MelanieGiles wrote:
Does that mean managed IVAs Andrew - or simply setting them up and leaving clients to make the payments?
The CAB's refer their IVA clients to GT mainly, however occaionally they will refer to Payplan. The CAB's don't receive any fees for this and GT do not charge anything for the VA (other then the standard noms and sup fees obviously, and as far as I'm aware Payplan don't charge either.
Not sure what point you are making there Spike? Both GT and Payplan are completely commercial companies when it comes to IVA cases, and charge the same amounts of fees as we all do.
Yes, Melanie, I'm aware of that. The point I was trying to get across was that that GT and Payplan receive a lot of VA work from CAB's and the CAB's are not renumerated.
OK - it was your comment "and GT do not charge anything for the VA (other then the standard noms and sup fees obviously, and as far as I'm aware Payplan don't charge either" that I really wanted clarification about.
Well, I do know for a fact that GT do not charge upfront fees for IVA's whether the work has been generated from a CAB referral or otherwise. The only payments the client will make are the contractual VA payments. If the VA is not accepted, then the client will pay nothing at all. Their advice is free which includes the draft proposal.
Isn't that the case with most IP firms. Do you know of any who charge up front fees for consumer debt cases, or who would not refund fees if an IVA did not eventually proceed?
I know of a few IVA companies who charge up front fees (and keep the up front fees even if the case is rejected), and as an IP I'm sure that you're aware of a few also.......... however that's a different topic altogether
I suspect that some of the smaller firms, who perhaps do more self-employed complex IVAs, rather than volume consumer cases may ask for money up front - and I have occasionally done this in the past if I have not trusted the debtor, but I would be suprised if this was a widespread practice as now around 90% of all IVAs are proposed by only 15 firms.
Can I just ask why you wouldn't trust the debtor Melanie? Surely, if you feel that you can't trust the debtor, then pehaps you should not offer to represent them?
There are occasionally times when I question the level of commitment or motivation of a client who tells me that they wish to enter into an Individual Voluntary Arrangement with their creditors.
As an IP who works with all of my clients on a personal level, rather than in name only, this is my choice and judgement to make - and as you also work in the same profession you may also have experienced this occasionally if you are client facing.
Notwithstanding this feeling, I also take the view that everyone deserves the same opportunity and that I am not judge and jury - that being the ultimate position of creditors. If I have concerns about the longevity of the arrangement, or aspects of the debtor's ability or commitment to repay their debts, these are shared with creditor in my comments to accompany the proposal as nominee. I have often turned down an instruction if I am uneasy about someone's motivation and commitment, and as the owner and thus decision maker in my business, that is entirely my decision.
James Falla wrote:
My understanding is the same as Andrew's. The CAB recently announced with much fanfare that they have come to an agreement to refer all of their debt management clients to the CCCS. I understand that the CCCS will then manage the DMPs on behalf of the clients as per their normal service. Perhaps the word has not yet filtered down in this case.
If the person in question does not want to pay fees, perhaps they should contact the CCCS directly as Jan has suggested.
Hello James.
Welcome back to the forum.
It is not so much all debt management clients, more of a pilot scheme involving around 90 to 100 bureau.
