I don't think my answer is contradictory. But what we have here is a badly worded attempt by te creditor who submitted the modification to try and mirror the IVA Protocol which it does not quite do.
If a 12 month extension is forced, how likely would it be to have a F and F offer accepted for the full amount of the 12 month extension accepted if it is made at the time it becomes obvious that equity cannot be released?
I am sure your IP would be delighted to receive the money by way of a lump sum rather than ongoing contributions, but you would need to check that with them speifically
Hi mouldymuffin99 my IP is irrelevant really as I sent an email to clarify the point and have a written copy. They are looking into it but are saying that it looks like an extension is likely because of the wording.
I have a problem with it because if I had £1000 of releasable equity at 85% and could remortgage, my property would be taken out of the IVA and it would conclude early. Because of the state of the banks, it looks unlikely that I can remortgage so instead of paying £1000, if there is such an amount, I would have £10,800 to pay instead in my case.
The way I see it, a remortgage is just a way of releasing the equity at 85%. With regards to my earlier post regards full and final payment, if it transpires that I have releasable equity within the 85% rule and it is less than the £10,800, could I offer this figure to satisfy the equity clause.
If it is done this way, the creditors get my share of releasable equity and I do not have to take more credit.
If this happens, surely the creditors could not refuse as the money required for the equity clause has been realised just not through a remortgage which means I haven't taken extra credit.
Hi Workingonit. I thought your IP had initially said that an extension was unlikely? Seems as though they have changed their tune. I agree that it's totally frustrating and counter intuative in some cases. This is where the experts could really help us with advice about how to take this legal loophole further - or indeed if they think there is any redress available to us.
I go back to the point about 100% LTV. There are two seperate clauses (this is what I have been told by my IP - DFD) and the 85% LTV only relates to a possible remortgage and not the available Equity - which is judged at within £5000 of 100% LTV.
It seems like we have a clause here in our agreements that is no longer relevant as it is impossible to comply with the Equity release as no banks are lending to 85% LTV.
The experts cannot really assist you directly on the forum, as we don't have full sight of the proposal documents - and really legal advice ought to be sought if you don't agree with your IP's interpretation. The clauses you have reproduced on the forum are badly worded and not within the spirit of the IVA protocol, but if that was what was accepted at the time of the creditors' meetings I am afraid that you are stuck with then unless you get the terms varied.
But you ARE helping us!! It appears to me that this is almost like a bit of a mis-selling issue. At the time we accept IVA agreements we are in absolutely no position to challenge as we are under so much pressure and stress; it's not like we can afford a lawyer to go through the fine print is it? Under the advice of Andy Davie I have asked whether this clause is Protocol compliant and apparently it isn't (at least not in my case). I'm not entirely sure what that means.
I think the only thing I (we) can do is wait until we've completed the extra year and then when we are in a position to challenge this legally (as in we have some money to do so) take it to court.
It just appears that we have nowhere to turn when we disagree with the monoliths of the IP industry
But you do have somewhere to turn - you could raise a complaint and then if this is not dealt with satisfactorily, you could escalate this to the IP's own trade association (if they are a member of one) or their regulatory body. I do hope that in your case this is not necessary, and your local CAB may also be able to give you advice on a free of charge basis as well.
Hi
As Melanie advises you can make a complaint to your IP if you feel this is necessary.
I have previously been in charge of the complaints process in my previous firms and you should do the following;
1. Read your proposal thoroughly and decide exactly what it is you're complaining about.
2. Distill the complaint to a short comprehensive paragraph referencing the relevant clauses in the VA.
3. Submit in writing to your IP and ask who their complaints manager is and the general timescales for dealing with a complaint. Ask for a copy of the firms complaints procedure.
4. They will usually acknowledge receipt in writing.
5. Ask them for written confirmation of when you will receive a full response to your complaint, in writing.
6. If you are not satisfied with the reponse, ask for it to be escalated up to your IP and ask for their written response.
7. If you are not satisfied with the outcome, ask for details of the IPs regulatory body and advise you will be writing to them.
8. Regulatory bodies will not interfere in matters which are properly dealt with by the Courts but mine, the ICAEW, has a technical section and they look at the complaint if it is on a techincal matter.
9. The regulatory body will write to the IP for their views.
10. All this is very time consuming and an IP cannot charge for dealing with this but they have a duty to deal with it correctly.
If you have any further queries on this, keep posting.
