IP changed

[Pete-F]

I am quite distressed by the whole thing as I've been paying in for a few years now and if all that money has gone on champagne and holidays I might as well take a long walk off a short bridge...

If the worst comes to the worst I'll move abroad and leave all my woes behind, I hear debts don't follow you out of europe... Not all bad.

[greg.mullarkey]

Your comments re changes of IP have been brought to my attention - I am the Supervisor of IVAs at Kingsgate Insolvency and have been here since the beginning of 2009. There is no reason for anyone who is subject to an IVA of which I am the Supervisor and which is administered from the offices of Kingsgate Insolvency to be concerned about the ongoing administration of their cases. Feel free to contact me directly or my colleague Insolvency Practitioner Dean Smith if you would like any assurance regarding your IVA.
Greg Mullarkey

[Pete-F]

Hello Greg, I've not had anything through with your name on? Surely I would have been informed about this instead of having to find out myself? Are you friends with Mr Ellingworth. This is all a bit dodgy to me. Can someone please put my mind at rest!!

[liamjames]

Pete and Irishphenom, you can email your IPs directly via this link:

http://www.insolvency-service.co.uk/newipsearch.htm

[greg.mullarkey]

I do not have any connection with Michael Ellingworth. Please contact the office directly and we will be happy to put your mind at rest.

[kallis3]

I doubt there is anything dodgy Pete, Kingsgate are a respectable company.

I suggest you do as Greg suggests and contact the office directly tomorrow.

Liam - this is an old thread so I imagine irishphenom is sorted - at least I hope he is!

[re-registered]

That is why it is sometimes a little more beneficial to use a company owned by the IP, rather than where the IP is an employee - owners rarely move firms! However as long as you are getting good service from the firm overall, perhaps the identity of the IP is of little concern.

I would disagree if I may, an independent contractor or employer has no direct interest in the profitability of the company unlike one that is owned by the IP. It could be considered that the IP has a self interest in the advice given if it directly impacts their company.

That said all IP's are under a duty to be objective, impartial and bound by their regulators ethical guidelines, so in fact I would suggest there is no difference whatsoever based purely upon the employment status of an IP, and I trust Ms Giles would concur.

[kallis3]

An IP, regardless of where they work, will give free and impartial advice as to all options available to a prospective client.

[MelanieGiles]

I disagree - but only from the personal experience of being involved in the handover of a portfolio of cases where IPs were employees, and the shareholders of the business called the shots - to the detriment of the IPs own licenses.

I do agree with the first part of re-registered's second paragraph.

[kallis3]

Exactly Mel! I'm behind you on that one.

[liamjames]

@re-registered

One of our IPs (Phil Nuttall) is founder and director of the company, and the other (Michael Howorth) is not. Having worked with both of them extremely closely I should comment that they both take their duties very seriously indeed, and the profitability of the business is certainly secondary to Phil's desire to do the best work possible for his clients.

[djgriffiths]

I disagree Mel. An sole practitioner is not only responsible for ensuring their clients cases are administered in the highest possible standards, but also ensuring that the firm generates enough fees to generate an income for themselves. Performing this duel role surely has a conflict as 1) IP's may turn away low value cases as it is not economical for them to proceed 2) focus on high value cases as this will pay the bills 3) If IP's are struggling financially there is more risk that they will turn to the actions of Mr Ellingworth in taking monies from client accounts.

Employed IP's tend to have more restriction in their actions. Having worked at DFD and Kingsgate both have large compliance departments and great controls on the access to money so the risk of an IP committing such an offense is minimal. I have also worked for a single IP firm and as they were only accountable to themselves I definitely felt that they were more of a risk.

As the larger IVA providers have a greater number of IP's (DFD has they can also benefit from shared technical knowledge and having the economies of scale to offer advice on all types of cases. Particularly with DFD being listed on the AIM, the IP's are accountable for everything and any kind of misgivings would be quickly identified. By having so much control it helps the bigger firms meet the Ethical Guidelines of Self Interest/Self Review as there is always some other person looking at the actions of the IP. This clearly would be more difficult for a sole practitioner like Melanie (I am sure that she has never done anything wrong though!)

Both have their merits. With larger volume firms the service is likely to be quicker, but have less direct access to the IP than a smaller firm. There are now a number of smaller firms doing 100-150 IVA's per month which meets in the middle a little which seem to be working well.

[Michael Peoples]

I think that this is a bit of a non argument. Whether or not the IP is employed by a large firm or is a sole trader, he/she has a licence to protect that was extremely difficult to earn. There will always have to be commercial decisions to be made in addition to ethical ones but other than the odd bad apple the insolvency profession does get the balance right.

While Melanie is a sole trader and a workaholic she is not the only IP in her firm so she can benefit from shared experience. We do 80-100 IVAs per month and we have 5 IPs and I agree that this is beneficial as they often take advice from each other. One of our IPS is also a partner so needs to balance the profitability of the business with the commercial aspects. Ultimately, his licence is more important than short term commercial decisions.

[djgriffiths]

I am aware that they are difficult to earn as I have already passed the personal insolvency paper and am sitting the next two in 2011.

I am not criticizing anyone, or saying that one way is right or wrong I am just offering a view. From my own experience all the IP's I have known who have lost their licenses have been in individual or small practice firms, and I have now worked with over 40.

[re-registered]

My experience is that smaller firms can, in some instances, give a more personal service than larger providers, but are limited on the scope of work they can do due to economies of scale. A small IP firm would not wish to take too many IVA's at £100 - £150 per month (if indeed they took any that low), whereas a big providfer like DFD can do so without a loss of quality, therefore big companies have a broader offering, and valid a place in the market, as do small companies.

Again in my experience of the (thankfully rare cases) of dealing with cases where IP's have absconded with client funds, these have all involved owner managed IP businesses, so anecdotally the evidence supports what I said. A contractor/employee can choose to withdraw their services to the business they work for, as I have personally so done in the past,. An owner of the business is effectively the business and withdrawal of services will close the business.

All responsible IP's adhere closely to the code of ethics, regardless of their employment status. To intimate that an owner managed IP business is in someway superior to independent contractors/employees presents an unbalanced view, which is not necessarily correct. I sought merely to give an objective and balanced view.