That is a good idea - Mandleson I believe is the responsible Minister - what about a letter to him? He has been making alot of noise lately about debt and I understand a consultation paper is on its way about "compulsory IVAs" to try and stop creditors rejecting willy nilly.
Under the terms of the IVA protocol, creditors do have to give good reasons as to why they are rejecting IVAs these days, and in my own experience this rarely happens if the proposals are presented properly.
I agree - if the proposal is well thought out and the payments affordable then everyone wins.
Sharing from experiences of dealing with debt
The greatness of a man is not in how much wealth he acquires, but in his integrity and his ability to affect those around him positively.
Bob Marley. http://kallis3.blogs.iva.co.uk
My point Melaine is who decides if a reason is a "good reason", if you have a creditor who has more than 25% of the total value of debt they can basically hold you to ransom as they know if you don't agree they can say no and the IVA fails. Even if the IVA presented is the best proposal available they can still ask for any amendments they care to think of, knowing that if they aren't accepted the IVA fails, in my view that is pretty unfair, not just on the debtor but on the other creditors who accept the proposal as is.
In my own case the payments would have been £280 per month for six years. I agree that perhaps my IP should have foreseen the problem with my partners loan, but I wonder if NR had not had the majority percentage if they would have been so insistant on the amendment. I feel that if there was an independent body that could look at IVA's that are refused in certain circumstances NR would be a lot more open to voting yes than no.
Would still like ans answer or opinion to my previous comment, doesn't have to Melaine who answers.
All I want is honest opinions as to whether you think its fair that a creditor who holds more than 25% of the total debt can basically hold you to ransom as they know if you don't agree they can fail the IVA.
I agree and there are creditors out there who frustrate IVAs and reject them out of hand. They do not even need 25% as not all creditors vote.
The SIVAs were to have no voting at all under 25-30k and a reduction to 50% approval for debts up to approx 75k. Those who introduced the protocol IVA and killed the SIVA have to bear responsibility for what is happening but hopefully Mandelson can make sufficient changes to the insolvency laws to correct the damage before the next election.
Never heard of SIVAs, but they sure sound a lot fairer than protcol IVA's.
Personally I feel there has to be a change in the laws, especially in the current climate .. I think I heard somewhere that BR is up nearly 40% since January. I wonder how many of those could have been avoided if certain creditors hadn't been so b***** minded.
My personal beef is with NR, this a company that had to be bailed out by the tax payer, such as me, because of their high risk policies and then have the cheek to impose impracticle amendments to IVA's put to them, surely it has to be in the governments interest to get involved and tell them to re-evaluate those harsh policies.
They are likely in a Catch 22 because they have to repay the government as quickly as possible while not making the lives of ordinary voters any worse. They are responsible for a large percentage of repossessions but are on track to repay their bailout monies.
Only recently I saw that the government are considering selling N Rock at a profit and perhaps the hardnosed business decisions they take contribute towards their value. I don't know what the answer is.
Couldn't agree more Fugazi. The SIVA's would have been brilliant if they had been allowed to come in.
Perhaps you will be able to look into an IVA again in a while?
Sharing from experiences of dealing with debt
The greatness of a man is not in how much wealth he acquires, but in his integrity and his ability to affect those around him positively.
Bob Marley. http://kallis3.blogs.iva.co.uk
Would love to kallis, but unless NR change their policy I can't really see the point as they would only request the same ammendmant as before and I would refuse to agree to that. They hold the overall majority on my debts so even if all my other creditors voted yes they could fail the IVA by voting no (as they did last time).
Michael, the answer is an independant body that has the power to overturn creditors vote IF they feel the proposal is the best put forward and the amendments requested are unrealistic.
If someone put a paper forward to the government along those lines I would certainly rally my MP to support it.
As you say, if you are putting your best offer forward then it should be accepted.
Sharing from experiences of dealing with debt
The greatness of a man is not in how much wealth he acquires, but in his integrity and his ability to affect those around him positively.
Bob Marley. http://kallis3.blogs.iva.co.uk
Just to clarify one or two bits on here. The SIVA had no lower limit and with an upper limit of £75k only required a simple majority. The IVA Protocol itself did not kill off the SIVA, but The Insolvency Service were not able to take it forward under a Legislative Reform Order.
David Mond, as Chairman of the DRF, wrote to the Treasury solicitor on the 17th February stating:
"We wish to be satisfied that the intentions expressed in paragraphs 20 to 22 of your letter manifest themselves in due course into the required changes. Please confirm that a system of monitoring will be introduced so that:
1. A report can be made on at least a quarterly basis to the IVA Standing Committee describing progress made and the timetable for implementation of the proposals in paragraphs 20 to 22 of your letter.
2. The agenda and minutes of future meetings of the IVA Standing Committee will always include this monitoring item."
The Treasury solicitor responded:
"In respect of those proposals which were within the draft order and which my client still intends to take forward (proposals one and three), my client confirms that updates will be provided to the Committee as and when there is progress to report.
In respect of proposal two, whilst my client cannot dictate to the IVA Standing Committee what business they choose to transact at their meetings, a prime purpose of the Committee is to monitor progress under the Protocol and my client anticipates that the Agenda and minutes of their meetings would continue to reflect that purpose. As an observer at Committee meetings, you will be aware that my client has already obtained the Committee's agreement to a review of the Protocol taking place later this calendar year. Once the outcome of that review is received, my client hopes the Committee can agree a way forward and The Insolvency Service can consider whether there is any need for further legislation in this area."
Regards.
Last edited by size5 on Wed Jul 01, 2009 10:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Cert DR
23+ years in debt advice
I do not post for anyone other than myself
