Just reading through thie topic alone, I can see that there does not appear to be a set fee for this information gathering. I am curious how the fee is determined?
Why was one charges as little as £500 (sueann) and another as much as £1,200 (indebtforever). Why is it not a fixed fee?
I would assume the information gathered is much the same in each instance?
I assume the discussions had with each individual will be very similar in nature?
So why is there such a huge variance in fees? Are you simply determining the amoun of level of contribution a debtor could afford and then asking them to pay it to you for 2 or 3 months?
These days, in instances where funds are paid up front to an Insolvency Practitioner, they (Unless I am mistaken) have to declare the amounts paid to them either in the proposal or in the Nominee's Report. More often than not, you would then see a modification from the creditors saying that any funds paid to the Nominee prior to the meeting of creditors, are to be introduced into the arrangement for the benfit of creditors.
If you pay up front to an intermediary, those funds are effectively lost in the event of a proposal being rejected. Whereas if you had paid those funds directly to an IP you have a much better chance of having those funds returned to you in the event of rejection of your proposal. That said an IP would not be putting forward your proposal if it did not have a very reasonable chance of being approved.
If you use an intermediary, the IP still has to satisfy him / herself that you have been given an explanation of the options available to you and the advantages and disadvantages of each of those options. Again it is just my opinion but unless the intermediary and IP work very closely together, one is not going to know exactly what the other has said to the client other than what is on the 9 pieces of paper. So why not just go to an IP directly and save yourself what are in my opinion unnecessary costs?
Again it is just a personal opinion, but I disagree that having this information gathered by an intermediary cuts down on the lead time to a creditors meeting. The intermediary is gathering the same information as an IP. An intermediary is presumably going to have very similar discussions with the client that an IP would. If anything I see it prolonging the process since the IP then has to verify the information provided by the intermediary and as previously mentioned as to satisfy that best advice has been given.
So what is the difference? Well ... In sueann's case the difference is a saving of £500 and in the case of indebtforever a saving of £1,200, both of which are significant amounts of money.
sueann ... could you, if you have the time, please just note down on here what was actually said to you and why you feel you were not given impartial advice? Who decided that an IVA was right for you? Where you given explanation of the alternative solutions that may have been available to you?
Tell it like it is.
)