadvise of bank products and with fines imposed etc.(Investors class action is a sledgehammer blow.)
When the FCA make a rude awakening on the banks, they shudder like frighten children.Fines and public reprimand....list goes on in current bank infringements.
You can only complaint about the IPs ethical professional conduct but not on the attempts of creditors to enforce loan terms through the IP.
That needs plugging by regulation to shut up shop.
Analogous to pouring bleach down the toilet....
Last edited by TzeKin on Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I am not saying it is reasonable but it would be up to a judge. He/she may well decide that a secured loan releasing equity at no greater cost than that promised in the proposal by way of a remortgage is a reasonable request. However he/she may say it is not but until tested it is guesswork.
I personally don't think any judge would consider totally changing the terms of a contract, against the will of one of the parties bound by the contract, to be reasonable... that may have consequences for contract law surely ... I would hope no judge would consider that reasonable anyway.
I should think there are too many variations contained within the 2014 protocol compared to what terms we signed up to back in 2008 ... however that said perhaps a case will come up eventually where it is taken to court to establish if secured loans can be 'reasonably' requested in place of a remortgage.
Personally I would consider that a sad day for IVA's and would think that the wording of the 'sales pitch' for IVA's would then have to immediately stop using the term 'debt free in 5 years' as it would be very much not the case.
"Hope is the feeling you have that the feeling you have isn't permanent." - Jean Kerr
IVA approved Aug 2008 - 6 year term - last payment made 6 Oct 2014. CC received 14 Nov 2014.
Michael,No case will ever go to court to clarify the enforced loan situation in the iva.
This aren't no bank charge case with the oft spearheading it.
A very minority issue,affecting less than 3% of population.
And....besides...
1.Who is going to call it?Ips,creditors... you can count them out.The Insolvency exchange..count them out too.
2.Class action from iva newbies...doubt there is any stomach for this.Who will be paying for barristers...? The banks had 20 barristers in their bank charge case in court.
Honestly,It is a lost cause.If the loans are enforced by creditors there is nothing anyone can do....
Protocols in ivas are increasingly made flexible to suit banks manipulation created by bank lobbyist.Ips are paid by banks.They work for the them,so why I am not surprised.
Last edited by TzeKin on Wed Sep 24, 2014 8:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I've always been worried about the possibility of being forced into a secured loan at the end of our IVA if we cannot remortgage.
Our 2008 protocol IVA states that we have to try to remortgage or get funds from 'another source'. I've asked them directly several times if this means a secured loan and have been told each time it does not. It could include a loan of relatives etc.
I'm still very dubious... while compiling the paperwork for our 4th annual review!
font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by Imhotep
I've always been worried about the possibility of being forced into a secured loan at the end of our IVA if we cannot remortgage.
Our 2008 protocol IVA states that we have to try to remortgage or get funds from 'another source'. I've asked them directly several times if this means a secured loan and have been told each time it does not. It could include a loan of relatives etc.
I'm still very dubious... while compiling the paperwork for our 4th annual review!
Get it in writing/email from your IP Imhotep,
Seems to be that this `third party funding` wording in proposals DOES NOT infer a secured loan and NEVER has by the IP`s/IVA companies, but IS meant as funds from a relative, friend, etc...
It has only been brought up as possibly being construed as such on the forum by some forumistas.
What company are you with?
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea".
Personally I have no real problem with secured loans as an alternative to a remortgage. The loan to value is less than quoted in the protocol or the proposal itself and within two years the credit file is usually cleared up and you can remortgage down the High Street.
Effectively, the way I see it, is that you enter an IVA with debts and fearful of losing your home. You offer your surplus income plus equity release and in return creditors write off any balance at the end. Any remortgage [or secured loan payments] can not exceed 50% of the IVA payment which protects you from further unsustainable borrowings.
If you are able to remortgage you do so to 85% of the value of the property whereas the secured loans are usually at a lower loan to value. Essentially if you remortgage to an adverse lender you can remortgage down the High Street two years later but you only have 15% equity remaining. If you take a secured loan the same situation arises but you borrow less than would be borrowed in a remortgage and two years later you are down the High Street again but you may have 25% equity left in the property.
I do not see how this is such a bad deal for clients or creditors alike. It can be argued all day as to whether a secured loan is a remortgage and the new protocol addresses this, but ultimately within 6-7 years of your IVA commencing you have no unsecured debt, have a High Street mortgage and owe maximum 75% of the value of your property. Much better than bankruptcy.
