Thanks for your response. I am asking a legal question, which I wish to test with the Ombudsman. The government guidelines for minimum income are online. My own case is this. The government guidelines for a minimum income, as a pensioner, say my surplus income is £5.31pw. The IP this week claimed my surplus income was £120pm and changed this figure on the same day to £170pm, making arbitrary changes to essential expenditure and possibly to how they calculate my income. Even these arbitrary changes to expenditure (and possibly income) do not constitute anything like the levels of surplus income they claim I have. They also changed the figures for what they consider is 'essential expenditure.' This week they insisted upon a 35% increase in payment of my IVA which, if I complied with it, would amount to 23% of my total income, without there being any appreciable change in my income and expenditure proportionate to the rise they insisted upon. In other words the IP can change definitions and conditions for payment without regard to minimum income levels set by the government. The contract makes no mention of the fact that they apply their own criteria for what payments should be made. I am questioning the validity of the original contract made, if you like, in the heat of financial collapse. It is obviously to the advantage of the IP to recruit a new client and receive £2400 to service the IVA which, in my case, is 17% of the original debt. this means that I did not pay my creditors for two year until the IP fees and disbursements were paid. I am shortly to go into my fourth year of payment. My view is the IP wish to satisfy the creditors and cover their own backs. Of course, I don't know what the original terms of negotiation were between my IP and the creditors. I don't know what is meant by 'step changes.'?
Step Change, Michael.05, are the Insolvency firm who issue the guideline figures widely used by IP's to calculate legitimate expense levels in arriving at D.I.
Government income levels are irrelevant here and are, often, also ignored by various government departments in calculating benefits etc. Your income is exactly that -- what you have coming in -- and your expenditure is decided, withing the StepChange guidelines, what you spend on essentials.
All of this was discussed ( or should have been ) at the inception of your IVA, as well as at each annual review and was agreed by you when you signed on the dotted line.
Financial collapse has no bearing on the validity of the contract and is a risk taken with any long term endeavour.
And, yes, the IP has a duty to reap as much return as possible for the creditors, within the terms of the IVA, as agreed by you.
If you have had no increase in income, or drop in expenditure there is no reason for the IP to be altering agreed figures now and must be able to demonstrate where he is getting these figures from. Ask him for a detailed breakdown and under which clause of your IVA proposal he is making these changes.
My opinions are merely that .. opinions based on experience. Always seek professional advice.
IVA Completed 23rd July 2013 .... C.C. 10th January 2014
You should demand a face to face meeting with the IP and get them to document where they are finding the money. It sounds odd that the payments are being increased without any increase in income so you are right to question this.
font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by Foggy
Step Change, Michael.05, are the Insolvency firm who issue the guideline figures widely used by IP's to calculate legitimate expense levels in arriving at D.I.
Government income levels are irrelevant here and are, often, also ignored by various government departments in calculating benefits etc. Your income is exactly that -- what you have coming in -- and your expenditure is decided, withing the StepChange guidelines, what you spend on essentials.
All of this was discussed ( or should have been ) at the inception of your IVA, as well as at each annual review and was agreed by you when you signed on the dotted line.
Financial collapse has no bearing on the validity of the contract and is a risk taken with any long term endeavour.
And, yes, the IP has a duty to reap as much return as possible for the creditors, within the terms of the IVA, as agreed by you.
If you have had no increase in income, or drop in expenditure there is no reason for the IP to be altering agreed figures now and must be able to demonstrate where he is getting these figures from. Ask him for a detailed breakdown and under which clause of your IVA proposal he is making these changes.
Thanks for your response.
My IP is Payplan.The odd thing was I was told 'payment need not change' then hours later said payment has to increase by 35%. The IP currently calculated my surplus income as £80 (itself questionable) and then added and arbitrary 50%. I can find no criteria for what is meant by 'afford to pay', which is why I used government guidelines to calculate surplus income. I can find nothing in the contract to say on what basis they make the calculations they do, what the IP means by 'affordable' or whether the IP can change the conditions of my contract without notice.
What usually happens in a review is I submit the true figures for income and essential expenditure and then the IP fill in the details themselves.
I still need to garner all the details. To do this I have made an official complaint against and am still waiting for a response.
font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by Michael Peoples
You should demand a face to face meeting with the IP and get them to document where they are finding the money. It sounds odd that the payments are being increased without any increase in income so you are right to question this.
Thanks again.
I have asked the IP to give me all the details and am still waiting for a reply. Though my income and expenditure since last year has risen slightly, I don't see how this justifies 35% increase in surplus income. It seems to me, without any clear statement of what is meant by 'afford to pay' the the IP is free to make what arbitrary adjustments they wish.
The IP has to explain and justify the increase and cannot demand you make arbitrary cuts. While you cannot refuse a reasonable request from your IP, this does not sound reasonable.
font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by Michael Peoples
The IP has to explain and justify the increase and cannot demand you make arbitrary cuts. While you cannot refuse a reasonable request from your IP, this does not sound reasonable.
Do you know what the minimal disposable income a person is expected to have after essential expenditure has been calculated? Do you know what essential expenditure must or can include?
Thanks
Have a look at the Stepchange guidelines and this tells you what the standard allowances are. There is no minimum or maximum disposable income as we come across people with huge deficits on a regular basis. This could be as a result of high mortgage payments or a drop in earnings.
font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:<hr height="1" noshade>Originally posted by Michael Peoples
Have a look at the Stepchange guidelines and this tells you what the standard allowances are. There is no minimum or maximum disposable income as we come across people with huge deficits on a regular basis. This could be as a result of high mortgage payments or a drop in earnings.
Unfortunately I can find no specific information on the Stepchange site for allowances or essential expenditure while on an IVA.
